UKC

Hi.
I have a Canon 600D with 18-55 kit lens.
I want to replace the kit lens with an 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6

The current model has the STM designation.
The previous model does not (I thus assume that it is USM - is that a correct assumption)

Previous model can be had second hand for £150-£180 vs. the £280 price tag on the STM model.

I don't really mind paying the premium for the "best" lens but I am confused about the whole STM thing.
Reading around, it seems that it is really there to benefit video work due to the quieter motor, and that also the steppers are set up to deliberately "calm down" the speed of the AF so you don't get such jumpy focus transitions in video. But this could all be forum hearsay. I struggled to find any definitive comparison. Those that say the AF is "dampened" suggest that USM is the way to go if you are mostly shooting stills, as it will snap into focus more quickly.
I don't intend to shoot much video and if I do, it'll just be "fun" stuff and I will put music over it anyway so the noise of the focusing motors should not be an issue.
Thus a cheaper previous model might be the BETTER lens for me. In all other respects (optics, build quality) they should be the same AFAIK.


Does anyone here either:
KNOW the answer
or
Have an opinion on this?
or
have one they want to sell (I will consider either USM or STM)


Thanks

Blue.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Neither lens are anywhere near the "best" lens.

USM used to be the upgrade over normal autofocus. It was quiet and faster. STM isn't as quick but is better suited to continuous focus used for filming.

I think you're best considering what you want to photograph before deciding what single lens or two lense option. You might be better off with less range but better quality, and a separate zoom lenses.

I have a 17-85 USM as a walk around, a 60mm macro for portraits and flower, 170-500 hsm for wildlife. I've never got around to buying a decent landscape lens, but I'd probably go with the sigma 12-24 (I think) I did try that one for a while.

In reply to Philip:



I meant the better out of the choice of 18-135 STM and 18-135 non-STM. Not "the best lens I can get from all the available ones".

Thanks

In reply to Philip:
I will in future get a 50mm f/1.8 and possibly a wide zoom, I think yes the 12-24 Sigma.

I admit I had not given the 17-85 that much thought (somehow I thought they were considerably dearer) but when I was out shooting climbing in El Chorro, the big range would have been useful and I am happy to sacrifice a bit of quality for that longer reach. 135mm on crop is like 200mm full frame. 85mm more like 135mm and having had a lot of 35mm film cameras, I find 135mm a bit "neither here nor there" personally.


Not to be rude/ungrateful/sarcastic but.....do you have an answer to the actual question in the OP?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The stm lens I believe has a slightly faster smoother autofocus, together with improved sharpness at the wide and telephoto ends .Whether you could tell this in the real world is another matter but on paper it is a better lens.
They are still both kit lenses though .

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I can't fully answer your question, but I do have the STM version with my 700D and within the limitations of it being a kit lens, I find it excellent as an all rounder, as I often need to carry only one lens. I no longer ever use my old kit 18-55, as there is no loss in quality that I can detect using the 18-135. Its mostly used for landscape when walking or canoeing, but I do find it pretty good in sport mode for action shots or wildlife if you're close enough. If you're interested in the results, most of the pictures on my Flickr site are taken with it, though some are from the compact. Warning, lots of photos!


https://www.flickr.com/photos/77080486@N05/albums

I've not used it for video.

In reply to all:
Thanks.
Interesting that John notes there was no "drop" in quality.
TBH I had been led to believe that within the limitations of a fairly compact wide-ranging zoom, this would be somewhat sharper than the 18-55 kit. It is nearly £300 after all, it's not like it's the Tamron 70-300 for under £80.
I was hoping, for that sort of money, for better quality as well as the increased range (I mean, I am avoiding 18-200mm!)

Maybe I do need to consider that 17-85mm ; as I said, I thought it was much dearer like £600, but Amazon had it on at least earlier today at £300.

Mal I'll look at your photos later.


With respect to the best efforts of the learned posters who've responded so far, does ANYONE have an answer to the actual question posed in the OP though? I couldn't even find an online comparison, only sketchy debates on forums!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

My reply to your question was a comparison between the two 18-135 models.the StM is a better lens for the reasons stated.There both better than the standard 18-55 kit lens. Just google your question there's a couple of direct comparisons on U tube.

In reply to john1963:

Sorry John. The wording of your post ("I believe") etc. made me think you were speaking more generally and vaguely than you now state that you were. Thanks.
I was Googling variations on my question a few weeks to no avail. I will try a different combination of words in the search box.

In reply to Blue Straggler:



Oops I meant Mal!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Worth a sniff around..,?

fredmiranda.com

dxomark.com

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Did you try looking at: http://lenshero.com/lenses/Canon-600D-zoom-lens-less-than-800 ?

In reply to Damo:

Thanks Damo, I have now looked at it. It is a very handy one-stop-shop for general info, ideas and browsing although for actual decision-making I'm not sure if it is so useful, with in-depth reviews such as
"One of the main pros of these lens is the AF system – fast and acurate" and "It is easily interchangeable " :-D

But really, thank you! It's useful. I had been getting the 17-85 mixed up with the 15-85 re: pricing.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Joining the ranks of people not actually answering your question - what type of lens do you want and what's your actual budget?

Unless you're filming, or shooting moving subjects - the STM/USM is a bit of a non-issue, the important thing is the glass itself.

In reply to Durbs:


Something manageably light (I know that is subjective) to be my "on the camera 80 - 100% of the time"(*) lens, which will fit into the Canon shoulder bag that I have. I have tried the 18-135 and it ticks this.

Realistically £300 budget.

Something a bit better quality (ideally nicer build and feel, but I;ll live with it being similar) than the 18-55 kit lens.
Something with a significantly longer reach that the 18-55 kit lens.

I accept that without spending £600+ and reducing my focal length range, I won't be getting the absolute best glass for pixel peepers.

I just want to not feel TOO restricted by the camera (in terms of versatility), and that's how I felt with the 18-55. Yeah I could buy a Tamron 70-300 for £80 but I think I'd prefer to sacrifice that long long end for the sake of retaining a wide end on a "walkaround" lens and still having a reasonable reach.

* for a while, this will be my only lens. May be more shopping later in 2016 as described earlier, but that will be some months away.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Ah ha.
Were it not for the range, at that price, for a straight kit-lens upgrade I'd be looking at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.
It gets good reviews for IQ, and the f/2.8 is a big step-up from the kit lens.
BUT
You are obviously lacking on the long-end - hence my question.


For £300 you could consider a second-hand Canon 24-105 L ( £400 NEW grey import).
This is my walkabout lens on my 7D*. But it's not as wide or as long, but very good IQ (though not excellent), 2-stop stabilisation, very quick focussing, weatherproof and will hold its value. Heavy mind you...

Overall I guess it depends what you plan to be shooting with it, even as a "walkabout" lens. 17-50mm will work great for landscapes, portraits, indoor shots etc, but obviously not wildlife or zooming in on climbers halfway up cliffs.

As an example, a lot of people don't like the 24-105 on a crop body as it's not wide enough for landscapes or interior shots. I personally don't shoot interiors (UrbEx, Historic houses etc), and when I shoot a landscape, I'll use a tripop and so can do a stitch job anyway to get the width in.

* It's actually not anymore, I've stuck a 35mm prime lens on to see how much I need my other lenses with a view to downsizing to an X100t... But before then, it was my walkabout lens.

In reply to Durbs:
Thanks. I'd like to stay with 18 as the wide end on the everyday lens. Even on my old 35mm film cameras I was trending toward 24mm as the default, having got cheap manual prime 24mm for my Nikon and Minolta, and also having picked up the beautiful rare overpriced modern classic, Fuji Zoom Date f/2.8 aka "Silvi"
24-105 is also 1kg vs. the 500g of the 18-135, and I value my spine !

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sorry for the hijack, but, welcome back!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Thank goodness its not a car you are buying

In reply to Mikkel:

The two canon lenses are your only option in that zoom range,either one will do the job, time to decide me thinks.

In reply to Blue Straggler:



...


To clarify, this is the real poins I was trying to address in the OP.

Conclusion seems to be that nobody is able to answer it specifically (i.e. the focus being deliberately slower to smooth it out).

Thanks for all the input nonetheless, especially John - I'll train up my Google-Fu...