Not flawless but surprisingly good:
[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/776-canon_18135_3556stmis"]http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/776-canon_18135_3556stmis[/url]
Yep. Especially for the price.
I'm really happy to see Canon constantly improving its kit lenses.
For the price it seems great but in an absolute sense it seems not so great given the high ca and vignetting (combined with slow aperture).
Good that both the kit and superzoom lenses are slowly but surely getting better and better.
Is the STM in this better than that of the STM in the 40mm pancake for example? The review makes it sound really good... maybe hard to say, but how would it compare against the 15-85 USM? It is sounding like a reasonable longer zoom standard lens?
e.g. 17-55 f/2.8 for aperture freaks
15-85 for wide-standard
18-135STM for long-standard
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1350931846' post='20681']
Is the STM in this better than that of the STM in the 40mm pancake for example? The review makes it sound really good... maybe hard to say, but how would it compare against the 15-85 USM? It is sounding like a reasonable longer zoom standard lens?
e.g. 17-55 f/2.8 for aperture freaks
15-85 for wide-standard
18-135STM for long-standard
[/quote]
The STM implementation in this lens is quite different from the 40mm pancake. It indeed is "better". The reason for different motor systems is due to the space in the pancake.
Well... I got this lens a couple months ago and I can say that I'm enamoured with it. It's of course intended for my wife's 650D (it was mine but I gave it to her as a present, adding this lens). I even tried it on my 1D Mark IV with the aid of an extension tube, and it was great for closeup shots (unfortunately not usable when mounted bare, because it starts to vignette and at 18mm clips the mirror - well, I had a hope but who was I trying to fool?) I'm glad I've read your review Klaus, because I might've fallen for any of the other options many of which seem to suck (like the non-STM 18-135, or the 18-200).
Actually it was the STM that made me take notice, after my wife complained that the 50/1.8 II sucks in Live View (surely it does). Again, thank you for this particular review - it was one of the cases when I bought a lens specifically based on your evaluation. If it had turned out to be the same lousy affair as the old 18-135, I would've passed.
