18-135 or 18-200 for Canon 60d? I am buying the Canon 60d and wondering which of the above kit zoom lenses I should get. Thanks in advance for tips.
1253004
I have the exact same question. Please do post your findings. I am confused too. Apparently 18-200 is supposed to have larger zoom but I want to make sure that the quality of 18-200 matches to 18-135 at the least upto 135 mm. If so i will go with 18-200 for sure.
1703577
Thanks Michael for sharing your experience. I myself ended up buying a 60d with 18-135 lens kit about a week ago from amazon and I am very happy both with the body as well as the Lens. I had a T2i with 18-55mm before this purchase, and I am not a pro but so far i haven't seen any degradation on the image quality between the two lenses. I like the 18-135 for its decent quality and a very practical zoom range. Not to mention that 60D is a far better body than T2i.
1703578
I purchased a Canon 60D recently and also purchased a Tamron 70-300 MM along with a Canon 18-135 MM lens. The Canon 18-135 lens is terrific! I took photos of the same subject using a Canon 18-135, the Tamron 70-300, and a Sigma 18-200 mm lens on the 60D camera. At full telephoto for all 3 lens, the Canon 18-135 was sharper than the Sigma and equaled the Tamron when I cropped the image down to the same size as the longer 300mm Tamron. I don't know if these results would hold true for all Canon bodies but it sure works for the 18 megapixel 60D. As an aside, the Tamron 70-300 mm with VC optical stability is a great lens too. I purchased a Canon 60D recently and also purchased a Tamron 70-300 MM along with a Canon 18-135 MM lens. The Canon 18-135 lens is terrific! I took photos of the same subject using a Canon 18-135, the Tamron 70-300, and a Sigma 18-200 mm lens on the 60D camera. At full telephoto for all 3 lens, the Canon 18-135 was sharper than the Sigma and equaled the Tamron when I cropped the image down to the same size as the longer 300mm Tamron. I don't know if these results would hold true for all Canon bodies but it sure works for the 18 megapixel 60D. As an aside, the Tamron 70-300 mm with VC... » Read More I purchased a Canon 60D recently and also purchased a Tamron 70-300 MM along with a Canon 18-135 MM lens. The Canon 18-135 lens is terrific! I took photos of the same subject using a Canon 18-135, the Tamron 70-300, and a Sigma 18-200 mm lens on the 60D camera. At full telephoto for all 3 lens, the Canon 18-135 was sharper than the Sigma and equaled the Tamron when I cropped the image down to the same size as the longer 300mm Tamron. I don't know if these results would hold true for all Canon bodies but it sure works for the 18 megapixel 60D. As an aside, the Tamron 70-300 mm with VC optical stability is a great lens too. « Show Less
1703579
There is some comparison which saying Canon 18-135 lense is sharper than Sigma 18-200. My frinds please Post Canon 18-135 or Canon 18-200. ( If both are from Canon. which is best).
1703580
I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache... » Read More I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. « Show Less
876532
The 18-55mm is the standard kit lens wide zoom with only zooms to 55mm. The 55-200mm lens zooms to a wonderful 200mm but is also a kit lens.
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
2227376
My thought is the 18-200mm lens for this camera. It is the lens I have, and wanted. I know it's physically bigger than the 18-135, but it does alot more, with that extra zoom. (11x vs 7.5x) The 18mm is equiv to a 27mm wide angle lens in 35mm film specs. The 200 gives it the 11x zoom function. A very versital and desirable lens.
445407
The 22 is a prime lens, no zoom. There is a 18-55 zoom available. With an adapter, you use other zoom lenses.
398589
The Canon 300 is the 300D.The 18-135mm lens has the ability to go wider than the 28-135mm, which, if you were in a tight space, won't allow you to get much in a photo. The 18-135mm also is a more modern lens is 4 stop IS. It also may have auto-panning IS like it's 15-85mm brother, but I am not sure.
606484
I'm so glad there's something posted here - this is one of the lenses I'm considering getting my husband for Christmas. He has the Sigma 50-200mm lens right now and in my experience with it, it hasn't been too bad. Should he be happy with the 18-200?
2254947
Thanks for the good info. I had a Canon Rebel that I returned because of picture quality with the standard kit lens. I have been trying to decide between the Nikon D90 & the Pentax K20D. I am going to go with the K20D and start with the 18-250 and see how far I go. So I am off to shop now. Again... Thanks a lot.
2085593
I use Canon and I didn't find marvelous this lens, just convenient because of the range. Even if it works on that Pentax, I guess your criterion could be sharpness instead of range, and I think the 18-135 WR is a bit sharper than this one, in case you are chasing for a zoom lens.
2174721
I have a 20D. The answer is, it depends on what you want to do. The EF 24-70 and the 70-200 both have the "red stripe" and are top-of-the-line, awesome lenses. They rely on big optics with the 77mm objective lens to produce their images. They are great at all times, especiallhy in low light. They are also very heavy and quite expensive. Get them if you are going for absolute, uncompromising photos. Get a tripod or monopod, too, unless you do arm curls in your spare time! If you want excellent photos with less weight and expense, I recommend you get the EF 17-85 IS as your base lens for light weight and convenience. (If you get the "base" 18-55, you will find you quit using it the day you get a newer lens. We have a Digital Rebel that came with that lens, and we never use it. Never. Did I say "Never?" Buy a body or a kit with the 17-85 unless you are going the 24-70 route. The 18-55 only adds about $50 to the camera price, which isn't much compared to the price of the camera bodies, but why waste $50?) For telephoto zoom, the 70-300 IS is an excellent lens, about the same weight and size as the 24-70 but of course much more versatile. Then you will need a wide-angle, and again you have two ways you can go. I have a 10-22 lens that was less costly than Canon's red-stripe wide angles, and I am well-pleased. You get some parallax below a focal length of 12-14, but it's kind of a neat effect if you like it. I hope this helps.
2035144
I dont own a 135 but all my lenses except my 70-200 fit. 24-70 is pretty long and it fits. You could compare dimensions. My 85 1.2 is pretty big too it seems to fit easily. Hope that helps a bit
923246
I too have the 45-175. Keep an eye out prices vary all the time. If you see a 'great deal' (especially used) GRAB IT. That is true for all items on Amazon. Now, you have three lenses and you must have a kit lens with your G5? If you have a bare G5 then none of these is my best advice, you will not like how 45mm (effectively 90mm) is not nearly 'wide' enough for close up shots... So, assuming you have a 14-42 and this is your SECOND lens you have price and age to decide. lowest cost (and low weight) is the newest 45-150 (2012). Best overall range, in my biased opinion, is the 45-175 (2011) Significantly older and middle of the three pricewise (and much heavier and larger) is the 45-200 (2008). Really, like someone else said, just keep checking (sometimes the price will change significantly during a day), I got my 45-175 for 192 and change last June. Best of luck!
1264580
Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's... » Read More Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! « Show Less
1952542
I'm sure there are kits with this lens out there, but the lens alone is Perfect for a 'standard' lens - much better than the Canon 18-35mm, which was the standard in kits for years. The 18-135mm is great for Any Canon digital SLR.
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
784056
Is the 18-105 worth buying over the 18-55mm any day. Especially you going to use with D5200. If you more money why not go for 18-200mm VRII or 18-300mm VRII. They are all around lenses. Good luck!
501122
Thanks for the feedback. I ended up getting the Canon 17-55/2.8IS. It was more expensive, but I had come across some extra money. I've had that lens for several month now and it's awesome. The zoom range is excellent, it's great having f2.8 through the whole range, and the IS adds probably at least 3 stops. It's very sharp when I do my part, especially when it's stopped down a couple clicks. I would still love to get a lens like I described in my OP, but I'm looking at a wide angle zoom and a better telephoto lens before that one.