Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Product Description
From the Manufacturer
Covering a range from 29mm-216mm in 35mm format, Canon's new EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS offers a winning combination of size, range and features and is a perfect complement to APS-C cameras. With high-quality optics, dedicated image stabilization and more, this new lens promises to be a favorite for EOS users.
Lens Specifications
 |
Lens Specifications
- Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 18 - 135mm 1:3.5-5.6
- Lens Construction: 16 elements in 12 groups
- UD Glass: 1
- Diagonal Angle of View: 74 degrees 20' to 11 degrees 30'
- Focus System: Inner focusing system
- Closest Focusing Distance: 1.5 ft. / 0.45m
- Filter Size: 67mm
- Max. Diameter x Length: 3.0 x 4.0 in./75.4 x 101mm
- Weight (lens only): 16.0 oz./455g
- Comes with Rear and Lens Caps
- 1 yr limited warranty
Product Description
Available Warranties for This Item
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
296 of 301 people found the following review helpful
Amazon Verified Purchase
Week after buying Canon T1i camera I went to Mt St Helens National Park and realized how much I need extra zoom. So I ordered the new Canon 18-135IS. My first impressions are very positive:
- The build quality is pretty decent.
- The lens is relatively light and feels pretty balanced on the T1i body.
- Front of the lens doesn't turn during auto focus which is a plus if you use a polarized filter.
- AF is quick and very accurate - it easily finds focus even in dark conditions.
- Image Stabilizer supports horizontal and vertical panning.
- I think sharpness is comparable with the kit 18-55IS (looks like corners are a bit softer).
- Zoom range is perfect for vacation/outdoor photography.
- There is no zoom creep (so far).
- Very smooth bokeh (background blurring)
Few cons:
- No zoom lock.
- Doesn't have USM/full-time manual focus - this is the feature I'd expect in the $500 lens.
- Distortions on the wide end (18-24mm)
- More CA than 18-55IS.
P.S. I've spent the last couple of weeks reading endless forum posts and reviews. Here are my notes about the similar/competing products:
1. Canon 55-250IS - My friend got this lens - it's sharp but some shots have bad color saturation/contrast. He also told me that he needs to change lenses too often.
2. Canon 28-135 IS USM - sharp, has full-time manual focus, but the lens is quite big and heavy for T1i and has a zoom creep. 28mm is too much for the wide shots on the x1.6 cameras.
3. Sigma 18-125 OS HSM - good zoom range/color/price, relatively sharp. I almost bought this lens but then I noticed that almost every review mentions the constant background noise produced by the image stabilizer. Sometimes I use the camera for short videos so that was a deal breaker for me.
4. Sigma 18-200 - good zoom range/color/price, but too heavy. Sharpness is very inconsistent. Also not much extra zoom comparing to the 135mm.
Overall I think this lens is a good choice for nonpro photographers looking for a multipurpose zoom lens.
- The build quality is pretty decent.
- The lens is relatively light and feels pretty balanced on the T1i body.
- Front of the lens doesn't turn during auto focus which is a plus if you use a polarized filter.
- AF is quick and very accurate - it easily finds focus even in dark conditions.
- Image Stabilizer supports horizontal and vertical panning.
- I think sharpness is comparable with the kit 18-55IS (looks like corners are a bit softer).
- Zoom range is perfect for vacation/outdoor photography.
- There is no zoom creep (so far).
- Very smooth bokeh (background blurring)
Few cons:
- No zoom lock.
- Doesn't have USM/full-time manual focus - this is the feature I'd expect in the $500 lens.
- Distortions on the wide end (18-24mm)
- More CA than 18-55IS.
P.S. I've spent the last couple of weeks reading endless forum posts and reviews. Here are my notes about the similar/competing products:
1. Canon 55-250IS - My friend got this lens - it's sharp but some shots have bad color saturation/contrast. He also told me that he needs to change lenses too often.
2. Canon 28-135 IS USM - sharp, has full-time manual focus, but the lens is quite big and heavy for T1i and has a zoom creep. 28mm is too much for the wide shots on the x1.6 cameras.
3. Sigma 18-125 OS HSM - good zoom range/color/price, relatively sharp. I almost bought this lens but then I noticed that almost every review mentions the constant background noise produced by the image stabilizer. Sometimes I use the camera for short videos so that was a deal breaker for me.
4. Sigma 18-200 - good zoom range/color/price, but too heavy. Sharpness is very inconsistent. Also not much extra zoom comparing to the 135mm.
Overall I think this lens is a good choice for nonpro photographers looking for a multipurpose zoom lens.
639 of 669 people found the following review helpful
Amazon Verified Purchase
I was more than a little apprehensive about purchasing this lens before many official reviews came out, but I'm really glad I did. I have an 18-55 kit, 70-300, 60mm f/2.8 Macro, and 50 prime (all great beginner lenses, BTW) but I needed something I could stick on my camera and forget about when going out around town. As a young lady that likes small purses, this is a constant internal struggle- hang my awesome camera around my neck like an "I'm on a project and shouldn't be hit on" necklace, or stuff it in a big camera bag with my other lenses in a "I don't have kids but I might as well cause this looks like a diaper bag" fashion. I deflect male advances either way. It's just a matter of how light I travel when I do it. And if I can leave some highly-stealable stuff at home, I will.
How does it feel?
This seems to have the same feel as my 70-300. Not a plastic-y light feeling like the 18-55, slightly rubber ridges and hefty, but not heavy, weight to it. I wouldn't use this lens to bludgeon enemies, but it doesn't feel as though it came out of a gum ball machine either.
What's the color like?
We compared this lens to the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras (took identical photos at same focal length, f-stop, settings, etc.) Both lenses were incredibly sharp at the sweet spots and still great at the edges (when taken at F8) but the colors of the 18-135 were much less washed out. We definitely had the white balance settings locked for both photos, but the 18-135 just showed reds, purples, blues, greens, all colors were more vibrant and true.
Now if you want your family photos to look like they came straight from a comic book with crazier-than-life color explosions, you'll have to look to post-processing for that. Weirdo. All I'm saying is that I won't have to change the color balance to cloudy to experience non-prison looking color in family portraits. Nothing kills the vibe of a party photo montage like grayish Alcatraz hues.
Yeah, but I can get this from an 17-85 or the new 15-85, right?
Good point, friend. But the extra focal length after 85mm is really worth it, especially when shooting things across a street or shooting semi-close wildlife. And if the 15-85 is way more expensive and the 17-85 is about the same price, why not go for the longer length? You could make the same argument for the 18-200, but I don't think that the compromised sharpness (and heavy 21 oz weight, vs the 16.1 oz of the 18-135) is worth the extra focal distance. Also, you get the latest version of the image stabilization system with this one.
But there is no USM, and the 17-85 has USM. I MUST HAVE USM ON ALL MY LENSES!
Calm down there, buddy. True, there is no USM on this lens. But having used both the 17-85 and 18-135, the latter is just as fast to autofocus. It may not have the USM, but you wouldn't notice a big difference. The motor is super fast and doesn't autofocus hunt like my 70-300 USM tends to do. You can hear the motor, but it's not as loud as the Canon 70-300 USM motor. Image stabilization is also great- there were plenty of pictures that have been saved with that feature, especially in low light/no flash situations.
Finally, I want to mention the "The Digital Picture" ISO 12233 Crops (google this; I can't provide a link). This test scared the crud out of me, and is making a lot of people spew hate about this lens. It makes this lens look soft compared to some other lenses. When I started shooting, I thought at first that there was a sharpness issue until I realized that my little brother had changed my ISO to 1600. Thanks, little bro! After that was fixed, everything was as sharp as I could hope for. Having done my own sharpness tests, I realized that the ISO 12233 crops weren't telling the whole story. I don't plan on sticking this sucker on a tripod and shooting tiny black and white lines with it all day (I have more interesting subjects, and they are in color!) I've taken hundreds of pictures with this lens and just don't see any image quality or sharpness difference when compared to my other lenses. So chill, people.
In conclusion, if you love the pictures your DSLR gives you, but hate the lens diaper-bag/bookbag look, this is a great choice. It's not going to make you into a magical Ansel Adams photo spouting machine, but no equipment will do that. This lens takes some pretty nice pictures when you stop worrying about 100% crops and start enjoying life. Shoot and be happy.
How does it feel?
This seems to have the same feel as my 70-300. Not a plastic-y light feeling like the 18-55, slightly rubber ridges and hefty, but not heavy, weight to it. I wouldn't use this lens to bludgeon enemies, but it doesn't feel as though it came out of a gum ball machine either.
What's the color like?
We compared this lens to the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras (took identical photos at same focal length, f-stop, settings, etc.) Both lenses were incredibly sharp at the sweet spots and still great at the edges (when taken at F8) but the colors of the 18-135 were much less washed out. We definitely had the white balance settings locked for both photos, but the 18-135 just showed reds, purples, blues, greens, all colors were more vibrant and true.
Now if you want your family photos to look like they came straight from a comic book with crazier-than-life color explosions, you'll have to look to post-processing for that. Weirdo. All I'm saying is that I won't have to change the color balance to cloudy to experience non-prison looking color in family portraits. Nothing kills the vibe of a party photo montage like grayish Alcatraz hues.
Yeah, but I can get this from an 17-85 or the new 15-85, right?
Good point, friend. But the extra focal length after 85mm is really worth it, especially when shooting things across a street or shooting semi-close wildlife. And if the 15-85 is way more expensive and the 17-85 is about the same price, why not go for the longer length? You could make the same argument for the 18-200, but I don't think that the compromised sharpness (and heavy 21 oz weight, vs the 16.1 oz of the 18-135) is worth the extra focal distance. Also, you get the latest version of the image stabilization system with this one.
But there is no USM, and the 17-85 has USM. I MUST HAVE USM ON ALL MY LENSES!
Calm down there, buddy. True, there is no USM on this lens. But having used both the 17-85 and 18-135, the latter is just as fast to autofocus. It may not have the USM, but you wouldn't notice a big difference. The motor is super fast and doesn't autofocus hunt like my 70-300 USM tends to do. You can hear the motor, but it's not as loud as the Canon 70-300 USM motor. Image stabilization is also great- there were plenty of pictures that have been saved with that feature, especially in low light/no flash situations.
Finally, I want to mention the "The Digital Picture" ISO 12233 Crops (google this; I can't provide a link). This test scared the crud out of me, and is making a lot of people spew hate about this lens. It makes this lens look soft compared to some other lenses. When I started shooting, I thought at first that there was a sharpness issue until I realized that my little brother had changed my ISO to 1600. Thanks, little bro! After that was fixed, everything was as sharp as I could hope for. Having done my own sharpness tests, I realized that the ISO 12233 crops weren't telling the whole story. I don't plan on sticking this sucker on a tripod and shooting tiny black and white lines with it all day (I have more interesting subjects, and they are in color!) I've taken hundreds of pictures with this lens and just don't see any image quality or sharpness difference when compared to my other lenses. So chill, people.
In conclusion, if you love the pictures your DSLR gives you, but hate the lens diaper-bag/bookbag look, this is a great choice. It's not going to make you into a magical Ansel Adams photo spouting machine, but no equipment will do that. This lens takes some pretty nice pictures when you stop worrying about 100% crops and start enjoying life. Shoot and be happy.
286 of 298 people found the following review helpful
By P. VANDALEN
Switching from Pentax to Canon, I had to start with no Canon lenses. Therefore, I had to go with the 7D kit. I had wanted the EF 28-135 USM kit but after waiting months on a backorder situation, I went with the 18-135 kit from a local camera store. I knew that the 28-135 was a pretty good "kit lens" whose only consideration was that the 28mm aperture is very restricting for wide angle on a crop-sensor. I had read preliminary reviews of the 18-135 that didn't sound too encouraging (this is in contrast to working with pro-level glass from Pentax for some time). However, after a week of using this lens with the 7D, I found that it's not as bad as I expected. Pictures taken with it are reasonibly sharp, have reasonible contrast and fairly even image quality across the frame - when I follow these guidelines:
1. Avoid 18 - 24mm shots, even at stopped-down apertures due to overall reduced image quality; softness, especially away from center, distortion and fringing.
2. Don't shoot at wide-open aperture for any focal length if given the choice due to increased softness.
The lens is built reasonibly well for a kit lens. It does focus quickly without USM and is not too loud doing so. What I don't like is that there is no distance scale. I will often take candid shots, either with flash or without, where I first guess the distance to the subject and set that manually on the lens, and then take a surprise photo without any focus delays or focus-assist lighting from the flash to warn the subject that a picture is about to be taken. Can't do that with this lens.
While the 18-135 is generally a reasonible kit lens, it is not the right lens to do the capabilities of the advanced 7D justice, however. Don't know why Canon packaged this lens with the 7D (kinda of like "putting a Fiat motor in a Ferrari?"). Based on reviews and comparisons, I believe the 28-135, on the other hand, would be the better inexpensive choice for this camera. The funny thing is that the 18-135 kit costs $100 more than the 28-135. For that extra $100 I gain some usability between 24 and 28mm but lose some image quality overall. While the 18-135 is convenient to have for now, I look forward to the 17-40 and 70-200 f4L lenses as possible upgrades. I'll provide an update after more time using this lens in order to make sure I give it a fair chance to prove itself.
Update (11/20/09): After many more photographs with this lens, I have to admit that it deserves a bit more recognition than I originally gave it. The guidelines I mentioned for best results still hold true: avoid 18-24mm when possible and stop-down all other focal lengths to about f7 - f8 for the best images. Comparing this lens on the 7D to the Tamron 18-250 on a Pentax K20 and the Canon lens is clearly better - sharper center, sharper boarders and far less CA. It actually looks to be comparible to the Tamron 28-75 with both at f8. Stopped-down, the 18-135 is surprisingly sharp across the frame for a kit lens. I would increase the ranking from three to four stars if it wasn't for the really poor performance between 18-24mm. I also just purchased the Canon 70-200 f4L and the image quality of the 70-200 is certainly in an entirely different league. However, you can still get pretty decent pictures with the 18-135 when you work around its weaknesses.
1. Avoid 18 - 24mm shots, even at stopped-down apertures due to overall reduced image quality; softness, especially away from center, distortion and fringing.
2. Don't shoot at wide-open aperture for any focal length if given the choice due to increased softness.
The lens is built reasonibly well for a kit lens. It does focus quickly without USM and is not too loud doing so. What I don't like is that there is no distance scale. I will often take candid shots, either with flash or without, where I first guess the distance to the subject and set that manually on the lens, and then take a surprise photo without any focus delays or focus-assist lighting from the flash to warn the subject that a picture is about to be taken. Can't do that with this lens.
While the 18-135 is generally a reasonible kit lens, it is not the right lens to do the capabilities of the advanced 7D justice, however. Don't know why Canon packaged this lens with the 7D (kinda of like "putting a Fiat motor in a Ferrari?"). Based on reviews and comparisons, I believe the 28-135, on the other hand, would be the better inexpensive choice for this camera. The funny thing is that the 18-135 kit costs $100 more than the 28-135. For that extra $100 I gain some usability between 24 and 28mm but lose some image quality overall. While the 18-135 is convenient to have for now, I look forward to the 17-40 and 70-200 f4L lenses as possible upgrades. I'll provide an update after more time using this lens in order to make sure I give it a fair chance to prove itself.
Update (11/20/09): After many more photographs with this lens, I have to admit that it deserves a bit more recognition than I originally gave it. The guidelines I mentioned for best results still hold true: avoid 18-24mm when possible and stop-down all other focal lengths to about f7 - f8 for the best images. Comparing this lens on the 7D to the Tamron 18-250 on a Pentax K20 and the Canon lens is clearly better - sharper center, sharper boarders and far less CA. It actually looks to be comparible to the Tamron 28-75 with both at f8. Stopped-down, the 18-135 is surprisingly sharp across the frame for a kit lens. I would increase the ranking from three to four stars if it wasn't for the really poor performance between 18-24mm. I also just purchased the Canon 70-200 f4L and the image quality of the 70-200 is certainly in an entirely different league. However, you can still get pretty decent pictures with the 18-135 when you work around its weaknesses.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
My Best Lens!
In shooting at a renaissance festival there are two types of photographers. Those that snipe from long distance and tend to take only face shots and those of us that like to get up... Read more
Published 16 days ago by Moon)Dawg
5.0 out of 5 stars
shipped very professionally
handled like a true pro when shipped; I was so happy to open it, it was like Xmas morning and I was suddenly a child again and opening the toy I really wanted. Read more
Published 22 days ago by Captain SHANKY
5.0 out of 5 stars
great lens
This lens takes fantastic shots. The zoom is perhaps less powerful than some of the more expensive ones, but it is versatile. I use it for everyday shots, including sports shots.
Published 1 month ago by Luke MacDonald
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great Interviews In Small Rooms
I'm still new to the camera world - this lens helped me achieve the same focus/blur effect without needing to have the camera 20 feet away. Read more
Published 1 month ago by Nathan Eckel
5.0 out of 5 stars
Bought for my son -
My son is into photography and uses this when he shoots for events. He really likes what it does and uses it quiet often.
Published 2 months ago by Buster Brown
3.0 out of 5 stars
Canon 18 to 135 lens
I didn't realize how slow the 18to 135mm lens is indoors. But I just use the flash when needed. It is great for outdoor use.
Published 4 months ago by joe Violante
5.0 out of 5 stars
quality lens!
We opted to purchase this lens vs the 18-55 kit lens. Very happy, so far. It is of great quality and it will be nice to have the flexibility of not having to change lenses as... Read more
Published 4 months ago by JLLM
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is a fine lens and I am still using it.
Purchased this lens to go on my Canon 35mm camera. It was used and the seller was very good with communication about the details. Read more
Published 5 months ago by R. Howell
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great walk around lens
I shoot with mostly primes but wanted something with good IS and a good zoom range as i am starting into much more video recording these days. Read more
Published 5 months ago by Trent
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good lens
A pretty good lens. Perfect for an everyday lens or for a travel lens so you don't have to constantly change lenses.
Published 5 months ago by Krista Sanders
