Thanks for your reply imagemeister. I'll take your suggestion under advisement. Oddly enough, I tested the 18-135 against my old 24-105L lens on my Canon 70d before I purchased my a6300. To my surprise, the 18-135 was sharper. Maybe because the 24-105 was designed for full-frame??? I don't know for sure but I subsequently sold the 24-105 on eBay.
Thanks again for your suggestion.

No problem travelwp. I believe some photos shouldn't be shared on the internet.

Don't get me wrong - - - I love my Canon 70d. I have, however, become pretty tired of lugging more gear around in the woods in Central Oregon than I need to. So, with that said, I recently purchased a Sony a6300 and subsequently fell in love. This isn't the teen-age type puppy love though, it's the real thing. Along with the a6300 body I acquired the 16-50mm kit lens and the 55-210mm. This should take care of the light weight aspect of my problem.
Now I need to decide what to do with my Canon lenses. I have the 50mm f1.4, the 10-18mm STM, the 18-135 STM, the 100mm f2.8L macro and some lens-baby gear.
I have purchased the necessary converters so I can use these lenses on the new Sony but I'm unsure as to whether I'll achieve results comparable to what I'd get with native Sony lenses. If the Sony lenses were appreciatively better I'd switch over but, if not, I'd just hang on to what I have. I realize that when I use the Canon lenses on the Sony the autofocus pretty much sucks but that doesn't bother me as I'm an old dude and I sort of enjoy manual focusing. The focus peaking feature of the a6300 and the focus assist is huge and both features operate just fine with my Canon lenses. I guess my main question for you Hogs is - - - would I really gain anything by dumping my Canon gear and going totally Sony.
With the popularity of this new Sony a6300, I'm guessing that I'm not the only one out there with this dilemma.
Thanks in advance for anyones comments and advice.

Thanks Haydon:
You're certainly correct on the noisy video issue. A few months ago, just for chuckles, I shot some video footage of my pooches playing around using both of these lenses. The 24-105 would have been totally unusable it was so loud when seeking focus. On the other hand, the 18-135 was dead quiet. Definitely the way to go for video. Thanks again.

Thanks Haydon:
You're certainly correct on the noisy video issue. A few months ago, just for chuckles, I shot some video footage of my pooches playing around with both of these lenses. The 24-105 would have been totally unusable it was so loud when seeking focus. On the other hand, the 18-135 was dead quiet. Definitely the way to go for video. Thanks again.

Thanks for your input LFinger.
I'd never heard of that before. It sort of makes sense though to sacrifice a little still clarity to gain better video. I really do see a marked difference between the two tested lenses though so I guess that means that I really am in a genuine quandary. I'll just have do more digging and - - - thanks again.

Thanks Bill de:
I like the way you think and you're right on the mark.

Thanks Northsidejoe:
Your comments make sense. When I had a 60d I never bothered to run a side by side test with these lenses to see if one was sharper than the other. I think I'll do some further checking before getting rid of one of them. By the way, it would be fun to run a test between the lens you're salivating over and the STM that I own. I'm hearing great things about the new one but I sure like the one I own that came on my 70d.
Thanks for your opinions and ideas.

I've been doing a little pixel peeping and am surprised at what I discovered. In that there is quite a bit of overlap with the 18-135 STM lens and the 24-105L lens, I've decided that I wouldn't miss one of them and was undecided as to which one to sell. To my surprise, the 18-135 STM came out on top in my clarity tests and this was confirmed with The-Digital-Picture.com. Have any of you huggers run similar tests and, if so, what were your findings? I would sort of like to sell one of them to fund a recent GAS attack. Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Thanks CHOLLY and JBENG. Both of those comments make a lot of sense but, I want one anyway. Color me spoiled.

I've had one of White's better models for several years now. If I added up all the change I've found with it, I'd probably have enough money to buy a new set of batteries. Pretty slim pickings here in Central Oregon. My son-in-law's dad had a couple of different ones when he lived in So. Cal. and used them a LOT. After moving to the Portland area several years ago, he's pretty much given up on his hobby. Like I said - - - slim pickings. I told him that here in Oregon, if someone drops a penny, they'll spend all day down in the dirt searching for it.

Seriously though, I'd strongly suggest that you take a long look at the ones that White makes. I dropped mine while out in the boonies and sprung the door to the battery box. I took it to the White factory over in Sweet Home to get it repaired and, in about a half hour I had it back as good as new. No charge.

If you look at things logically, it does seem a little strange to spend several hundred dollars on a tool that will probably never pay for itself. Kinda like photography for we amateurs.

Yeah, rook2c4 - - - and apparently a lot of them work as engineers for Sony. I'll bet those guys really enjoy riding their horses to work and eating by candle light.

Does anyone out there in UHH land have any idea at all what's with Sony? It seems that they have something against the touch screen. I have a Sony RX100/3 and sure like some of the features on the RX100/4 but just wish it had the touch screen. I'd jump on it if it did. I also have a Canon 70d and have come to love that feature. I've been hearing a lot about the upcoming Sony A6300 and if they had the touch screen, I just may jump ship.

Come on Sony - - - you know this would be a home run.

I, like Davethehiker, have a Garmin 76CSX. I do a lot of geocaching so am very familiar with it and love it. I have one huge problem however - - - I can't break the damn thing. Some idiot (me) drove off and left it on the roof of the car and it fell off at highway speeds. Fortunately, my daughter and her family were behind me and saw it bouncing along the highway and stopped and retrieved it. Other than a few scuffs, it still operated just fine. Damn. On another occasion I was looking for a geocache on top of a steep ridge and it fell out of my shirt pocket, fell and bounced a couple of hundred feet down a talus slope. I was hoping I couldn't find it so I'd have an excuse to buy a newer model but, unfortunately, I located it and again it just received a few additional scuffs. Damn - - - again. My wife's brother was visiting a couple of years ago and we took a few hikes up in the Cascades. He has a Garmin 60CX which he loves but has discovered an App which he prefers for his Apple 5s. It's called MotionX GPS. I thought it was pretty cool so we loaded it on my 5s. It's got more features than my Garmin and once I get used to it I just might use it but, I'm so accustomed to my GPS I usually just take it along when hiking. If I could only break the damn thing.

I met up with a gal last summer who is a hiking fool. In chatting with her I was surprised to hear that there a quite a few folks who she regularly hikes with who don't carry a GPS. To me, that's not very wise. They're very user friendly and can definitely save your butt. I would advise anyone to get into geocaching, if just to familiarize themselves with their GPS.

I'm not familiar with the latest models but I understand that
they lock onto satellites better than older ones, like mine, especially under the tree canopies. I'd be anxious to try one out, if I can only kill my 76CSX.

Thanks peterg:
Perfect instructions. All is now well.