Lens dilemma for my 7D11: I find the walk-around lens that best suits my needs to be around the 18-135 range. I'm using the standard Canon EFS 18-135 STM. There is a lot to like with...

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

I find the walk-around lens that best suits my needs to be around the 18-135 range. I'm using the standard Canon EFS 18-135 STM. There is a lot to like with this lens and I am happy with it except for the CA fringing in some backlit situations. The purple/pink fringing - particularly noticeable in foliage has been a major nuisance in pictures from a recent trip to Wales and caused enough additional work in editing these pictures that it's now got me looking for a lens less inclined to cause this.

Since Canon doesn't produce anything of professional quality that covers this range I would be grateful for suggestions. I don't want to lose the good features - fast accurate focus, four stop is, sharp images and nice controls but I'm almost ready to forsake Canon if I can't find a lens that answers my need and I really don't want to do that.

The Sigma 18-135 f1.8 looks like a candidate and if anyone has experience with this or has any other suggestions that might offer a resolution I would be most appreciative.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

Have you had the 18-135 checked out? I have that lens and rarely take it off the camera. I have never experienced the problem that you describe.

mrpentaxk5ii

The Sigma ia a 18-35mm lens, not a 135mm lens

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Couple of thoughts. Canon added still another version of this lens after the STM: Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS USM. I haven't used either and can't discern from the reviews and MTF shots whether there's any big different other than relative age of the product releases.

In your camera or computer processing, have you downloaded and implemented the lens profile? If no, I'd look at the results of making this update.

For 18-to-whatever in EF-S / DX, this is one of Canon's weakpoints for longer zooms beyond 18-55 and a strong point for Nikon. Just a comment that doesn't help with your option selection for your EOS ...

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

DebAnn wrote:

Have you had the 18-135 checked out? I have that lens and rarely take it off the camera. I have never experienced the problem that you describe.

My wife and I both have this lens. The CA is not a problem with every shot - only in strongly backlit scenes with lots of edges, (leaves twigs etc). We both have the same problem and in similar or identical shots. One which almost guaranteed the effect occurred when including a window with leaded panes in a poorly lit room. It's just as obvious with either lens.

I should add that this is an effect that was also common on the older generation of Canon's L series 24-105, although less so.

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

I thought the USM version preceded the STM and was a considerably poorer lens optically.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

rob s wrote:

I thought the USM version preceded the STM and was a considerably poorer lens optically.

The Digital Picture says this is the third and newest version, following the STM
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

Rockwell suggests making sure you have the profiles installed.

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

CHG_CANON wrote:

Couple of thoughts. Canon added still another vers... (show quote)

Yes we have both Lightroom and PS set up with the profiles. We shoot RAW and are using the CC versions of ACR.

Without getting into Canon/Nikon issues I do agree with the 18-135 range the pro end of the crop market has been very neglected by Canon and FWIW I've written and told them so ;-). The longer lenses are by no means bad. I have the EF 100-400 Mk ii and it is excellent. I can carry it easily, handhold it down to 1/60 and image quality is outstanding.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

rob s wrote:

Yes we have both Lightroom and PS set up with the profiles. We shoot RAW and are using the CC versions of ACR.

Without getting into Canon/Nikon issues I do agree with the 18-135 range the pro end of the crop market has been very neglected by Canon and FWIW I've written and told them so ;-). The longer lenses are by no means bad. I have the EF 100-400 Mk ii and it is excellent. I can carry it easily, handhold it down to 1/60 and image quality is outstanding.

I was referring to the Canon profiles, which either apply to JPEG in-camera processing or DPP in post. Probably trivial in the final results and certainly a major process flow change to an issue that occurs only in specific shooting scenarios.

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

CHG_CANON wrote:

The Digital Picture says this is the third and newest version, following the STM
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

Rockwell suggests making sure you have the profiles installed.

I'm obliged to you. The announcement of this lens slipped by me.
From his review and the sample images the CA seems considerably improved - to the point where I could probably live with this lens. I will definitely get hold of a copy of it and see if is as good as the review suggests.

Thank you.

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

I have found several used samples of this newest version of the ef-s 18-135 usm on the Adorama site and have ordered one in E(xcellent) condition so that we can do a side by side comparison with the stm lenses we are currently using. Their used equipment comes with their 90 day warranty and since this lens has a high serial number it may well still have Canon warranty as well.

Adorama are a terrific company to buy from because of their policy of allowing any purchaser up to 30 days to return anything for a full refund. This effectively reduces our risk to the postage costs. Their prices are usually highly competitive and I have no hesitation in recommending them to anyone looking for great service and prices. (I have no connection to Adorama apart from being a highly satisfied customer for many years).

I'll post our results to this thread once we've evaluated the lens.

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

CHG_CANON wrote:

I was referring to the Canon profiles, which either apply to JPEG in-camera processing or DPP in post. Probably trivial in the final results and certainly a major process flow change to an issue that occurs only in specific shooting scenarios.

Perhaps you could clarify.
We both have ACR set to automatically identify the lens and apply the Adobe profile. Camera Calibration is set to Adobe Standard. Are you suggesting we should import to DPP first and use Canon lens corrections without allowing ACR to handle this when we import to Lightroom - presumably in DNG.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

rob s wrote:

Perhaps you could clarify.
We both have ACR set to automatically identify the lens and apply the Adobe profile. Camera Calibration is set to Adobe Standard. Are you suggesting we should import to DPP first and use Canon lens corrections without allowing ACR to handle this when we import to Lightroom - presumably in DNG.

Yes - that is what I mean, at least to test the results on a bad / worst CA fringing example. The Canon software should perform better on Canon images than Adobe, at least for lens corrections. I'm not promising better, just should ... and if so, presents another edit option if the image is important and justifies an alternative workflow. I don't think you'll get a DNG from DPP, rather set to 16-bit TIFF and AdobeRGB.

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

OK. I understand the idea of removing another possible variable in the processing chain. It seems unlikely to me that it will produce any significant differences to the RAW image particularly when the preview images on camera show the same issue. They presumably are using these same lens corrections.

Now I need to find a disc and load DPP ...........................

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

rob s wrote:

OK. I understand the idea of removing another possible variable in the processing chain. It seems unlikely to me that it will produce any significant differences to the RAW image particularly when the preview images on camera show the same issue. They presumably are using these same lens corrections.

Now I need to find a disc and load DPP ...........................

You can download the s/w straight from Canon, with an EOS body S/N. But, then you have to install, pull an CR2 image in the editor and then download the lens profile and then apply the corrections. If you don't have all these things in place already ... might not be worth it for just a trial ...