Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
18-135mm Canon EF-S lens equivalent for FF
Page 1 of 2 next>
Feb 3, 2018 14:17:29   #
DebAnn Loc: Toronto
 
Hope one of you can answer this one for me. I currently use crop sensor Canon camera and my favourite lens is the 18-135mm EF-S. If I buy a Full Frame camera, what would be the equivalent lens to go with it? I'm not much of a techie, so any insight would be welcome.

Reply
Feb 3, 2018 14:22:01   #
RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia
 
~28-200mm

Reply
Feb 3, 2018 14:22:35   #
JPL
 
The best allaround lens for a full frame would be a 24-120 lens. It is better than to get a equivalent lens of the 18-135 that would be 28-200 lens.

Reply
 
 
Feb 3, 2018 14:27:24   #
DebAnn Loc: Toronto
 
Thank you Richard and JPL.

Reply
Feb 3, 2018 14:30:09   #
Mubashm Loc: Gaithersburg, Maryland
 
I think 24-120 is from Nikon and not Canon.

Reply
Feb 3, 2018 14:42:25   #
JPL
 
Mubashm wrote:
I think 24-120 is from Nikon and not Canon.


Right, the Canon would have to be either the 24-105 or 28-300 lens.

Here is a list of BH offerings in this category for more info. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/SLR-Lenses/ci/274/fct/fct_lens-mount_3316|canon-eos+fct_lens-format-coverage_3332|full-frame-lenses+fct_zooms-primes_4389|zoom-lenses/N/4288584247/pn/3

Reply
Feb 3, 2018 15:38:47   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
JPL wrote:
The best allaround lens for a full frame would be a 24-120 lens. It is better than to get a equivalent lens of the 18-135 that would be 28-200 lens.


Nikon makes a 24-120mm "FX" (full frame capable). Canon doesn't.

And... Canon doesn't make an "EF" (full frame capable) 28-200mm.

Canon DOES make an EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM... That's a fine, high performance L-series lens, but rather pricey, big and heavy: $2449, 3.67 lb., 77mm filters, and nearly twice the length of the 18-135s. It comes with a tripod mounting collar, too (removable).

Compare to the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (three versions: older micro motor, newer STM and latest "Nano" USM), which sell for $350-$600, weigh just over 1 lb. and use 67mm filters.

There are three versions of Canon EF 24-105mm: original f/4L IS USM (not discontinued, but widely avail.), a cheaper f/3.5-5.6 non-L STM, and an f/4L IS "II" Nano USM. Those sell for $1000, $600 and $1100, respectively. They weigh between 1 lb 3 oz and 1 lb. 12 oz and all use a 77mm filter.

Quite frankly, none of the Canon 24-105s have impressed me all that much. Until recently Canon has offered an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It dates back to the film days, but actually holds it's own quite well against the 24-105s in terms of image quality and performance. It just doesn't seem as well built or sealed as the L-series (though it's actually proved to be just about as durable as the original)... BUT often sells for far less: around $200 used, or around $450 new before it was discontinued. Over the years, I've used four or five different copies of the EF 28-135mm and found them quite good. Never felt the need to spend more for a 24-105 that gave similar performance.

I have also used the much more expensive, larger and heavier EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM (not stabilized, even the "II"). It's almost embarrassing, how close the 28-135mm is in terms of image quality... but sometimes I just need f/2.8!

If I were shopping today, for a top quality walk-around/standard zoom I'd probably buy the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM. For about $1000 it's got nearly as good image quality as the 2X as expensive, heavier, bigger EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (which is considered the best of all in terms of IQ alone)... Except the f/4L lens has IS (the f/2.8 doesn't) AND the f/4L can focus to an amazing .70X all on it's own (possibly making a separate macro lens unnecessary... for comparison the best the f/2.8L II can do by itself is .21X).

I'd probably usually pair that up with my EF 100-400L II (w/1.4X teleconverter, if using on full frame).... and possibly a 16-35mm f/4 IS USM... for a reasonable size & weight "hiking" kit. When I didn't need the "reach" of the 400mm, I'd substitute EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

Canon has also made a bunch of different EF 28-90mm and 28-105mm over the years. I haven't used any of them, so can't comment.

Why do you think you need full frame? Just gotta ask, because there are a lot of "myths" about it. Unless you plan to make really big prints (upwards of 16x24"), or crop your images heavily (or both), you aren't likely to see a whole lot of difference from a recent, high quality APS-C model. For example, Canon 6D Mark II is 26MP... or for half the money an APS-C 80D is 24MP. Sure the full frame camera is a little better in low light conditions, and can give you a little more control over depth of field... but in some respects an APS-C camera is more versatile. In particular, there's a greater choice of lenses for use on an APS-C camera and the lenses you choose for it can be a lot smaller and lighter weight.

Reply
 
 
Feb 3, 2018 17:51:01   #
JPL
 
amfoto1 wrote:
Nikon makes a 24-120mm "FX" (full frame capable). Canon doesn't.

And... Canon doesn't make an "EF" (full frame capable) 28-200mm.

Canon DOES make an EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM... That's a fine, high performance L-series lens, but rather pricey, big and heavy: $2449, 3.67 lb., 77mm filters, and nearly twice the length of the 18-135s. It comes with a tripod mounting collar, too (removable).

Compare to the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (three versions: older micro motor, newer STM and latest "Nano" USM), which sell for $350-$600, weigh just over 1 lb. and use 67mm filters.

There are three versions of Canon EF 24-105mm: original f/4L IS USM (not discontinued, but widely avail.), a cheaper f/3.5-5.6 non-L STM, and an f/4L IS "II" Nano USM. Those sell for $1000, $600 and $1100, respectively. They weigh between 1 lb 3 oz and 1 lb. 12 oz and all use a 77mm filter.

Quite frankly, none of the Canon 24-105s have impressed me all that much. Until recently Canon has offered an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It dates back to the film days, but actually holds it's own quite well against the 24-105s in terms of image quality and performance. It just doesn't seem as well built or sealed as the L-series (though it's actually proved to be just about as durable as the original)... BUT often sells for far less: around $200 used, or around $450 new before it was discontinued. Over the years, I've used four or five different copies of the EF 28-135mm and found them quite good. Never felt the need to spend more for a 24-105 that gave similar performance.

I have also used the much more expensive, larger and heavier EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM (not stabilized, even the "II"). It's almost embarrassing, how close the 28-135mm is in terms of image quality... but sometimes I just need f/2.8!

If I were shopping today, for a top quality walk-around/standard zoom I'd probably buy the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM. For about $1000 it's got nearly as good image quality as the 2X as expensive, heavier, bigger EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (which is considered the best of all in terms of IQ alone)... Except the f/4L lens has IS (the f/2.8 doesn't) AND the f/4L can focus to an amazing .70X all on it's own (possibly making a separate macro lens unnecessary... for comparison the best the f/2.8L II can do by itself is .21X).

I'd probably usually pair that up with my EF 100-400L II (w/1.4X teleconverter, if using on full frame).... and possibly a 16-35mm f/4 IS USM... for a reasonable size & weight "hiking" kit. When I didn't need the "reach" of the 400mm, I'd substitute EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

Canon has also made a bunch of different EF 28-90mm and 28-105mm over the years. I haven't used any of them, so can't comment.

Why do you think you need full frame? Just gotta ask, because there are a lot of "myths" about it. Unless you plan to make really big prints (upwards of 16x24"), or crop your images heavily (or both), you aren't likely to see a whole lot of difference from a recent, high quality APS-C model. For example, Canon 6D Mark II is 26MP... or for half the money an APS-C 80D is 24MP. Sure the full frame camera is a little better in low light conditions, and can give you a little more control over depth of field... but in some respects an APS-C camera is more versatile. In particular, there's a greater choice of lenses for use on an APS-C camera and the lenses you choose for it can be a lot smaller and lighter weight.
Nikon makes a 24-120mm "FX" (full frame ... (show quote)


You are right. I was actually quite surprised about the 28-300 Canon lens pricing and that they have no 24-120 lens and your info about the quality of the 24-105 lenses. It seems the best choice for the op would be to continue with Aps-c cameras or switch brands if full frame and zoom lens combo is a must.

An option could be the Tamron 28-300 lens. The price is good, I have no idea about the quality.

Reply
Feb 3, 2018 20:20:06   #
DebAnn Loc: Toronto
 
Thanks for that Alan. It's a lot to think about. Up until recently I had pretty much focused on portraiture and just self published a family retrospective of work done over the last 40 years. I have now become interested in landscape photography and was thinking it would be good to have something with more low light capability. My current camera is a 70D and I must say that I'm very happy with it. So I think your comments about the lenses are swaying me towards sticking with it for now.
I have a family wedding coming up and that camera along with a T3i served me well for the last two weddings I photographed.
Weddings aren't something I'd do for anyone else but family but they do come up from time to time.

I also have a good selection of lenses which are mostly EF-S so they don't work with full frames. I have that 18-135 which I really like, a 55-250 which doesn't get used much, A new Sigma 10-20 which I like, a Sigma 50mm which is great and an EF 28-80 which isn't particularly noteworthy. I have thought about getting a Sony because I have two old Minolta Rokkor X lenses which are excellent - a 50mm and a 28mm. But maybe I'll stick with the 70D for now. Your information was much appreciated.
Thank you.
amfoto1 wrote:
Nikon makes a 24-120mm "FX" (full frame capable). Canon doesn't.

And... Canon doesn't make an "EF" (full frame capable) 28-200mm.

Canon DOES make an EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM... That's a fine, high performance L-series lens, but rather pricey, big and heavy: $2449, 3.67 lb., 77mm filters, and nearly twice the length of the 18-135s. It comes with a tripod mounting collar, too (removable).

Compare to the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (three versions: older micro motor, newer STM and latest "Nano" USM), which sell for $350-$600, weigh just over 1 lb. and use 67mm filters.

There are three versions of Canon EF 24-105mm: original f/4L IS USM (not discontinued, but widely avail.), a cheaper f/3.5-5.6 non-L STM, and an f/4L IS "II" Nano USM. Those sell for $1000, $600 and $1100, respectively. They weigh between 1 lb 3 oz and 1 lb. 12 oz and all use a 77mm filter.

Quite frankly, none of the Canon 24-105s have impressed me all that much. Until recently Canon has offered an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It dates back to the film days, but actually holds it's own quite well against the 24-105s in terms of image quality and performance. It just doesn't seem as well built or sealed as the L-series (though it's actually proved to be just about as durable as the original)... BUT often sells for far less: around $200 used, or around $450 new before it was discontinued. Over the years, I've used four or five different copies of the EF 28-135mm and found them quite good. Never felt the need to spend more for a 24-105 that gave similar performance.

I have also used the much more expensive, larger and heavier EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM (not stabilized, even the "II"). It's almost embarrassing, how close the 28-135mm is in terms of image quality... but sometimes I just need f/2.8!

If I were shopping today, for a top quality walk-around/standard zoom I'd probably buy the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM. For about $1000 it's got nearly as good image quality as the 2X as expensive, heavier, bigger EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (which is considered the best of all in terms of IQ alone)... Except the f/4L lens has IS (the f/2.8 doesn't) AND the f/4L can focus to an amazing .70X all on it's own (possibly making a separate macro lens unnecessary... for comparison the best the f/2.8L II can do by itself is .21X).

I'd probably usually pair that up with my EF 100-400L II (w/1.4X teleconverter, if using on full frame).... and possibly a 16-35mm f/4 IS USM... for a reasonable size & weight "hiking" kit. When I didn't need the "reach" of the 400mm, I'd substitute EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

Canon has also made a bunch of different EF 28-90mm and 28-105mm over the years. I haven't used any of them, so can't comment.

Why do you think you need full frame? Just gotta ask, because there are a lot of "myths" about it. Unless you plan to make really big prints (upwards of 16x24"), or crop your images heavily (or both), you aren't likely to see a whole lot of difference from a recent, high quality APS-C model. For example, Canon 6D Mark II is 26MP... or for half the money an APS-C 80D is 24MP. Sure the full frame camera is a little better in low light conditions, and can give you a little more control over depth of field... but in some respects an APS-C camera is more versatile. In particular, there's a greater choice of lenses for use on an APS-C camera and the lenses you choose for it can be a lot smaller and lighter weight.
Nikon makes a 24-120mm "FX" (full frame ... (show quote)

Reply
Feb 4, 2018 07:56:41   #
J2e Loc: Canandaigua, NY
 
amfoto1 wrote:
Nikon makes a 24-120mm "FX" (full frame capable). Canon doesn't.

And... Canon doesn't make an "EF" (full frame capable) 28-200mm.

Canon DOES make an EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM... That's a fine, high performance L-series lens, but rather pricey, big and heavy: $2449, 3.67 lb., 77mm filters, and nearly twice the length of the 18-135s. It comes with a tripod mounting collar, too (removable).

Compare to the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (three versions: older micro motor, newer STM and latest "Nano" USM), which sell for $350-$600, weigh just over 1 lb. and use 67mm filters.

There are three versions of Canon EF 24-105mm: original f/4L IS USM (not discontinued, but widely avail.), a cheaper f/3.5-5.6 non-L STM, and an f/4L IS "II" Nano USM. Those sell for $1000, $600 and $1100, respectively. They weigh between 1 lb 3 oz and 1 lb. 12 oz and all use a 77mm filter.

Quite frankly, none of the Canon 24-105s have impressed me all that much. Until recently Canon has offered an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It dates back to the film days, but actually holds it's own quite well against the 24-105s in terms of image quality and performance. It just doesn't seem as well built or sealed as the L-series (though it's actually proved to be just about as durable as the original)... BUT often sells for far less: around $200 used, or around $450 new before it was discontinued. Over the years, I've used four or five different copies of the EF 28-135mm and found them quite good. Never felt the need to spend more for a 24-105 that gave similar performance.

I have also used the much more expensive, larger and heavier EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM (not stabilized, even the "II"). It's almost embarrassing, how close the 28-135mm is in terms of image quality... but sometimes I just need f/2.8!

If I were shopping today, for a top quality walk-around/standard zoom I'd probably buy the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM. For about $1000 it's got nearly as good image quality as the 2X as expensive, heavier, bigger EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (which is considered the best of all in terms of IQ alone)... Except the f/4L lens has IS (the f/2.8 doesn't) AND the f/4L can focus to an amazing .70X all on it's own (possibly making a separate macro lens unnecessary... for comparison the best the f/2.8L II can do by itself is .21X).

I'd probably usually pair that up with my EF 100-400L II (w/1.4X teleconverter, if using on full frame).... and possibly a 16-35mm f/4 IS USM... for a reasonable size & weight "hiking" kit. When I didn't need the "reach" of the 400mm, I'd substitute EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

Canon has also made a bunch of different EF 28-90mm and 28-105mm over the years. I haven't used any of them, so can't comment.

Why do you think you need full frame? Just gotta ask, because there are a lot of "myths" about it. Unless you plan to make really big prints (upwards of 16x24"), or crop your images heavily (or both), you aren't likely to see a whole lot of difference from a recent, high quality APS-C model. For example, Canon 6D Mark II is 26MP... or for half the money an APS-C 80D is 24MP. Sure the full frame camera is a little better in low light conditions, and can give you a little more control over depth of field... but in some respects an APS-C camera is more versatile. In particular, there's a greater choice of lenses for use on an APS-C camera and the lenses you choose for it can be a lot smaller and lighter weight.
Nikon makes a 24-120mm "FX" (full frame ... (show quote)


Great post. Thank you.

Reply
Feb 4, 2018 08:37:36   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
JPL wrote:
The best allaround lens for a full frame would be a 24-120 lens. It is better than to get a equivalent lens of the 18-135 that would be 28-200 lens.


Is there such a lens? I used to have a 28-200, but it was stolen. I have not been able to find another one. Anywhere! I found it to be the perfect travel lens.

Reply
 
 
Feb 4, 2018 08:48:54   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
If you have budget concerns, here are some older full frame film lenses to consider:

Tokina 24-200
Sigma 24-135
Tamron 24-135

Reply
Feb 4, 2018 09:11:25   #
DebAnn Loc: Toronto
 
Thanks, I'll look at those. I just discovered that there are a lot of Canon EF 28-135 used lenses available. It got fairly good reviews when it was new. I don't want to spend a fortune.
imagemeister wrote:
If you have budget concerns, here are some older full frame film lenses to consider:

Tokina 24-200
Sigma 24-135
Tamron 24-135

Reply
Feb 4, 2018 09:53:11   #
cochese
 
J2e wrote:
Great post. Thank you.


Canandaigua is my home town! Not on topic but... On topic, why not third party? Tamron has a couple of full frame 28-300 lenses that while not stellar are reasonable sharp. All are comparable to the 18-135. Decent for a walk about lens.

Reply
Feb 4, 2018 10:02:31   #
J2e Loc: Canandaigua, NY
 
We moved to Candaigua July 2016 and love it here. City Pier presents seemingly endless photo ops.
My arsenal:
Canon T3i
Canon 18-135 STM
Tokina 12-28
Canon 50mm f/1.8

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.