PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Just to confuse the issue, I love my Sigma 18-300. It is not as heavy as the Tamron 18-400, is $399 new, not $649., As for IQ at 300 it seems darned sharp to me. Check the whiskers below, taken at 300mm.

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Why not take your L lenses?
Isn't that the reason you got them?

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

The canon 18-135 kit lens and the Tamron 70-300mm zoom are the two lenses I have for my 60D and take them both on trips. Depending upon the type of pictures I expect to shoot, I put what seems most likely to be the best for that day and try not to change them during the day.

timm27 Loc: Earth

Sigma 18-70 not long enough. Still looking 0j0

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

I found the 18-135 covers most situations

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

I believe the latest version (2012) is the EF-S 18-135MM 3.5/5.6 IS STM

Bought one used for $200 six months ago and it lives on my 7D. Great pictures.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

For the scenery in the Southwest, I'd want a lens wider than 18mm. Have you considered the EF-S 10-18mm IS STM? It's relatively small, light and cheap.

If they are still under consideration, I'd choose the 18-135mm over the Tamron lens. The USM will be faster focusing and the image quality is better. For what it is, the 18-400mm is pretty amazing and has better image quality than I'd normally expect from a zoom with such an extreme range. But it's not as good as the 18-135mm.

See for yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1045&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1145&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

The two lenses are have pretty equal image quality in the center at focal lengths they share... but the corners and edges of the 18-135mm are better.

The 18-400mm is also a bit larger and about half lb. heavier than the 18-135mm.

Prices are pretty close to the same, by the time you buy the EW-73D hood for the 18-135mm, which isn't included.

And if you want to shoot wildlife, it might be handy to have a 400mm lens on hand.

There are good, thorough reviews of both lenses at the above website, too:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-18-400mm-f-3.5-6.3-Di-II-VC-HLD-Lens.aspx



No, there's a four year newer one with faster USM autofocus drive. That's the lens I am referring to above (costs $600 new, nearly the same as the Tamron lens). Canon claims the USM version focuses 2X to 4X faster than the STM lens. The newer lens also uses Canon's new "Nano USM", which is quiet and smooth like STM, too. Optically the STM and USM versions are identical. And, so far the 18-135mm USM is also the only lens that can be fitted with the PZ-E1 Power Zoom module, which might be useful for video.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If you prefer not to carry a wider lens like the 10-18mm, another excellent single lens alternative you might want to consider is the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM. It's the widest of the "walk-around" zooms for APS-C.

There's a noticeable difference between 15mm and 18mm focal lengths. 3mm isn't significant when comparing telephotos, but it sure is when comparing wide angles.

18-135mm and 15-85mm image quality is very similar at the focal lengths they share. The 15-85mm has slightly more chromatic aberration at the longer focal lengths, while the 18-135mm shows almost none. Conversely, the 18-135mm shows a little CA at its wide end, and the 15-85mm has almost none. In both cases, it's pretty easily corrected in post-processing.

See for yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1045&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=675&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

If you need a longer telephoto lens and the superb Canon 100-400mm L IS USM II is just too big and expensive, Tamron's 100-400mm VC USD is a fine alternative. It's roughly 2/3 stop slower than the Canon lens throughout most of it's focal length range, but this allows it to be smaller and lighter.... and at $800 new it's over $1200 less expensive than the Canon. The Tamron 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod mounting ring (the Canon 100-400 does), but there's an optional ring available for it (sold separately, $129). Sigma makes a 100-400, too... it's even $100 less expensive than the Tamron. But it doesn't have option or means of adding a tripod ring, and that would be a "deal killer" for me.

The Tamron 100-400mm is about 1 lb. lighter than the Canon 100-400L II. On full frame, the Canon lens is clearly superior in the corners and at the edges. But the way a telephoto is typically used, some corner softness like the Tamron shows isn't a problem. On an APS-C camera like 80D, the "soft corners" are largely cropped away so that you see little difference between the two lenses.

See for yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1178&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

timm27 Loc: Earth

Thank you all and especially amfoto!

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If you are looking for wide, the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 Pro ($469.00 new) is highly recommended

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

I have had my 80D for a little over two years and the EF-S 18-135 is by far my most used lens; I'm very happy with it. If I need to go wider, I use my EF-S 10-18 (an excellent lens and only $280; I got mine in a two lens bundle from Canon for $320 with an EF 50). When I need to go longer, I use my EF 70-300 IS II USM, which is now only $500 and gives very good results. The 70-300 is also only 25 ounces, so it is great for walking around and goes with me virtually all of the time in my sling bag. I suspect that you would use the 18-135 almost all of the time in NP's, except when (if?) you are shooting wildlife. You would probably get some use out of the 10-18 as well to capture the wide scenic shots.