mohawk51 Loc: Texas

I would say the 18-135 as well.

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

I am not familiar with canon lens choices as I shoot Nikon; but I find the Nikon 18 to 300 a very nice walk around lens. I is heavy at 19 oz but focuses to about 1.6' at all lengths and appears sharp through out most of the range.

I am not sure if canon has something similar; but if they do consider getting one

MtnMan Loc: ID

You'll want the widest angle for landscapes and you need more telephoto for animals: at least 300 mm. Be sure to bring CP for landscape lens.

Whether your camera is FX or DX matters to know what you have. Given the 18mm I'm guessing DX. That's OK for the landscapes but keep in mind shooting for later conversion to panaroma in both landscape and portrait mode.

The elk and deer are sometimes close but big horn sheep, antelope, and turkey usually want more space. Coyote and roadrunner near and far.

PS: October is a good time. Later is better. The Aisian invasion has moderated by then.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Evidently you haven't been there much!

But the 300 mm suggestion is in the right direction.

BTW in Zion the deer and turkey are more abundent in the canyon and the big horn sheep up on the mesa. Bryce and Grand Canyon deer and elk in the trees on the rim. If you drive from Page to the Grand Canyon stop at the bridge across the Colorado: resident Condor hang out on the bridge. (You can leave your wife at the Navajo jewelry stands).

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

[quote=MtnMan]Evidently you haven't been there much!

maybe I was there at the wrong time of year, early spring. but when I traveled through Arizona and Utah, the landscape was 90 per cent of my shooting. there were wildlife opportunities, but the landscape stood out more.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Since you are looking at an EF-S 18-135mm, you must be using an APS-C camera model (which is very important to know when choosing or recommending lenses). The 24-105mm is full frame capable, but also will work on a cropper. But, at 1/3 the cost, the EF 28-135mm can equal much of what the 24-105L can do, just isn't as well built or sealed for dust/moisture resistance as the L-series.

If you are shooting with a Rebel series, 70D, or 7D model, then I'd say the EF-S 18-135mm as a walk-around lens. If you have a 6D, 5D-series full frame model, your choices will be more limited, to only full frame capable EF lenses.

It also makes a big difference what you plan to shoot and how you'd like to shoot it.

For example, if you are planning a lot of hiking and want as compact a kit as possible, that can dictate what you may want to carry. But if you are mostly shooting from close to your car, you might be okay hauling around different gear.

If you are primarily interested in taking scenic shots, then a wide angle lens might be good to complement the 18-135mm. Canon offers one of the best values in their relatively new EF-S 10-18mm IS STM. At under $300, it's at least $100 cheaper than most other lenses of that type. It's half the price of the slightly more upscale Canon 10-22mm USM. Both those are excellent lenses and something I'd want in my camera bag, handy and ready for use, visiting national parks.

But, an alternative to supplementing your walk-around lens with a wide angle is to instead get a wider walk-around lens. For example, the Canon EF-S 15-85mm is a top choice.

Or, maybe your main interest is macro and close-up photography. In that case, there are a number of excellent possibilities, including the relatively compact Canon EF-S 60/2.8 USM and somewhat larger EF 100/2.8 (two versions). If you are shooting close-ups of flowers, that's one thing. If shooting Western rattlers, you might want a longer lens to stay farther away. Tokina 100/2.8 is one of the least expensive macro lenses. For a compact alternative that doubles better than most macro as a portrait lens, I carry a Tamron 60/2.0 (crop only)... but when I'm doing a lot of "serious" macro shooting I use Canon 100/2.8 (the lower cost non-L, non-IS version) and Canon 180/3.5 macro lenses. I also use a Canon 300/4L IS USM, that's about the closest focusing of Canon's lenses longer than 200mm... can be helpful when shooting those really scary and nasty subjects. The longer the focal length, the harder to get a steady macro shot.... the more likely a tripod or at least a monopod and/or macro flash will be necessary.

Or maybe your interest is larger wildlife and you will want a more powerful telephoto such as a Canon 100-400 Mark II or a 300/4L with a 1.4X teleconverter. There also are three Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm, two of which are among the most affordable of these types of lenses. There's also a considerably more expensive Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS HSM that works very well with 1.4X and 2X teleconverters. Or, if you have an extra $11,000 laying around there's the fantastic Canon EF 200-400/4L with built-in, matched 1.4X teleconverter.

Or, are you wanting to shots of birds, including in-flight? Some of the above are very good for that too (100-400 and 300/4)... another popular lens among birders is the Canon 400/5.6L, which is very sharp but doesn't have IS, so needs to be used at higher shutter speed or put on a tripod or monopod.

Or, do you plan to shoot a lot of video with your DSLR? If so, you might want to look at the Canon STM lenses instead of many of the above. Those are quieter and smoother focusing, especially for video work. There's a new 18-135mm with power zoom, too, that's just been introduced with the new 80D camera (I don't know much about shooting video in general or this lens in particular, if it will work similarly on other cameras).

There are other specializations that might call for different gear. But maybe the above give you some ideas. Have fun shopping!

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

The quality of the lens is not measured in focal length. The 18-135 is likely a kit lens, with issues with chromatic aberration, vignetting, distortion, weather sealing, external zooming, etc. Remember you will be at f/5.6 at 100-135 mm, and will have issues in lower light conditions. If you shoot landscape you are always shooting in low light conditions, early morning and/or late evening. The f/4 L is a professional grade canon lens and well made. Better than the 18-135

MtnMan Loc: ID

[quote=orrie smith]

Time of day also matters. Larger animals are more active near dawn and sunset.

Fall is better for the deer and elk: full antlers.

Certainly the southwest landscape is most compelling.

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

You don't say what other lenses you already have. Based on the 18-135mm, I would assume that your camera is a crop sensor model. That means that that the two lenses you are considering will actually act as a 38.4-198.4mm and a 28.8-216mm. Essentially, neither one gives you the wide angle capability you should have for landscape. I would suggest adding in something like the Sigma 10-20mm wide angle.

Quality wise, both lenses you mentioned are good lenses, but the 24-105mm f/4 L is a superior lens and will serve you well in the future if you ever upgrade to a full frame camera. It is also a faster lens through most of its telephoto range.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

In four weeks we will take our first visit to Southern Utah. I plan to use my 10-20 Sigma on my D7000 most of the time. May use the 18-200 to reach out once in a while.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, the 18-135mm is a kit lens... In fact it's a "step up kit lens" usually bundled with the more advanced Canon APS-C cameras such as the T6i, T6s, 70D, 80D or 7DII (the "lesser" models are usually sold in kit with one of the 18-55mm... either the micro motor focus version with the most entry-level models... or the STM version with the slightly more advanced and video-oriented models).

But the 24-105L also is often supplied as a kit lens on some of the FF models.

"Kit lens" doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing.

Actually there really isn't all that much difference in IQ between the 18-135 ($600 for USM version, $550 for STM, $500 for micro motor version), 28-135 IS USM ($300) and 24-105 ($1000 for the f4L, $600 for the STM).

It's not that the 24-105 is "bad". It's not.... It's that the other lenses are pretty darned good, particularly considering how much less they cost. The L-series is a little better built and has a "constant f4 aperture" which can be desirable if using manual flash or studio lighting, and gives you a stop more light at the long end of the zoom, but really doesn't matter very much under a lot of other conditions. The other lenses are f3.5 at the wide end of the zoom, a third stop faster than the 24-105.

Perhaps most importantly on an APS-C camera and especially if shooting landscapes, 18mm wide versus 24mm/28mm wide is a hugely noticeable difference. It's a "moderately wide angle" versus a "standard" lens, that will be very apparent in the viewfinder as well as the images you'll be able to capture.

For still photography with an APS-C camera, Canon's very best mid-range, walk-around zooms are the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM ($800)... or at higher price the EF 24-70/4L IS USM ($1000) or much bigger, heavier and twice the price, the EF 24-70/2.8 II USM ($1900). But, once again, on a crop camera there is an extremely significant difference between 15mm and 24mm!

For video, instead of USM one of the STM lenses likely would be a better choice: EF-S 18-135mm or EF 24-105 IS STM ($600).

Dedo Loc: NY, Uruguay

I USE THE CANON 24-105 F4L FOR ALL MY LANDSCAPE WORK. IT'S THE ONLY LENS I TAKE WITH ME. IT'S A GREAT LENS ON A 5D MKII.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

... which is a full frame camera, and thus cannot use the EF-S 18-135mm.

One more time.... 24mm is not very wide on an APS-C camera. It is little more than a "standard" focal length.

EF-S 18-135mm offers significantly wider.... EF-S 15-85mm even more.

Since the OP is considering an 18-135mm, they are most likely using an APS-C camera.... not a full frame!

MtnMan Loc: ID

Yes, but particularly if you use Lightroom shooting panoramas can make up the difference. Also usually a panorama made from multiple shots will have less distortion...although none of the lenses under discussion should have much distortion. Distortion increases as you head down towards 10mm on APS-C.

Also keep in mind that landscape shots usually use f16 or higher, so the f4 min aperture is of little consequence. It lets you autofocus in dimmer light but for landscape you don't need to autofocus anyway...set the distance on the lens instead.

Plus be sure to bring tripod and remote release.

Min aperture does matter for wildlife. They are usually most active in dim light.

Bullfrog Bill Loc: CT

My wife and I did the same trip last year in May and it was fantastic. I had a Nikon D800 (full frame) and found that I used the following lenses 24-70 (70%), 16-35 (20%) and 70-200 (10%). Be sure to visit Dead Horse Point State Park when you are in Mohab, it was one of the most spectacular.