Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM or USM ?

hashcake

Gone to pot!
Messages
5,893
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm finally getting back into photography after a few years break.
I'm on a limited budget so wondering if the USM version of the lens is worth the extra money.
As I am planning on buying used gear and the STM used prices seem quite good, I'm drawn towards it but would hold off for the USM version if it's worth the price difference.
I know if there is any chance of someone having experienced both lenses, there's a good chance they are a member here :)
 
From the reviews I've seen, the main difference/benefits of the USM Nano version and STM version seem to be improved focusing speed and compatibility with the power zoom accessory (useful for video).
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

The 80D we got for my other half, has the 18-135mm USM (Nano). The focusing speed is very impressive. It's a nice lens to use and the images compare well with my 15-85mm.
 
From the reviews I've seen, the main difference/benefits of the USM Nano version and STM version seem to be improved focusing speed and compatibility with the power zoom accessory (useful for video).
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

The 80D we got for my other half, has the 18-135mm USM (Nano). The focusing speed is very impressive. It's a nice lens to use and the images compare well with my 15-85mm.

I've read that review and a few others, I'm not fussed about the compatibility with the power zoom accessory, obviously faster focusing speeds is a bonus but it wont be essential for the type of photography I do.
Thanks for the feedback I appreciate it.
 
I had the STM version on an 80D, purchased as it was significantly cheaper at the time than the USM version. The focus speed was very fast, I never found it wanting for the type of photography you would typically do with that type of carry round lens. It was extremely sharp as well which was surprising, even at the far ends of the zoom range.

It's your choice of course but you wouldn't be disappointing with the STM. That would be my choice and put the money saved towards something else.
 
I had the STM version on an 80D, purchased as it was significantly cheaper at the time than the USM version. The focus speed was very fast, I never found it wanting for the type of photography you would typically do with that type of carry round lens. It was extremely sharp as well which was surprising, even at the far ends of the zoom range.

It's your choice of course but you wouldn't be disappointing with the STM. That would be my choice and put the money saved towards something else.

Thanks for your feedback, I'm swaying towards the STM version but will give it some more thought.
 
The STM is more appealing as it enables smoother focus transitions in video, at least from my experience with the 18-55 and 10-18 which I use on the 80D for my youtube stuff.
 
The STM is more appealing as it enables smoother focus transitions in video, at least from my experience with the 18-55 and 10-18 which I use on the 80D for my youtube stuff.

I'm not planning on using video on the 600D much but that makes the STM version more appealing.
Thanks for that.
 
I had the STM version as the kit lens on my 600D. I actually really liked it. But because it was a 'kit lens' I thought that there must be something better. I ended up buying a Sigma 18-250 as I thought it would improve things and give me more reach.

I've now sold the 600D and kept the Canon 18-135 and am going to get rid of the Sigma too...so that speaks volumes. I felt my photography got worse with the Sigma. Bokeh was ugly, the Sigma produced a load of noise even at low ISOs, the only bonus was the added zoom.

The only downside with the 18-135 for me is terrible lens creep - which has been sorted with a charity wristband...
 
Last edited:
I had the STM version as the kit lens on my 600D. I actually really liked it. But because it was a 'kit lens' I thought that there must be something better. I ended up buying a Sigma 18-250 as I thought it would improve things and give me more reach.

I've now sold the 600D and kept the Canon 18-135 and am going to get rid of the Sigma too...so that speaks volumes. I felt my photography got worse with the Sigma. Bokeh was ugly, the Sigma produced a load of noise even at low ISOs, the only bonus was the added zoom.

The only downside with the 18-135 for me is terrible lens creep - which has been sorted with a charity wristband...

I know that the 18-135 has been rated well over the years for a consumer lens, I've previous experienced lens creep with other lenses but I'm not too bothered by this.
I'm not a lens snob but apart from the Tamron 18-50 VC f/2.8, I never really like the other Tamron and a couple of sigmas that I tried.
As you said, your decision to keep the Camron and sell the Sigma speaks volumes.
Thanks for your input.
 
My version didn't suffer from lens creep oddly. But I'm aware it is an issue on most, maybe mine was just 'tighter' haha.
 
Back
Top