7D with 18-135mm KIT -- Better deal than I thought, Nice Lens! at DVinfo.net

Shaun Walker · October 10th, 2009, 01:25 AM

So the local dealer got a kit the other day and it turns out for $1,999 instead of $1,699 body-only, you not only get the 18-135 IS lens, but you also get a hood for it, a basic Canon UV filter (not sure if multicoated or not), AND an extra battery for the 7D.
VERY good deal considering the same lens alone, without hood & filter, is $499 at B&H.

More importantly, the Canon 18-135 IS is a very versatile range for a walkaround/travel lens and is quite sharp -- a touch sharper than my old Canon 16-35 2.8L at 5.6, and wide open at 135mm 5.6 is not too far behind my old 70-200 2.8L Canon -- might be noticeable above print sizes of 11x17, but not in video, sharpness-wise anyhow. Now, those L-series lenses are have seen pro daily newspaper use for 6-9 years, so it's not like they're at their best but they are undamaged or flawed in any non-wear-related way. The 18-135 also focuses quite quickly in AF (and is pretty quiet despite not being a USM) and is a bit touchy but quite usable for manual focus.
Lens creeps slowly out but not bad, decent build quality, nice feel.

Chris Hurd · October 10th, 2009, 10:36 AM

Great, thanks Shaun, I was wondering about that particular lens. I'll probably go with that one or the EF-S 15-85mm. For what it's worth, the EF 28-135mm also suffers from a bit of creep, especially if it's pointing downward, so that's not unexpected for the EF-S 18-135mm. Much appreciated,

Tony Davies-Patrick · October 10th, 2009, 11:01 AM

This lens matches the 16-35mm L f/2.8 & 70-200mm f/2.8 in terms of image quality? I'll have to take a closer look at results to agree with that assumption, although when stopped down to f/5.6 most wide to mid-range lenses tend to show their best, and obviously as you mentioned, video is not scrutinised so closely as still images.

Francois Poitras · December 2nd, 2009, 07:52 AM

I am contemplating a 7D kit with the 18-135mm lens, and would like to hear more about folks who have the 18-135mm. I had the chance to play with one in store and found the zoom ring to be a bit sticky, but then it was a top-of-counter demo in a big surface store.

Other comments/thoughts on using this lens?

Thanks in advance

François

Alvin Ang Teng Cheong · December 3rd, 2009, 12:12 PM

Hi Francois,

I've got the lens and its pretty good for what it's worth though. I think I know what you mean by the zoom being a little sticky, but for me, it isn't too much of a problem once you get used to the lens.

I think it has decent sharpness and the IS helps alot when shooting video. I find myself using this lens more than my 50mm 1.4.

Most of what I've shot with the 7D was done with this lens. You can have a look at the videos here:

alvin ang on Vimeo

All of the videos except "Soup Container" was shot on the 7D with the 18 - 135 kit lens.

Hope this helps :)

Chuck Spaulding · December 3rd, 2009, 12:41 PM

Alvin, you have some nicely done videos. The shot of the snail was great.

Francois Poitras · December 3rd, 2009, 03:42 PM

Alvin, thanks a lot for the feedback. Continuing my homework, I found reviews on the Net that seem to confirm the "relative" smoothness of the rings. I guess you get used to it...

I also had a chance to play with a 7D equipped with a 15-85mm at another store. I thought it was better built, the AF faster and the rings much smoother (although the focus ring is a bit narrow). No wonder it is more expensive.

I'll keep on reading...

Alvin Ang Teng Cheong · December 3rd, 2009, 10:11 PM

Thanks Chuck, the snail got me by surprise actually, i almost stepped on it! hhahah

Hi Francois, yeah the 18 - 135 seems to have some trouble focusing in low light, i seem to always have this procedure when using the lens in low light:

1) Hit the focus button and hope i get my focus right
2) Wait for lens
3) Hit the focus button again and hope again
4) Get frustrated
5) Use manual focus

I'm going to look at the Canon 18 - 200 and the Tamron 18 - 270 today, might be getting either one as i need more telephoto than what the kit lens can provide me for my work style.

Cheers :)

Scott Brickert · December 8th, 2009, 02:31 PM

Alvin,
thanks for posting your clips, they give a good feel for the 18-135.

I'm curious about macro performance with this lens. How big was that snail?

Anyone seen a magnification stat for it? The Sigma 17-70 achieves 1:2.3.

Would it be safe to say Magic Lantern will have better access to controlling the Canon 18-135 for rack focusing, as compared to a 3rd party lens, or am I imagining things?

Fergus Anderson · December 8th, 2009, 02:54 PM

Thanks Alvin really good to see what the kit lens can do.

Just out of interest what is it like editing native 7d mov'd in Vegas? Much worse than HDV?

Thanks
Fergus

Alvin Ang Teng Cheong · December 9th, 2009, 11:07 AM

Hi guys, thanks for the nice comments :)

Scott: for me, macro performance on the kit lens really leaves much to be desired. I've worked with lenses that have better macro performance. For the snail shot, I had to zoom all the way to about 80 - 100mm.

Hmm, to measure the snail... the shell was probably around the size of 2 Canon batts stacked together.

Fergus : editing native 7D clips in Vegas is an experience I never want to revisit. (That says pretty much huh :P ). I think it's because of the high bitrate and compressed video codec that eats up alot of the computer's resources. (My PC is a quad core with 4gb of ram and 512 DDR2 graphics.) Definitely worse than HDV. I can edit native HDV .m2t files with no trouble at all and have a decent preview most of the time, ranging from 20fps - 25fps when previewing my clips without rendering.

I was crashing at every single click i made when loading up 100+ native 7D files into Vegas 8.0. (I know the 9.0 has better integration with Canon's codec, but that does not solve the issue of the files taking too much resources, possibly due to the codec.)

I recommend getting either Cineform or Canopus Procoder. I personally use Canopus Procoder 3 and so far, it's a transcoder's dream come true.

hope that helps :)

Fergus Anderson · December 12th, 2009, 04:03 AM

Thanks Alvin

I have a similar spec PC to yours using Vegas 9 - it sounds like a nightmare. I must admit I have never bothered using an intermediate codec for HDV but it looks like I may need to invest If I am to use the 7d...

Thanks again for the advice.

Alvin Ang Teng Cheong · December 13th, 2009, 05:15 AM

hi Fergus,

you're welcome :)

I've tried out both Cineform Neoscene & Canopus Procoder, Neoscene is FAST and it has a tool for capturing video (if you use a tape based cam) in the cineform codec. Procoder has the ability to transcode to many different formats. All i can say is that these are different tools and provide us different benefits. I'd love to have both though :P

October 10th, 2009, 01:25 AM	#1
Shaun Walker Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Eureka, Calif. Posts: 98	7D with 18-135mm KIT -- Better deal than I thought, Nice Lens! So the local dealer got a kit the other day and it turns out for $1,999 instead of $1,699 body-only, you not only get the 18-135 IS lens, but you also get a hood for it, a basic Canon UV filter (not sure if multicoated or not), AND an extra battery for the 7D. VERY good deal considering the same lens alone, without hood & filter, is $499 at B&H. More importantly, the Canon 18-135 IS is a very versatile range for a walkaround/travel lens and is quite sharp -- a touch sharper than my old Canon 16-35 2.8L at 5.6, and wide open at 135mm 5.6 is not too far behind my old 70-200 2.8L Canon -- might be noticeable above print sizes of 11x17, but not in video, sharpness-wise anyhow. Now, those L-series lenses are have seen pro daily newspaper use for 6-9 years, so it's not like they're at their best but they are undamaged or flawed in any non-wear-related way. The 18-135 also focuses quite quickly in AF (and is pretty quiet despite not being a USM) and is a bit touchy but quite usable for manual focus. Lens creeps slowly out but not bad, decent build quality, nice feel.

October 10th, 2009, 10:36 AM	#2
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Great, thanks Shaun, I was wondering about that particular lens. I'll probably go with that one or the EF-S 15-85mm. For what it's worth, the EF 28-135mm also suffers from a bit of creep, especially if it's pointing downward, so that's not unexpected for the EF-S 18-135mm. Much appreciated, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 10th, 2009, 11:01 AM	#3
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	This lens matches the 16-35mm L f/2.8 & 70-200mm f/2.8 in terms of image quality? I'll have to take a closer look at results to agree with that assumption, although when stopped down to f/5.6 most wide to mid-range lenses tend to show their best, and obviously as you mentioned, video is not scrutinised so closely as still images. __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk

December 2nd, 2009, 07:52 AM	#4
Francois Poitras Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Québec (Canada) Posts: 133	I am contemplating a 7D kit with the 18-135mm lens, and would like to hear more about folks who have the 18-135mm. I had the chance to play with one in store and found the zoom ring to be a bit sticky, but then it was a top-of-counter demo in a big surface store. Other comments/thoughts on using this lens? Thanks in advance François __________________ François

December 3rd, 2009, 03:42 PM	#7
Francois Poitras Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Québec (Canada) Posts: 133	Alvin, thanks a lot for the feedback. Continuing my homework, I found reviews on the Net that seem to confirm the "relative" smoothness of the rings. I guess you get used to it... I also had a chance to play with a 7D equipped with a 15-85mm at another store. I thought it was better built, the AF faster and the rings much smoother (although the focus ring is a bit narrow). No wonder it is more expensive. I'll keep on reading... __________________ François Last edited by Francois Poitras; December 3rd, 2009 at 08:11 PM.

December 3rd, 2009, 12:12 PM	#5
Alvin Ang Teng Cheong Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Singapore Posts: 39	Hi Francois, I've got the lens and its pretty good for what it's worth though. I think I know what you mean by the zoom being a little sticky, but for me, it isn't too much of a problem once you get used to the lens. I think it has decent sharpness and the IS helps alot when shooting video. I find myself using this lens more than my 50mm 1.4. Most of what I've shot with the 7D was done with this lens. You can have a look at the videos here: alvin ang on Vimeo All of the videos except "Soup Container" was shot on the 7D with the 18 - 135 kit lens. Hope this helps :)

December 3rd, 2009, 12:41 PM	#6
Chuck Spaulding Trustee Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Thousand Oaks Posts: 1,099	Alvin, you have some nicely done videos. The shot of the snail was great.

December 3rd, 2009, 10:11 PM	#8
Alvin Ang Teng Cheong Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Singapore Posts: 39	Thanks Chuck, the snail got me by surprise actually, i almost stepped on it! hhahah Hi Francois, yeah the 18 - 135 seems to have some trouble focusing in low light, i seem to always have this procedure when using the lens in low light: 1) Hit the focus button and hope i get my focus right 2) Wait for lens 3) Hit the focus button again and hope again 4) Get frustrated 5) Use manual focus I'm going to look at the Canon 18 - 200 and the Tamron 18 - 270 today, might be getting either one as i need more telephoto than what the kit lens can provide me for my work style. Cheers :)

December 8th, 2009, 02:31 PM	#9
Scott Brickert Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Crested Butte, CO Posts: 576	Alvin, thanks for posting your clips, they give a good feel for the 18-135. I'm curious about macro performance with this lens. How big was that snail? Anyone seen a magnification stat for it? The Sigma 17-70 achieves 1:2.3. Would it be safe to say Magic Lantern will have better access to controlling the Canon 18-135 for rack focusing, as compared to a 3rd party lens, or am I imagining things? __________________ Scott Shot-By-Scott

December 8th, 2009, 02:54 PM	#10
Fergus Anderson Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, UK Posts: 321	Thanks Alvin really good to see what the kit lens can do. Just out of interest what is it like editing native 7d mov'd in Vegas? Much worse than HDV? Thanks Fergus

December 9th, 2009, 11:07 AM	#11
Alvin Ang Teng Cheong Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Singapore Posts: 39	Hi guys, thanks for the nice comments :) Scott: for me, macro performance on the kit lens really leaves much to be desired. I've worked with lenses that have better macro performance. For the snail shot, I had to zoom all the way to about 80 - 100mm. Hmm, to measure the snail... the shell was probably around the size of 2 Canon batts stacked together. Fergus : editing native 7D clips in Vegas is an experience I never want to revisit. (That says pretty much huh :P ). I think it's because of the high bitrate and compressed video codec that eats up alot of the computer's resources. (My PC is a quad core with 4gb of ram and 512 DDR2 graphics.) Definitely worse than HDV. I can edit native HDV .m2t files with no trouble at all and have a decent preview most of the time, ranging from 20fps - 25fps when previewing my clips without rendering. I was crashing at every single click i made when loading up 100+ native 7D files into Vegas 8.0. (I know the 9.0 has better integration with Canon's codec, but that does not solve the issue of the files taking too much resources, possibly due to the codec.) I recommend getting either Cineform or Canopus Procoder. I personally use Canopus Procoder 3 and so far, it's a transcoder's dream come true. hope that helps :)

December 12th, 2009, 04:03 AM	#12
Fergus Anderson Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, UK Posts: 321	Thanks Alvin I have a similar spec PC to yours using Vegas 9 - it sounds like a nightmare. I must admit I have never bothered using an intermediate codec for HDV but it looks like I may need to invest If I am to use the 7d... Thanks again for the advice.

December 13th, 2009, 05:15 AM	#13
Alvin Ang Teng Cheong Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Singapore Posts: 39	hi Fergus, you're welcome :) I've tried out both Cineform Neoscene & Canopus Procoder, Neoscene is FAST and it has a tool for capturing video (if you use a tape based cam) in the cineform codec. Procoder has the ability to transcode to many different formats. All i can say is that these are different tools and provide us different benefits. I'd love to have both though :P