Processing:
Both versions are in about the same weight, the material suited ago comparable and not for full frame cameras. Both have a metal bayonet, both do not allow manual intervention in the autofocus. The new STM version is somewhat shorter and has a switch that can protect the lens from inadvertent driving. This I missed in the older version: plus 18-135 STM
Aperture:
Although both lenses should have on paper identical luminous intensity, the nose had with me the "Without STM" version forward. In bright sunshine but little difference, in the dim light and cloudy conditions I was able to shoot with the 18-135 without STM images with 1/80 second, while the STM version already 1/50 wanted. And at just scoring a row at the same focal length, lighting, aperture and ISO settings images, not only once but often reproducible. Plus 18-135 without STM
Image Stabilization:
The image stabilizer lenses both work at a high level. At 50mm focal length, I can shoot without a tripod with 1/8 second images without them were shaking - with two lenses. Tie in this category
Autofocus:
The autofocus of STM version works a bit faster than the Autofucus of "Without STM 'version (but which itself is not slow). The STM version also works virtually silent, which may just be extremely important for videographers. For people like me who want to shoot pictures just so, no fundamental advantage for friends of the video but may buy crucial: plus 18-135 STM
Optical performance:
At intermediate focal lengths (50-100mm) both lenses have almost identical photos shot at me, no benefit in one way or another direction. At 18mm both lenses have visible Tonnenverzeichnungen that be more pronounced in the STM version. The (often used by me) 135mm I received an unexpected result: at close range (recording of flowers, etc.), the STM produces slightly sharper images. But as soon as I wanted to pick up distant objects with the 135mm closer, a very different picture emerged: around 1/3 of all images which was sharper than the STM version "Without STM" version clear. This was then ultimately for me, the knock-out criterion against the STM version, because of the closeness I have my EF-S 60mm macro, but in the distance has to be right the sharpness - and that was not the case with the STM. Significant point winners: 18-135 without STM
Conclusion:
Good pictures I can do with two lens types. Both have their strengths (the STM definitely for video friends), but also their weaknesses. Ultimately for me the far inferior imaging performance of STM version gave at distant objects decisive. I am glad to have decided for the 18-135 without STM, in which I publish this review therefore.
