Situation: When traveling, can be personalized with the "Good & Affordable" combination EF-S 18-55mm IS and EF-S 55-250 IS make the EOS 1000D Although good images, but the lens changes with focal length 55 is just too far forward. In particular, in order to make better portraits can, I want to cover with a new standard zoom least the focal length range 18-85. First I tested mega zoom lenses, but the rich do not out of the picture quality here. How good that Canon has expanded its range of lenses with two new lenses that meet my requirements from the paper here. After two days of extensive testing with all relevant for me practice situations, I have now decided to use one of the two new standard zoom. Here the confrontation with the subjective result:
Processing: 15-85 advantage
-> Much better quality, compact, processed carefully, clearly a step above the "plastic-class", with which I also have no problems when it delivers such good results, like my "Good & Affordable" -Kombi (see above).
Weight: 18-135 advantage
-> Some 120 gr more weight of 15-85 must first be carried around.. Compared with the 18-55 IS kit even the 15-85 whopping 370 gr weighs. More. My combination of camera, battery grip and lens weighs the 15-85 now 1430 gr., With 18-135 1309 gr. And with the other hand, only 18-55 1057 gr. Actually, I buckle my camera always quite happy to hand but I'll let the future well ...
Autofocus: Draws
-> It is true that more expensive 15-85 lens has a silent USM motor, but really practical relevance quickness advantages I have thus not been established. Be careful when focusing in WW at 15 mm when the direction of "infinite" is (eg landscapes). Here is every 3rd-4th Image blurred or washed out completely, no matter what the panel, whatever the tripping time, whether from the hand or from the tripod, whether with or without IS. Here's a quick image review after the "shot" is announced, so as not to annoy afterwards at home. For all other focal lengths of the AF works but reliable.
Optical performance: 15-85 advantage
-> If you like it like technically accurate and comparable, can supplement at the recommended photozone.de (English) objective tests read. Shots of the same motif showed me that the 15-85 at all focal lengths already at maximum aperture over the entire image area, a great focus is (as long as the AF not spanks at 15 mm), while the 18-135 at full aperture to the edge always washed-out look. With Aperture 8 Again, the result over the entire surface is good. But you always have enough light for aperture 8?
Aberrations: advantage 18-135
-> The 15-85 is nice sharp at maximum aperture, but the vignetting (Randabdunkelung) is really quite striking. In wide-angle more than at the telephoto end. But this can be corrected well with appropriate software. The 18-135 is not quite as bad here. Barrel distortion, both in wide-angle lenses, but depending on the subject is not particularly relevant. As a rule, I do not photograph frontal brick walls, bathroom tiles etc. structured motifs. When in doubt motif buffer to the edge can, and distortion corrected later by image processing. CAs to me subjectively not to, because I'm probably not picky enough. Here, too, I refer to photozone.de.
Focal length range: 15-85 advantage
-> 3 mm more wide angle is very valuable for me as for city trips, interior shots or panoramic landscapes still the crucial piece of "More" fits the picture. In particular landscapes win at 15 mm more spatial depth than 18 mm. If I had not thought of. At the zoo, however, the 135 mm of the other lens is very useful, because I would switch from the 15-85 well on my telephoto zoom. But I just have a telephoto lens, my 3 mm more wide are still important. I would not have the 55-250, I would rate the 18-135 zoom range than better.
Macro capability: Draws
-> It is true that the minimum focus distance varies (35 cm at 15-85, 45 cm at 18-135), but still is the largest imaging scale by the different longest telephoto focal lengths with the same 0.21. Macros can be so thoroughly and make traveling is the ability sufficiently, but when push comes to shove, I would rather take my Sigma 70 / 2.8. Who has no macro lens, should perhaps think about supplementary close-up lenses, something to improve the possibilities.
Bokeh: Draws
-> Now, with maximum aperture of 5.6 can be expected any miracles here, but overall I like the depth blur but subjectively in both lenses quite well.
Price: 18-135 advantage
-> Of course, absolutely 300-350 cheaper, but also the price / performance ratio produces the effective lens front.
CONCLUSION: Both lenses are ideal for everyday use and are facing the 18-55 IS to improve the possibilities is the 18-135 makes in this focal length range, although no better pictures and is even a little less suitable, but has yet decisively longer focal length in order for macros. not having to constantly switch to a telephoto lens. The higher quality 15-85, however, shows a better imaging performance and provides mainly 3mm more wide. For these reasons, I will keep it, even if I have to in the future more weight drag. In subjects that a long focal length necessary to make (animals in the wild, etc.) are anyway not yet 85 135 mm enough, so I'll still have to make when changing lenses 55-250, albeit less frequently. Depending on the priority of the evaluation criteria and its own lens Arsenal can also decide otherwise be quite.
