DOES THIS EXIST: EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - STM VERSION??

[heathrli]

Hi!

I currently have the EF-S 18-55mm IS STM and EF-S 55-250mm IS STM lens. I'm about to go on a very jam-packed trip and will not have the time to be constantly switching my lenses back and forth.

Ideally I would like the EF-S 18-200mm but in an STM version.. does that even exist?

The Canon website doesn't always list all their latest models.

The alternative (to not having to switch my lens, but have the 18mm start and a better zoom than 55mm) would be the EF-S 18-135mm IS STM. Are there any other lenses that I may be missing with a wider range than this (STM version)?

I'd like to keep the range start to be around 18mm. 

Also, I am not looking for anything over $500... I know those expensive lenses exist.

Thank you!! 

[jrhoffman75 · Accepted solution]

No STM version. Google Tamron 18-270.

[ebiggs1]

IMHO, the EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM is the lens of choice for you.  Although not quite as wide or long, this is a very nice lens for travel.

This lens is not just marginaly better than a lens in the 10x zoom ability (or what you already have), it is head and shoulders better.  But what you already have will do nicely.  But you need both of them!

10x zooms are P&S territory.  The great feature of a DSLR is the fact you can use different lenses.  So you are defeating one of your best features.

I, again IMHO, do not favor or recommend third party lenses.  Stick with Canon. 

[MikeSowsun]

I would get the 18-135mm STM as it is sharper than any other "Super Zoom". It is also wider, lighter, and smaller than the 28-135. 

[heathrli]

Thanks Mike for letting me know the difference between the two lenses! (18-135mm and 28-135mm) The fact that it's also lighter and smaller is a huge benefit for me (thus why I have the SL1, hehe). 🙂

I got the 18-135 STM!

THANKS EVERYBODY! 

[MikeSowsun]

Good Choice!  

The 28-135 is 78mm x 97mm, weighs 549 grams and takes 72mm filters.

The 18-135 STM is 76.6mm x 97mm, weighs 480 grams and takes 67mm filters. 

[TCampbell]

As a generalization... more ambitious zooms (zooms with very wide ranges ... aka "super zooms") tend to have to compromise more on optical quality.  It's one case where "less is more".  

This is not to say that super-zooms have no place... but their #1 feature is the convenience factor and image quality is secondary.  If you're not shooting images you plan to print in large sizes then you may not notice that the lens isn't critically sharp and not care.  

But the difference is something you should at least be aware of before making a purchase.