# Canon EF-S 18-135mm  IS Lens vs. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L



## Michael Robinson (Jan 6, 2015)

*Hello,
I currently have the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens and I'm thinking about purchasing the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM lens. 

Camera is a Canon 60D

Would the 70-200mm F/4L offer better performance in indoor low light? I know the 135 mm is f/3.5-5.6 and the 200mm f/4L. 

Or is there another 200mm zoom focal range lens that could be recommended for under $700. 

*


----------



## Braineack (Jan 6, 2015)

The 70-200 would perform better in low-light, yes.  But the 18-135 would be better/equivalent between 18-70mm in low light.

I have a good feel the f/4 is just a better overall lens.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 7, 2015)

This depends on what you're doing indoors and presumes you are in a very large room (event hall, sports game, etc.)  The 70-200mm f/2.8 versions collect double the light. At concerts I'll shoot that and my EF 135mm f/2L (2 full stops faster... that's four times more light than an f/4 lens and eight times more light than an f/5.6 lens.)


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 7, 2015)

TC he meant the 18-135 kit lens.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 9, 2015)

Michael Robinson said:


> *Hello,
> I currently have the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens and I'm thinking about purchasing the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM lens.
> 
> Camera is a Canon 60D
> ...


In some situations, the 70-200mm F4 would be better in low light, because it's maximum aperture of F4, is a full stop faster than F5.6, which would allow for a faster shutter speed.  But on the other hand, the 18-135mm has IS, which can give you 2-3 stops worth of extra stability, letting you get sharper photos at slower shutter speed.  Of course, IS only helps when your subjects aren't moving.

But the bigger reason that someone would buy the 70-200mm, is that it's a high quality lens.  It's an 'L' lens, which is top of the line for Canon.  

The build quality will be much better and the image quality will be better overall.  

My suggestion would be to stretch your budget (or wait and save up) and look for a 70-200mm with F2.8 and maybe IS (or a Sigma/Tamron with equivalent).  

I bought the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS because I knew that if I bought the 70-200mm F4 (with or without IS), that I would always wish I had bought the F2.8 version.


----------



## Michael Robinson (Jan 10, 2015)

Thank you for you reply. 

The 18-135mm does get down to f/4 so the F-stops are the same. The lens quality and the ability to get that 200mm which I think would be essential for some events. 

I wish I had the change to get the F/2.8 L IS....the F/4 IS would be a  stretch for me right now. But, I think I may still try to get the IS version because I shoot video as well. 

---
Anybody have opinions about the Tamron 70-200 mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) priced at $769 versus the Canon 70-200 f/4 ?


----------



## bratkinson (Jan 10, 2015)

When I got my 60D, I was still using the 18-135 lens I had be using on my 30D before.  A good lens, good results, and handles everything from relatively wide-angle (for cramped quarters) to a decent telephoto to 'zoom in' on what you want to zoom in on. 

The problem is that it is not a 'great' low-light lens unless you add an external flash.  The f3.5-5.6 sounds like its great, but the f-stop 'range' indicates it changes from f3.5 to f5.6 while it is zooming from 18mm to 135mm.  If memory serves, I read somewhere that the older version of the lens I had was f4 by the time it was 25mm or so, and f5.6 by about 50mm, give or take. 

Meanwhile, the 70-200 f4L retains its f4 throughout the entire zoom range.  But in low light, f4 does have its limitations.  I have a 24-105 f4L IS.  In most cases, increasing the ISO on my 60D to 2400 or even 3200 allowed me to keep reasonably fast shutter speeds to stop action.  But that wasn't always the case.  Sometimes I had to slow the shutter speed down to the 1/10th-1/40th range to get an acceptable exposure, even at ISO 3200 (a bit noisy, but correctable in post processing).  But at those shutter speeds, the non-blurred-subject 'keeper' rates was in the 1 in 25 or so at 1/10th.  So, a flash is still required in many situations.

As Big Mike suggested, perhaps a third party 70-200 f2.8 with IS (or its equivalent) might be a good choice.  But then, nothing says you have to buy 'new' only.  Check out the used portions of B&H Photo, Adorama, or KEH camera (all very reputable vendors) and you might find a very good condition Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS within your price range.

But the 70-200 on your 60D is really 'too long' (too much telephoto) for indoor shots in your house.  In a banquet hall of any size, or outdoors, it's a great range.  Getting the 70-200 -only- would severely limit your shots with the subject nearer than, say, 25 feet.  That's where the 18-135 'shines'...it's jack-of-all-focal-lengths capability.  Close, medium, and far, all pretty good....at the 'cost' of not-so-great without a flash indoors. 

So, I'd like to propose two possible solutions...the 18-135 + an external flash (the popup flash is good for perhaps 10 feet, and that's it!)
or, the 70-200 f2.8 (any brand/new/used) + a 50mm (or 35mm) f1.8 or f1.4 lens for indoor work.  But...just because the 50/35 can -do- f1.8, the tradeoff is very thin depth of field (plane of acceptable focus).


----------



## Michael Robinson (Jan 10, 2015)

Thank you for your comment. I already have the 18-135 and plan to get an external flash soon). I also own the 50 mm f/1.8. I was needing something that could get me the speaker at the front of the room when I'm stuck midway back...


----------



## James Baranski (Jan 12, 2015)

All depends what your using it for. A 70-200mm lens on a cropped sensor would not be the best choice for all purpose. Actually would be a poor choice IMO


----------

