I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L

[Radiating]

Canon needs to make this lens, now.

[dr croubie]

a99 + 135 f/1.8.
Full frame, 135mm f/1.8, Image Stabilised, 24 million lovely Exmor pixels, 14 bits of DR at ISO50, 10fps, beautiful Zeiss glass. What more could you want?

[K-amps]

Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby

[marinien]

Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby

Haha, when I saw the title of this thread, I really thought that it's RLPhoto who started it

[Rat]

@f/2, it'd have an 67.5mm front element and could use 77mm filters easily. @f/1.8, the 75mm max aperture would mean 82mm (or bigger) filters. So personally, I'd rather have the f/2 version. Which exists. Could you explain why the 1.8 is so important? Btw, I totally agree on the IS. A 100mm@f/1.8-sized - non-L - 135mm (with or without IS) would be great too, btw. Nicely inconspicuous.

[Zlatko]

a99 + 135 f/1.8.
Full frame, 135mm f/1.8, Image Stabilised, 24 million lovely Exmor pixels, 14 bits of DR at ISO50, 10fps, beautiful Zeiss glass. What more could you want?

Nice lens, but look at the price of that Sony lens: $1,798.  That is twice the price of the current Canon 135/2L.  And it doesn't actually have image stabilization (you have to buy a Sony camera for that).  Imagine how people will complain if Canon introduces a new 135mm lens at the Sony's price.  The forums would be abuzz with new accusations of "greed" and how Canon keeps "screwing" their customers.

[marinien]

@f/2, it'd have an 67.5mm front element and could use 77mm filters easily. @f/1.8, the 75mm max aperture would mean 82mm (or bigger) filters. So personally, I'd rather have the f/2 version. Which exists. Could you explain why the 1.8 is so important? Btw, I totally agree on the IS. A 100mm@f/1.8-sized - non-L - 135mm (with or without IS) would be great too, btw. Nicely inconspicuous.

The Sony/Zeiss uses 77mm filter, just sayin'

[Rat]

The Sony/Zeiss uses 77mm filter, just sayin'

[RLPhoto]

Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby

Damn straight. I'll pitch my 135L into the fire for this lens.

2000$? Don't care

3000$? Don't care

4000$? Get a 200mm F/2.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Sounds fantastic, but the 135mmL is not exactly a big seller, so don't expect it.  I'm planning to use my 135L for 500 or more theatre photos tonight, its my most used lens, so I'm one of those who would be in line to buy one..

[BrandonKing96]

If only.  I remember when this picture showed up the last time.

[kbmelb]

I love my 135L but I'd pay $2k for that.

[dr croubie]

a99 + 135 f/1.8.
Full frame, 135mm f/1.8, Image Stabilised, 24 million lovely Exmor pixels, 14 bits of DR at ISO50, 10fps, beautiful Zeiss glass. What more could you want?

Nice lens, but look at the price of that Sony lens: $1,798.  That is twice the price of the current Canon 135/2L.  And it doesn't actually have image stabilization (you have to buy a Sony camera for that).  Imagine how people will complain if Canon introduces a new 135mm lens at the Sony's price.  The forums would be abuzz with new accusations of "greed" and how Canon keeps "screwing" their customers.

... as opposed to what happens now: Canon releases IS lenses at exactly the price of the 20 year-old lenses that they replace, and forums are full of praise for Canon's wonderful cheap lenses and how much they love foregoing profit to keep customers happy?

[bdunbar79]

Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby

Naaaaaaaaaaah!  He'd still rather get his hands on the classic 50 f/1.0!  .

[Zlatko]

a99 + 135 f/1.8.
Full frame, 135mm f/1.8, Image Stabilised, 24 million lovely Exmor pixels, 14 bits of DR at ISO50, 10fps, beautiful Zeiss glass. What more could you want?

Nice lens, but look at the price of that Sony lens: $1,798.  That is twice the price of the current Canon 135/2L.  And it doesn't actually have image stabilization (you have to buy a Sony camera for that).  Imagine how people will complain if Canon introduces a new 135mm lens at the Sony's price.  The forums would be abuzz with new accusations of "greed" and how Canon keeps "screwing" their customers.

... as opposed to what happens now: Canon releases IS lenses at exactly the price of the 20 year-old lenses that they replace, and forums are full of praise for Canon's wonderful cheap lenses and how much they love foregoing profit to keep customers happy?

What I meant to say is that I don't agree with the complaints about "outrageous" pricing.  The new, improved lenses come with a higher price, which is to be expected.  Nothing wrong with that.  I wouldn't be surprised if a new 135/1.8L IS were offered at the same price as the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8.