April 18, 2014, 11:13:42 AM

Author Topic: 135 F1.8L IS  (Read 5292 times)

Mt Spokane Photography

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 7707
    • View Profile
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2013, 12:31:12 PM »
You do know it would cost about $5,000 (Same as 200mm f/2 IS)?   
 
I wouldn't even be interested at that price.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2013, 12:31:12 PM »

Viggo

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1692
    • View Profile
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2013, 05:18:05 PM »
You do know it would cost about $5,000 (Same as 200mm f/2 IS)?   
 
I wouldn't even be interested at that price.

If it gave me the same IQ as the 200, but much smaller and lighter I would trade, but as for a
Replacement of the current 135 it would absolutely kill it for 90% to make it 4500 dollar lens. We all love the current 135 because it's superb value, small and anonymous with great IQ.
1dx, 17-40 L, 24-70 L II, 85 L II, 200 f2.0 L

Jim Saunders

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
    • View Profile
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2013, 06:38:39 PM »
A 135 f/2 IS for some reasonable sum would be a blessing for indoor sports under the typically awful lights they have; I was at an event recently where 200 was too long and even wide open I was at 1/60 - 1/80 (manual) at 10k+ ISO (auto).  Of course that sum could be spent on supplemental light enough to get more reasonable numbers with a 70-200...  Anyway a man can dream.

Jim
I'd probably do better to invest more time and less money.

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2013, 07:35:52 PM »
[...] the current L lens is a pretty old design [...]

The 17 year "pretty old design" is the reason why this lens is so good. With the current trend, I am afraid that the new one will be made for chart shooters and will screw the bokeh.

Not that there is no room for improvement - better coating and IS would be welcome but I am afraid that the IS may pose design restrictions which would change the character of this lens.

ksagomonyants

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2013, 07:39:06 PM »
Could any of you guys comment on the image quality of Canon 135 f2 vs. Zeiss 138 1.8 T and Zeiss 135 f2 ZE? I've had Canon 135 f2 and I really loved it for outdoor portraits. I've just heard that Zeiss 135 f1.8 T has more pleasant color rendition than Canon, is that true? Sorry for off top. Thank you, guys.


Same size
Same weight
IS
f2 or f1.8
Sharp wide open to f5.6

COUNT ME IN ::)

would certainly expect an increase in size and weight if getting F1.8 and IS, but hopefully not too much.

It's made at the moment, unfortunately by Zeiss for Sony Alpha Cameras.

Zeiss 135 f/1.8, 985g/77mm Filter Size/USD$1,799.00
Canon 135 f/2, 750g/72mm Filter Size/USD$1,089.00

No IS, weather sealing, But, Works for me though, if only.

In body stabilizers  :)

GMCPhotographics

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2013, 05:21:04 AM »
[...] the current L lens is a pretty old design [...]

The 17 year "pretty old design" is the reason why this lens is so good. With the current trend, I am afraid that the new one will be made for chart shooters and will screw the bokeh.

Not that there is no room for improvement - better coating and IS would be welcome but I am afraid that the IS may pose design restrictions which would change the character of this lens.

What a bizarre thing to say. I can't think of any of the newer mkII lenses which have worse out of focus rendering than the mk I versions. 24mm f1.4L mkII comes to mind. All of the big white tele zooms. The 70-200 f2.8 II LIS is another example, in fact it's only slightly better than the mk I.

The 135mm f2.0 L's bokeh is pretty bad when stopped down due to uneven or non-rounded aperture blades. Drop to f2.8 or f4 and see the Bokeh shape....pretty mis-shapen

Viggo

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1692
    • View Profile
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2013, 06:32:02 AM »
[...] the current L lens is a pretty old design [...]

The 17 year "pretty old design" is the reason why this lens is so good. With the current trend, I am afraid that the new one will be made for chart shooters and will screw the bokeh.

Not that there is no room for improvement - better coating and IS would be welcome but I am afraid that the IS may pose design restrictions which would change the character of this lens.

What a bizarre thing to say. I can't think of any of the newer mkII lenses which have worse out of focus rendering than the mk I versions. 24mm f1.4L mkII comes to mind. All of the big white tele zooms. The 70-200 f2.8 II LIS is another example, in fact it's only slightly better than the mk I.

The 135mm f2.0 L's bokeh is pretty bad when stopped down due to uneven or non-rounded aperture blades. Drop to f2.8 or f4 and see the Bokeh shape....pretty mis-shapen

Actually the 70-200 mkII has less smooth bokeh than the mk1, but to me it was a non issue compared to all the things that are way better with the mk2.

And it's why the 50 L is soft, because of fantastic bokeh. The Zeiss 135 is less smooth than the 135 L because it is sharper wide open.
1dx, 17-40 L, 24-70 L II, 85 L II, 200 f2.0 L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2013, 06:32:02 AM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2013, 09:36:19 AM »
What a bizarre thing to say. I can't think of any of the newer mkII lenses which have worse out of focus rendering than the mk I versions. 24mm f1.4L mkII comes to mind. All of the big white tele zooms. The 70-200 f2.8 II LIS is another example, in fact it's only slightly better than the mk I.

The 135mm f2.0 L's bokeh is pretty bad when stopped down due to uneven or non-rounded aperture blades. Drop to f2.8 or f4 and see the Bokeh shape....pretty mis-shapen

I was not talking about Canon only, I had Sigma  (35) in mind, as well. Oh, and Zeiss, I agree with the poster above. And the 70-200 II has worse bokeh than the I, and they both seem to have worse bokeh than the non IS.

Who in their right mind would stop the 135 down?  :) I have to try it some day... Anyway, this is not a question of lack of optical modern design, which was the point of my remark.

Vern

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2013, 12:34:33 PM »
I love the 135 f2 for indoor volleyball - IQ, focal length and AF performance are 'just right'. For sports, the IS isn't really needed, but I certainly agree that for theater and live performance, this would be great - as well as any other low light portrait opportunities. I would pay a few $K for such a lens. Still, the current 135 is very nice - attached photo = 1Dx, ISO 8000, f2, 1/1000.
1Dx, 5DMKIII, 600 II, 300 II, 200 f2, 135 f2, 85 1.2 II, 100 2.8 IS, 24TS II, 70-200 II, 24-70 II, 16-35 II

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1444
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2013, 01:54:20 PM »
I love the 135 f2 for indoor volleyball - IQ, focal length and AF performance are 'just right'. For sports, the IS isn't really needed, but I certainly agree that for theater and live performance, this would be great - as well as any other low light portrait opportunities. I would pay a few $K for such a lens. Still, the current 135 is very nice - attached photo = 1Dx, ISO 8000, f2, 1/1000.

Great shot, lovely girl !

sdsr

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
    • View Profile
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2013, 04:05:10 PM »

In body stabilizers  :)

Yes, please - not that I expect it to happen, but if Panasonic can start doing it after years of doing it in-lens only....  Meanwhile, I'm hoping that Sony will have abandoned it's STM technology and provide better high ISO in its next Alphas; several old Minolta lenses look rather appealing, especially coupled Sony's IBIS; and if Pentax ever made a FF camera that would liven things up too.

monopodman

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2013, 09:29:15 PM »
Could any of you guys comment on the image quality of Canon 135 f2 vs. Zeiss 138 1.8 T and Zeiss 135 f2 ZE? I've had Canon 135 f2 and I really loved it for outdoor portraits. I've just heard that Zeiss 135 f1.8 T has more pleasant color rendition than Canon, is that true? Sorry for off top. Thank you, guys.

Without being too scientific, 135/1.8 ZA is more or less equal to the stellar 70-200/2.8L IS II (i.e. slightly better than classic 135L), while Zeiss 135/2 ZE easily destroys both and performes on par with super telephoto lenses (200/2L IS)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2013, 09:29:15 PM »