Close Menu

    EF 135 f/1.8L IS [CR1]

    By 68 Comments1 Min Read

    From Anon
    I’ve been sent info about an updated EF 135 f/2L. The source says we can expect it to get IS. It’ll either be f/2 or f/1.8. Both prototypes exist.

    CR1 for now.

    This is the first I’ve heard of such an update.

    60D Image
    There’s a 60D image making its way around the web. I haven’t posted it because it looks exactly like 50D pictures that are out there.

    It’s extremely rare to see Canon promotional photos before a camera is released.

    cr

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    68 Comments

    4. ser on

      if the optics of this future 135 is as good as present or even better it will be one kick ass lens. wonder how much would it cost tho

    7. Otis on

      Agreed. 1.8 with present quality optics — amazing. And IS would help. The 135 on my 5D2 body not-infrequently needs to go to 3200 ISO when inside.

    9. nikontocanon on

      There’s a chance its true… other camera manufacturer have this kind of lens too….

    10. Andrew on

      Canon has to be very careful with this lens. The current f2 lens is one of the sharpest lenses period. They best go to 1.8 only if they are able to reproduce the same IQ as the current f2 (and if the price of producing this lens does not get too high). IS is a no brainer if this lens is updated. Seeing how the newly arrived 100L only got 2.8 I am not so sure we will see a 1.8 for the 135. Going from 2.0 to 1.8 might not seem that much but I’m sure it will add anywhere from 400 to 1000$ to the price of the lens. Look at the fabled 200, it went from 1.8 to 2.0 and gained IS. I think at the longer focal lengths 1.8 is just too expensive.

    13. nikontocanon on

      The size might also be a problem… just look at how big the 200 f1.8…

    17. nikontocanon on

      in body IS but still if sony did produced it why wouldn’t Canon? Also read that the Zeiss 135 f1.8 is one hell of a lens.

    18. DC on

      I can imagine hand-holding such a lens would weigh just as much as that grapefruit 85mm 1.2

    19. Etienne on

      I’d be interested in a 135 f2 IS, … with a 1.4 converter it becomes a light weight 190mm f2.8 IS. Not too shabby.

    21. Nikon/Pentax/Sony/Canon Dude on

      Srly dude, go start your own rumours site and stop trolling here.

    22. Krispin on

      Psshhh for 60% less money, I can get 132.94% more quality with the CanON 135mm f2 PRIME lens, because REAL men use primes only, if Jesus was a photographer, he’d be so legendary because he only uses primes!

      PS: Nikoff sux

      PPS: What happened to the guy who always writes the above ^^^^?

      Hey people, I just ordered the 24mm f1.4 and the 200 f2 IS.. Do you think the 200 f2 IS is the best lens for bokeh slathered female portraits?

    24. Mdee on

      Agree. I’d love to see this rumor get real. I just hope the update doesn’t make it a brick.

    28. J-Man on

      If they improve the 135L(IS, weather sealing, sub wavelengh coating….)without making IQ worse, or for more than $1700 I will be super happy.

    29. Otis on

      What are you talking about? Above Canon Rumor guy said “I haven’t posted it because it looks exactly like 50D pictures that are out there.”

      He decided to not post the pic because it’s a fake. He was not “busted” at all, Mr. Troll Dork-a-lot.

    30. jb on

      I would be happy for the current f/2 + IS with the sharpness of the original :) But with all the rumors going on now (35 1.4 update), is it possible that maybe canon is making all their L standard and telephoto primes to f/1.2?

    32. Scalesusa on

      A 135mm f/1.8 IS sounds made up to me. big, heavy, and extremely expensive, right up there with the 200mm f2 IS.

    33. frankchn on

      A more realistic size will be a 77mm filter size and a weight about ~1 kg. That’s approximately the size of the CZ 135/1.8 for Sony Alpha.

    36. John on

      The IS would be far more important at 135mm than the difference between 1.8 and 2.0…

    38. John on

      Not even close. The old 135L f/2 weighs in at 750g / 26.5oz and 3.3″ x 4.4″. The 200L f/2 is 2520g / 89oz and 5.0″ x 8.2″.

    39. afrank99 on

      Maybe you should refer to “write” (not “read”) when talking about backups…

    41. koos on

      Rather F2.0 with same IQ and weather sealing than a costly F1.8 brick. Wonder if Canon could consider 2 stop IS for their shorter primes and wide-angle zooms from a cost point of view, think it will do the trick and be better than no IS?

    42. Bob on

      The “newly arrived 100L” is primarily a macro lens, an upgrade to its non-L cousin with the same aperture. If you want a portrait L-lens with a similar focal length, there is the 85mm f/1.2L, or, a little longer, the 135mm f/2L. I don’t think there was a pressing need for a 100mm f/2L in the line-up, as there are two excellent non-L options: the 100mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8. I suspect, though, that any upgrades to those will be L-lenses with IS for three times the money.

    43. Bob on

      I doubt that the IS adds considerably to the cost of the lens. They stick it in their dirt-cheap kit lenses and it doesn’t add 500 bucks to the cost. IS, though, is not some after-market add-on that allows for competitive pricing, so Canon can charge a premium for it based on what people will pay. That premium is about 40-60% of the cost of the non-IS equivalent lens. The cost of the IS unit itself is pretty much irrelevant to this pricing strategy.

    48. hoktar on

      Same here, only I have it for ages now. It’s good but i’ve seenn better.
      If you have the money, go for the 1.2!

    52. Jason on

      It would be hard to improve on a lens that is so very close to perfect as the 135 f/2L already is. IS would be a nice addition, but it might tick me off since I just got my 135L in December. Anyway it’s a nearly flawless lens. I bet IS will add $600 to the cost in normal Canon gouging fashion.

    53. Blake on

      Adding IS and weathersealing pretty much doubled the price of the 70-200 f/4. Granted, the IS version also adds phenomenal optical quality and the 135L already has that, but still I don’t think we’d see a sealed 135L IS for less than $1500 street.

      Speculations on what the weight, size, & price difference would be between f/1.8 & f/2? If it was f/1.8 and $1500 & they managed to keep the size & weight very close to the current model, I’d trade my existing 135L on it in a heartbeat. That would probably also delay my 70-200 f/4L IS purchase quite a bit….

    54. Rob on

      Yeah, I’m new here, but I was hoping someone could explain to me what CR1, CR2, etc. means. Thanks in advance!

    55. another name entirely on

      It doesn’t. Why do you feel a pressing need for dual card slots?

    56. Alan on

      Jesus surely was a REAL man, not the weak, emaciated person many artists have painted, but I don’t think he would use primes….. Surely a waterproof compact would be better for cross water walks, or maybe a micro 4/3rds would better suit the lifestyle of a travelling preacher?

    58. Gareth Cooper on

      The 77mm front filter thread can easily accomodate a f1.8 design, i think Sony already have one in their line up.

      Adding a 4 stop IS unit really would be a very nice cherry ontop of an already very sweet lens.

      The current model seems very weather resistant, I’ve gotten mine wet a number of times with no issues. I’m sure Canon would add full weather sealing as a matter of modern design.

      The current f2.0 version blows away the 70-200/2.8 IS L with ease….I just hope the new version will be in the same league.

    59. Gareth Cooper on

      I have both the 135L and the 70-200/4 IS L and they are both amazing lenses but very different. If I want slim DOF or differential focus, the 135L sings like a black bird. If I want a small, sharp and versatile travel tele, then the 70-200/f4 IS L has no equal.

      The current 135L is excellent, but it’s bokeh can get harsh if you stop down to f2.8. Wide open, it’s a stunner. Plus it’s due for an upgrade….Sony has eclipsed it with an f1.8 design.

    63. katkatkat on

      I think it makes sense to make a beastly 135mm 1.8 IS. It’ll create two very different versions of the 135L which will cater to two different users. I’d be happy with a little extra weight if it was equally as stellar at 1.8 as the current 135L is at 2.0.

    64. drummstikk on

      Yeah, I’ll take 1.8 *if* they don’t have to increase the size much. It’s a given this lens would be more expensive, especially if IS is added, but PLEASE, Canon, we don’t need another portrait-length shot put like the 85mm 1.2.

      Canon should squeeze out the extra 1/3 stop if it actually makes the lens better, but not just so they have bragging rights for a slightly faster lens than the competition.

      I’m not sure Nikon is really even competing in this focal length. Their 135 2.0 is a “DC” special-purpose lens

    65. Gareth Cooper on

      I think Canon are more concearned about the rise of Sony than the current Nikon spread. The Nikkor 135 2.0 DC is a big, old weighty beast. Where as the Canon and Sony variants are very sweet and neat.

    66. Gareth Cooper on

      Actually, the 77mm max fron filter thread can yeild a 100mm f1.4, which is food for thought. It’s a lens that’s i’d certainly buy. It would be great to adopt a 24L/50L/100L line up.

    67. Bob on

      Sure, it’s not an identical unit, but Canon still claim that both are worth 4 stops. My point is that Canon charge a premium for IS that is proportional to the price of the lens, not proportional to the cost of the IS mechanism. Sticking a 2-stop mechanism in a lens would probably cost about the same as sticking in a 4-stop mechanism. Canon would not make this decision based on the cost to produce the lens, rather on the price they could charge for it and how it would fit into their line-up.

      What would be much better would be in-body IS, as that works well for shorter focal lengths and would be sufficient for what most people want. At the longer focal lengths, Canon already stick IS in many lenses and there it probably is more effective than in-body IS.

      I don’t think they’ll add IS to the shorter primes, but they will add in-body IS some time in the future (certainly, if Nikon jump first). In the meantime, they’ll clean out their lens line-up, so that all the longer focal lengths have IS and when in-body IS arrives customers won’t have the option to buy a cheap non-IS alternative and kill the sales of the IS lenses.

    Leave A Reply