Another Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS USM Mention [CR2]

angrykarl said:
Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or shitty APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that at least in terms of volume, the sales are happening exactly right where Canon's current prime lineup is failing the most : mid-range 50 and 85mm lenses (around €500). Heck, on Amazon, the Nikon 50mm f1.4G outsells the f1.8G, despite most reviews stating that the latter is a better buy. Also, Fuji delayed the development of faster lenses in favour of their smaller f2 lineup when they saw how well it was selling.

Canon knows the market best

Relative to other manufacturers ? Most likely. In absolute terms ? They make plenty of mistakes. For example they got the 5DS/5DSR production ratio completely wrong at launch despite the fact that there were very strong indications that the 5DSR would be the most popular of the two.
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
angrykarl said:
Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or shitty APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere. But are there really only two categories? People who buy Rebels and then pros with no price/weight limits?

I always thought the Canon's strategy of not-offering better EF-S glass is to lure people into fullframe. But how many people really jump into fullframe with such a huge money leap? Because it's mostly targetted on pros, the bodies are expensive and so are L lenses (and heavy because f/1.4 etc). The non-L primes are mostly really old. Sure, people could buy older versions of L glass, but that usually means no IS, serious IQ pitfalls and big weight. I would expect Canon to offer more tiers of fullframe bodies and lenses (f/2 or f/2.8, STM, no weather sealing), especially with the potential release of a mirrorless EF fullframe and DSLR sales falling. Canon seems like a split personality, they are luring people in and keeping it an exclusive club at the same time.

Sure, Canon still sells a lot (but mostly Rebels right?), and Canon knows the market best, but it's inevitable that in a couple of years even more people would be happy with cameras in their phones. Which would mean even less people would care for entry-level APS-C cameras. Isn't this the best time to move more people into fullframe, where the prices will inevitably be higher?

Sorry for the rant, I guess I'll just have to get used to the fact I am not the market. ;D

Inexpensive APS-C zooms, yes, but not all of them are poor quality. Also, the core EF lens market would seem to be zooms, not primes, and that is what Canon has been concentrating on for quite a while now. They have kept the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 on the market for less than $350, and they seem to sell pretty well. From the reviews, a lot of the sales seem to be to APS-C owners buying their first lenses. Not sure how well they would sell if they were upgraded with IS and priced over $500, or what Canon's margins would look like.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 27, 2015
321
0
Canoneer said:
I'm not sure if optical stabilization works with extenders since it's inherently designed to work with a specific focal length. I'd like to know this as well. Maybe Canon has IS teleconverters?
It works for the 100-400 and 70-200 with IS. It does not really matter for the IS if you put a sensor behind the lens or first a TC and then a sensor. The image leaving the lens is already stabilized, you can do with it whatever you want.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 28, 2013
1,612
272
70
MayaTlab said:
angrykarl said:
Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or shitty APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that at least in terms of volume, the sales are happening exactly right where Canon's current prime lineup is failing the most : mid-range 50 and 85mm lenses (around €500). Heck, on Amazon, the Nikon 50mm f1.4G outsells the f1.8G, despite most reviews stating that the latter is a better buy. Also, Fuji delayed the development of faster lenses in favour of their smaller f2 lineup when they saw how well it was selling.

Canon knows the market best

Relative to other manufacturers ? Most likely. In absolute terms ? They make plenty of mistakes. For example they got the 5DS/5DSR production ratio completely wrong at launch despite the fact that there were very strong indications that the 5DSR would be the most popular of the two.
Not so sure I agree with your logic. Firstly they aimed the 5DS/Sr at studio photographers mainly focused on fashion and certain materials give a moire effect without an AA filter even a weak one like they have in the 5DS. Secondly its even more of an issue in shooting video that's why ALL high end camera manufacturers (Red, Arri, Sony, Panasonic) have them fitted in their TV and motion picture cameras.
Granted the 5DS/Sr is not really a high end video camera but it is used for high end fashion and I for one didn't buy the 5DSr because of moire concerns.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
Canoneer said:
jolyonralph said:
But will it work with extenders?

For me that's the biggest plus about the 135 2.0L

I'm not sure if optical stabilization works with extenders since it's inherently designed to work with a specific focal length. I'd like to know this as well. Maybe Canon has IS teleconverters?

I can use the same 1.4xIII or 2xIII with my 70-200/2.8L IS II and my 600/4L IS. The only reason a new 135/2L IS would not work with extenders is of the extra elements for IS alter the optical design such that the rear element is too close to the mount for the lens to accept a TC.

IIRC, Canon did file at least one patent on a TC with IS.
 
Upvote 0

rbr

Sep 11, 2010
129
64
I agree with everything you say. Not everyone needs, can afford, or wants to carry a slow zoom or a sack of heavy and expensive fast L primes no matter what your level of experience is. When the 24/28/35 IS trio came out I thought they were just the first in a new series of nice practical lenses to come out, but that was the end of it. They need to expand that line with a few more.


angrykarl said:
Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or shitty APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere. But are there really only two categories? People who buy Rebels and then pros with no price/weight limits?

I always thought the Canon's strategy of not-offering better EF-S glass is to lure people into fullframe. But how many people really jump into fullframe with such a huge money leap? Because it's mostly targetted on pros, the bodies are expensive and so are L lenses (and heavy because f/1.4 etc). The non-L primes are mostly really old. Sure, people could buy older versions of L glass, but that usually means no IS, serious IQ pitfalls and big weight. I would expect Canon to offer more tiers of fullframe bodies and lenses (f/2 or f/2.8, STM, no weather sealing), especially with the potential release of a mirrorless EF fullframe and DSLR sales falling. Canon seems like a split personality, they are luring people in and keeping it an exclusive club at the same time.

Sure, Canon still sells a lot (but mostly Rebels right?), and Canon knows the market best, but it's inevitable that in a couple of years even more people would be happy with cameras in their phones. Which would mean even less people would care for entry-level APS-C cameras. Isn't this the best time to move more people into fullframe, where the prices will inevitably be higher?

Sorry for the rant, I guess I'll just have to get used to the fact I am not the market. ;D
 
Upvote 0
jeffa4444 said:
MayaTlab said:
angrykarl said:
Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or shitty APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that at least in terms of volume, the sales are happening exactly right where Canon's current prime lineup is failing the most : mid-range 50 and 85mm lenses (around €500). Heck, on Amazon, the Nikon 50mm f1.4G outsells the f1.8G, despite most reviews stating that the latter is a better buy. Also, Fuji delayed the development of faster lenses in favour of their smaller f2 lineup when they saw how well it was selling.

Canon knows the market best

Relative to other manufacturers ? Most likely. In absolute terms ? They make plenty of mistakes. For example they got the 5DS/5DSR production ratio completely wrong at launch despite the fact that there were very strong indications that the 5DSR would be the most popular of the two.
Not so sure I agree with your logic. Firstly they aimed the 5DS/Sr at studio photographers mainly focused on fashion and certain materials give a moire effect without an AA filter even a weak one like they have in the 5DS. Secondly its even more of an issue in shooting video that's why ALL high end camera manufacturers (Red, Arri, Sony, Panasonic) have them fitted in their TV and motion picture cameras.
Granted the 5DS/Sr is not really a high end video camera but it is used for high end fashion and I for one didn't buy the 5DSr because of moire concerns.

I wasn't arguing whether the 5DS is worth it or not.
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
angrykarl said:
Sorry for the rant, I guess I'll just have to get used to the fact I am not the market. ;D

Depends on what you want. If you want small + fast + prime + crop lenses, leave Canon APS-C and move to Fuji now. Canon will never make these. I agree that Canon seems to have abandoned mid-to-high-end EF-S glass.

But if you can give a little on your requirements, you're better off than you think. Canon offers a wonderful list of not pricey mid-level EF primes to complement the EF-S offerings already out there:

Standard prime --> get the EF-S 35 f/2.8 IS Macro STM or EF 35 f/2 IS USM for a FF 50-ish lens
Indoor Portraiture --> get either the 50 f/1.8 STM or 50 f/1.4 USM for an FF 85-ish lens
Outdoor Portraiture --> get the EF 85 f/1.8 USM for an FF 135-ish lens
Macro with some working distance --> get the EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro USM for a FF 100-ish macro lens

The only area you are SOL on crop is a wide prime or if you insist on lenses being no bigger than they need to be for a crop sensor, in which case, again, Fuji is 100% the move.

- A
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
neuroanatomist said:
I can use the same 1.4xIII or 2xIII with my 70-200/2.8L IS II and my 600/4L IS. The only reason a new 135/2L IS would not work with extenders is of the extra elements for IS alter the optical design such that the rear element is too close to the mount for the lens to accept a TC.

IIRC, Canon did file at least one patent on a TC with IS.

Yep, but this would be a takeaway compared to the current 135L. They can take away our FTM mechanically focusing USM from mid-range EF primes, but I don't see them taking away this (second-tier but still nice) feature from the 135L II, which will surely be marketed as a top-end tool. Just a hunch.

- A
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
ahsanford said:
neuroanatomist said:
I can use the same 1.4xIII or 2xIII with my 70-200/2.8L IS II and my 600/4L IS. The only reason a new 135/2L IS would not work with extenders is of the extra elements for IS alter the optical design such that the rear element is too close to the mount for the lens to accept a TC.

IIRC, Canon did file at least one patent on a TC with IS.

Yep, but this would be a takeaway compared to the current 135L. They can take away our FTM mechanically focusing USM from mid-range EF primes, but I don't see them taking away this (second-tier but still nice) feature from the 135L II, which will surely be marketed as a top-end tool. Just a hunch.

Agreed. Looking at the current 135/2L design, there's plenty of space for the IS group.

ef335-lens-construction.gif
 
Upvote 0
Mar 26, 2014
1,443
536
angrykarl said:
People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. ... But are there really only two categories? People who buy Rebels and then pros with no price/weight limits?

As far as those two lenses go, I think there are only two categories.

An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.
 
Upvote 0

ethanz

1DX II
CR Pro
Apr 12, 2016
1,194
510
ethanzentz.com
ahsanford said:
angrykarl said:
Sorry for the rant, I guess I'll just have to get used to the fact I am not the market. ;D

The only area you are SOL on crop is a wide prime or if you insist on lenses being no bigger than they need to be for a crop sensor, in which case, again, Fuji is 100% the move.

- A

The EF-S 10-18 is a great wide angle lens for the price, though not prime, its still good.
 
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
jeffa4444 said:
Not so sure I agree with your logic. Firstly they aimed the 5DS/Sr at studio photographers mainly focused on fashion and certain materials give a moire effect without an AA filter even a weak one like they have in the 5DS. Secondly its even more of an issue in shooting video that's why ALL high end camera manufacturers (Red, Arri, Sony, Panasonic) have them fitted in their TV and motion picture cameras.
Granted the 5DS/Sr is not really a high end video camera but it is used for high end fashion and I for one didn't buy the 5DSr because of moire concerns.

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/23/comic-thats-moire-photography/
 
Upvote 0
Antono Refa said:
An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.
Plus it'd also immediately face competition from the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC. At the moment those two lenses avoid each other as there is just enough of a price and size difference for them to co-exist, but a Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS would at least be the size and price of the Tamron.


The Canon 100mm f/2 has a better chance of being updated to have IS because there aren't any third-party lenses hitting that spec, and there's enough room 'under' the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro for the f/2 to be updated without cannibalising Canon's own lenses. The 85mm has loads of competition and needs to stay as simple and cheap as possible to remain viable ('cheap and simple' being its main selling point), but the 100mm has fewer competitors despite being practically the same lens.


As far as the 135mm goes, I think giving it IS and more robust build quality was inevitable, especially now that several other companies make optically-better equivalents, including the very cheap Samyang. (While optic quality isn't the be-all end-all of a short telephoto lens, it's the main selling point of the 135mm; if you want a soft look you typically go for the 85mm f/1.2 instead.) I would expect every single one of Canon's 'core' L lenses to be updated with IS and more robust sealing over the next ten years. There's going to come a time when there's no such thing as a non-IS lens, and it makes sense to start on that inevitable journey with the biggest-selling L lenses.

Personally, I'm waiting for an IS update of the 180mm, but in the meantime, sure, I'll take the 135mm with IS.
 
Upvote 0
CanonFanBoy said:
geekpower said:
CanonFanBoy said:
I wonder whether BR will appear here.

As everybody tells you every time you ask this about every new lens, no, BR is only useful for wide angle lenses.

Well, then why don't you explain to me why that is and what makes you say that... other than forum speculation. Show me the facts / data or where Canon says this. Then I'll stop asking. So far only the 35mm f/1.4 II has it. Personally, I think you are wrong. BTW, everybody does not tell me this. Just a few who have no facts to back it up. None.

Geek out over this:
http://lenses.reviewed.com/features/canon-quietly-shows-new-600mm-f4l-do-with-br-optics

Let me google that for you...

This is from Canon themselves:

http://www.canon-asia.com/cplus/en/br-lens-elements/

"As conventional glass lens combinations are unable to correct chromatic aberration, this is usually done using special lenses with different refractive indices, such as fluorite or UD lenses. However, there are some residual chromatic aberrations even these lenses may not be able to fully correct, which we refer to as “secondary spectrum”. Large, wide-angle lenses tend to be particularly prone to them."

So while BR certainly wouldn't hurt on a telephoto, the phenomenon that BR is meant to combat is much more severe in wide-angle lenses, and it's very reasonable to assume that from a bang for the buck perspective, that's where you will tend to see it applied.
 
Upvote 0