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

[jd7]

His point was that there is a lot more to a lens than just maximum aperture and whether or not it has IS, and that that is illustrated by the fact that Canon has for a long time happily sold an 85 1.8 USM alongside a much higher priced 85 1.2L (original and mk II), and sold a 50 1.4 USM alongside a much higher priced 50 1.2L (not to mention a much cheaper 50 1.8 micro USM and more recently STM).

And I explained why, IMHO, that's a different case.

I think I understand your point, but I am not so sure about the idea the 1.2Ls are specialist portrait lenses in a way so far different from what a 1.4L IS lens is or would be.

And anyway, think about a different case: Canon sells a 35 1.4L II which doesn't have IS, and yet sells a much cheaper 35 2 IS.

...it is hard to imagine the cheaper lens stealing too many genuine sales from the L lens. (Many of us may want the L lens but settle for the cheaper lens, but that is not the same as saying we would have paid up for the L lens if the cheaper lens was not available.)

No, it isn't.

The 85mm f/1.8 is very good as it is. If Canon just added IS, plenty of people who can afford the L would settle on buying the non-L to save the money.

[Why? Because some people, say those who shoot in a studio, don't need weather sealing. Same for CPS, etc.]

While weather sealing may well be an important drawcard for some buyers, there are other possible reasons to want an L lens too. There are lots of other qualities to attract buyers - optical qualities like flair resistance, etc), performance factors such as AF speed and accuracy, and build quality factors such as reliability and longevity.

I'm sure there are some who might settle for the cheaper lens even though they would have bought the more expensive L lens if the cheaper one didn't exist, but:

1. just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they will buy it - sometimes people just don't feel comfortable spending more than a certain amount on a particular thing, especially if it's a hobby (probably much less relevant to someone shooting professionally)

2. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, Canon still gets revenue and presumably some profit when it sells the less expensive lens

3. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, the question is how many extra sales does Canon make by having the cheaper lens on the market compared with just having the more expensive lens on the market? This links back to the two points above - if Canon makes enough sales of the cheaper lens, and many of those sales are sales it would not have made if it only had the more expensive lens on the market, it should be able to make more money overall than if it just had the more expensive lens on the market.

I think there is a good chance Canon will make an 85 1.8 IS USM one of these days, but I don't think it's any surprise the more expensive lens has come out first - to try to maximise the number of people who need a lens now / are impatient to break down and pay for the more expensive lens. (I'm not saying it always has to be done that way, and yes I know Canon released the 35 2 IS before the 35 1.4L II. All I'm saying is it doesn't seem particularly surprising for the more expensive version to come out first.)

 

[ahsanford]

Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?

I do not assume those lenses will be released. Non-L primes no longer get ring USM these days (they haven't in a good 5 years or so). So right there the L vs. Non-L would be a marked difference.

But if they did, the pricier L lenses would likely be sharper, better built, have weather sealing, possibly have larger designs to combat vignetting, aberrations, etc. They also could have larger focus rings with a longer throw, reel in better color and/or bokeh, focus more quickly, etc.

Again, pegging a prime lens's value on how fast it is and and if it has IS drives around a boatload of features, how it performs, etc.

- A

 

[MayaTlab]

1. just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they will buy it - sometimes people just don't feel comfortable spending more than a certain amount on a particular thing, especially if it's a hobby (probably much less relevant to someone shooting professionally)

2. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, Canon still gets revenue and presumably some profit when it sells the less expensive lens

3. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, the question is how many extra sales does Canon make by having the cheaper lens on the market compared with just having the more expensive lens on the market? This links back to the two points above - if Canon makes enough sales of the cheaper lens, and many of those sales are sales it would not have made if it only had the more expensive lens on the market, it should be able to make more money overall than if it just had the more expensive lens on the market.

Count me in that category. I can afford the 85mm f1.4 IS USM. But I'll never, ever buy it. I don't give a rat's bottom about a 85mm lens that's faster than f2. I just don't need it, at all. To me it's unneeded extra weight, cost, and size. But I do need a good 85mm f2/f2.4 lens. And that's where the 85mm f1.8, albeit undoubtedly a great design given its age, falls short in various ways. That's even more so with Canon's 50mm lineup.

Canon not delivering a proper midrange prime lineup above 35mm is one less reason for me to stick with the system.

 

[Antono Refa]

Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?

I do not assume those lenses will be released. Non-L primes no longer get ring USM these days (they haven't in a good 5 years or so). So right there the L vs. Non-L would be a marked difference.

But if they did, the pricier L lenses would likely be sharper, better built, have weather sealing, possibly have larger designs to combat vignetting, aberrations, etc. They also could have larger focus rings with a longer throw, reel in better color and/or bokeh, focus more quickly, etc.

First, you make some assumptions here I could throw in your face just like you & your body just did.

Then some people might look very differently on this list. E.g. smaller lens might be a positive, vignetting can be corrected (the current f/1.8 has <2 stops wide open, reasonable), etc.

 

[symmar22]

1. just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they will buy it - sometimes people just don't feel comfortable spending more than a certain amount on a particular thing, especially if it's a hobby (probably much less relevant to someone shooting professionally)

2. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, Canon still gets revenue and presumably some profit when it sells the less expensive lens

3. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, the question is how many extra sales does Canon make by having the cheaper lens on the market compared with just having the more expensive lens on the market? This links back to the two points above - if Canon makes enough sales of the cheaper lens, and many of those sales are sales it would not have made if it only had the more expensive lens on the market, it should be able to make more money overall than if it just had the more expensive lens on the market.

Count me in that category. I can afford the 85mm f1.4 IS USM. But I'll never, ever buy it. I don't give a rat's bottom about a 85mm lens that's faster than f2. I just don't need it, at all. To me it's unneeded extra weight, cost, and size. But I do need a good 85mm f2/f2.4 lens. And that's where the 85mm f1.8, albeit undoubtedly a great design given its age, falls short in various ways. That's even more so with Canon's 50mm lineup.

Canon not delivering a proper midrange prime lineup above 35mm is one less reason for me to stick with the system.

+1 for some non-L IS primes, I work with about 12 lenses, a few are non L (15mm Fisheye, 35mm IS, 40mm, 45 TS-E , 90TS-E) and I never see them as cheaper lenses to my L ones, they do their job, no client ever complained. None of them ever had to be serviced, weather sealing is nice but not a must for me and I very seldom need extreme apertures. The 35mm IS and 40 mm pancake are among my sharpest lenses, I never looked into the 35mm 1.4L, too big and heavy, wouldn't bring anything to my work. My Pelican case full of lenses is too heavy already, and bigger an brighter is not a must in my case.

I too would love to see an 85mm f1.8 or even f2 with IS the same range as the 24,28 and 35mm, I'd buy it the day it's available. The 1.4 seems nice, but it's not a lens I want. I am perfectly happy (and my clients too) with the 35mm IS and cheap 40mm pancake. I even tried to replace my 15mm fisheye with the L zoom, and couln't see a difference except more weight size an price, so I kept the 15mm.

I was a Nikon shooter in film days and started too invest in the brightest series of the AI-S lenses (24 f2, 35f1.4, 851.4 and 135 f2) to realize a few years later that their smaller apertures brothers all did a better job for my work. Fact is that making lenses less bright simplifies the optical formula and allows to make lenses as good if not better than their super bright equivalents. What was true 30 years ago is still true, even more since the digital age where ISO is not a problem anymore. Not everything requires to be shot at 1.4, and for those smaller f-stops, less bright lenses do the same job. If they weight half and cost one third, it's all bonus.

As for the 135mm I vote for a 135mm f2 IS instead of 1.8, but I don't think I'll upgrade mine anyway.

It's a bit of a trick of the marketing to make one believe he always need the biggest and most expensive; some do, most of us don't, but it's not to put aside the social status that a camera and a big lens seem to deliver.

 

[MayaTlab]

1. just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they will buy it - sometimes people just don't feel comfortable spending more than a certain amount on a particular thing, especially if it's a hobby (probably much less relevant to someone shooting professionally)

2. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, Canon still gets revenue and presumably some profit when it sells the less expensive lens

3. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, the question is how many extra sales does Canon make by having the cheaper lens on the market compared with just having the more expensive lens on the market? This links back to the two points above - if Canon makes enough sales of the cheaper lens, and many of those sales are sales it would not have made if it only had the more expensive lens on the market, it should be able to make more money overall than if it just had the more expensive lens on the market.

Count me in that category. I can afford the 85mm f1.4 IS USM. But I'll never, ever buy it. I don't give a rat's bottom about a 85mm lens that's faster than f2. I just don't need it, at all. To me it's unneeded extra weight, cost, and size. But I do need a good 85mm f2/f2.4 lens. And that's where the 85mm f1.8, albeit undoubtedly a great design given its age, falls short in various ways. That's even more so with Canon's 50mm lineup.

Canon not delivering a proper midrange prime lineup above 35mm is one less reason for me to stick with the system.

+1 for some non-L IS primes, I work with about 12 lenses, a few are non L (15mm Fisheye, 35mm IS, 40mm, 45 TS-E , 90TS-E) and I never see them as cheaper lenses to my L ones, they do their job, no client ever complained. None of them ever had to be serviced, weather sealing is nice but not a must for me and I very seldom need extreme apertures. The 35mm IS and 40 mm pancake are among my sharpest lenses, I never looked into the 35mm 1.4L, too big and heavy, wouldn't bring anything to my work. My Pelican case full of lenses is too heavy already, and bigger an brighter is not a must in my case.

I too would love to see an 85mm f1.8 or even f2 with IS the same range as the 24,28 and 35mm, I'd buy it the day it's available. The 1.4 seems nice, but it's not a lens I want. I am perfectly happy (and my clients too) with the 35mm IS and cheap 40mm pancake. I even tried to replace my 15mm fisheye with the L zoom, and couln't see a difference except more weight size an price, so I kept the 15mm.

I was a Nikon shooter in film days and started too invest in the brightest series of the AI-S lenses (24 f2, 35f1.4, 851.4 and 135 f2) to realize a few years later that their smaller apertures brothers all did a better job for my work. Fact is that making lenses less bright simplifies the optical formula and allows to make lenses as good if not better than their super bright equivalents. What was true 30 years ago is still true, even more since the digital age where ISO is not a problem anymore. Not everything requires to be shot at 1.4, and for those smaller f-stops, less bright lenses do the same job. If they weight half and cost one third, it's all bonus.

As for the 135mm I vote for a 135mm f2 IS instead of 1.8, but I don't think I'll upgrade mine anyway.

It's a bit of a trick of the marketing to make one believe he always need the biggest and most expensive; some do, most of us don't, but it's not to put aside the social status that a camera and a big lens seem to deliver.

When I was a kid in the 90s I was able to borrow my grandfather's rangefinders to play Tintin. So for me large lenses have always been the exception, not the rule, and I've never really loved using them.

To put things in very concrete terms : Canon hasn't received any lens money from me since 2012 other than the €125 50mm STM. There's at least €1500, even 2000 euros in my wallet for Canon if the mid-range prime lineup is developed above the 35mm IS USM's focal range and in that spirit.

 

[BillB]

When I was a kid in the 90s I was able to borrow my grandfather's rangefinders to play Tintin. So for me large lenses have always been the exception, not the rule, and I've never really loved using them.

To put things in very concrete terms : Canon hasn't received any lens money from me since 2012 other than the €125 50mm STM. There's at least €1500, even 2000 euros in my wallet for Canon if the mid-range prime lineup is developed above the 35mm IS USM's focal range and in that spirit.

At least in the US, the Canon Store is now selling the 100mm f2.8 IS macro for $750, usual price $1000. If I were looking to upgrade my 85mm f1.8 I would grab one.

 

[MayaTlab]

When I was a kid in the 90s I was able to borrow my grandfather's rangefinders to play Tintin. So for me large lenses have always been the exception, not the rule, and I've never really loved using them.

To put things in very concrete terms : Canon hasn't received any lens money from me since 2012 other than the €125 50mm STM. There's at least €1500, even 2000 euros in my wallet for Canon if the mid-range prime lineup is developed above the 35mm IS USM's focal range and in that spirit.

At least in the US, the Canon Store is now selling the 100mm f2.8 IS macro for $750, usual price $1000. If I were looking to upgrade my 85mm f1.8 I would grab one.

I love the 100mm f2.8 IS USM's overall IQ, and I used to own one, but I find the difference in focal length noticeable and prefer to use the smaller 85mm f1.8 when shooting most of the time.

 

[slclick]

So....back to the focal length at hand, the 135mm lens rumored to be refreshed...

What BESIDES image stabilization are you looking for in an update to this lens?

Vignetting correction? Minimizing flare? The micro contrast, color rendition and sharpness are already top notch.

 

[danfaz]

So....back to the focal length at hand, the 135mm lens rumored to be refreshed...

What BESIDES image stabilization are you looking for in an update to this lens?

Vignetting correction? Minimizing flare? The micro contrast, color rendition and sharpness are already top notch.

Thanks for getting us back on track! Aside from IS, I am looking forward to weather-sealing. While not a huge factor, I have been caught in sudden rain showers that made me pack up. The 135mm is ideal for outdoors, but lack of any weather-sealing is a weakness.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So....back to the focal length at hand, the 135mm lens rumored to be refreshed...

What BESIDES image stabilization are you looking for in an update to this lens?

Vignetting correction? Minimizing flare? The micro contrast, color rendition and sharpness are already top notch.

Thanks for getting us back on track! Aside from IS, I am looking forward to weather-sealing. While not a huge factor, I have been caught in sudden rain showers that made me pack up. The 135mm is ideal for outdoors, but lack of any weather-sealing is a weakness.

Indeed. With apologies and at the risk of again diverging from the topical focal length, we had our first real snowfall of the season today (still ongoing, in fact), and I was able to take some nice portraits of the kids in the snow with the 85/1.4L IS, whereas I wouldn't have taken the 85/1.2L II out in the snow.

 

[slclick]

So....back to the focal length at hand, the 135mm lens rumored to be refreshed...

What BESIDES image stabilization are you looking for in an update to this lens?

Vignetting correction? Minimizing flare? The micro contrast, color rendition and sharpness are already top notch.

Thanks for getting us back on track! Aside from IS, I am looking forward to weather-sealing. While not a huge factor, I have been caught in sudden rain showers that made me pack up. The 135mm is ideal for outdoors, but lack of any weather-sealing is a weakness.

Indeed. With apologies and at the risk of again diverging from the topical focal length, we had our first real snowfall of the season today (still ongoing, in fact), and I was able to take some nice portraits of the kids in the snow with the 85/1.4L IS, whereas I wouldn't have taken the 85/1.2L II out in the snow.

Only a mere segue flesh wound, you kept to weather sealing and I agree with two posts above, that would be quite welcome on the 135L 2 (I know I know, if it's the 135L IS, it's not a Mk2.)

 

[ahsanford]

So....back to the focal length at hand, the 135mm lens rumored to be refreshed...

What BESIDES image stabilization are you looking for in an update to this lens?

Vignetting correction? Minimizing flare? The micro contrast, color rendition and sharpness are already top notch.

It was a top notch lens. As Zeiss 135 Milvus and the Sigma 135 Art have shown, the 135L is an older design that would benefit from an update.

I'd read Dustin's 135mm Milvus review for what is possible in this day and age:

https://dustinabbott.net/2016/09/zeiss-milvus-135mm-f2-review/

Canon would do well to walk towards this level of performance. I don't say that as a slight on the 135L (by any measure a legendary piece of kit). It's just a 20+ year old lens that could use an update.

- A

 

[aceflibble]

For perspective, even the cheap Samyang 135mm beats the existing Canon in every optical regard, and the focus ring is much better for manual focus, too. (Though of course, manual focus is its only option...)

The Canon 135mm f/2L has served well for many years now, but there's no denying that basically everyone else can build a better 135mm lens now, Canon themselves could improve it greatly, and as we move forward with higher-resolution sensors and higher-resolution displays (print sizes haven't changed much, but realistically, most images are viewed on screens now), the current 135mm is only going to show its age more and more.

Literally everything about it can be improved, so the only real question is how far can/will Canon take it within its price bracket, or if they'll bump up the price.

 

[ahsanford]

First, you make some assumptions here I could throw in your face just like you & your body just did.

Then some people might look very differently on this list. E.g. smaller lens might be a positive, vignetting can be corrected (the current f/1.8 has <2 stops wide open, reasonable), etc.

You are arguing with someone who agrees with you on at least a piece of this. I love the value proposition of the 'one stop slower lens with IS that is half the size/weight as the faster L lens' lenses. I personally own and love a few of them:

35 f/2 IS
16-35 f/4L IS
24-70 f/4L IS

But I am not the market.

If we want to disregard Canon's non-L ring USM avoidance of late, Canon could absolutely sell an 85 f/1.8 IS USM alongside an 85 f/1.4L IS USM and still sell both lenses quite well without the cheaper undercutting the more expensive one. Because the L would be sealed, outresolve the f/1.8 lens, probably have more blades and generate softer bokeh, manage aberrations better, have better build quality, etc.

I'll say it again: the appeal of lens goes well past the specs defined in its name, i.e. a lens is much more than its max aperture and if it has IS.

- A

 

[Maximilian]

...
I love the value proposition of the 'one stop slower lens with IS that is half the size/weight as the faster L lens' lenses. I
...
But I am not the market.
...

At least there are two people in the same market *pointing on myself*
Question is how many are "a market" in the eyes of Canon

 

[Antono Refa]

First, you make some assumptions here I could throw in your face just like you & your body just did.

Then some people might look very differently on this list. E.g. smaller lens might be a positive, vignetting can be corrected (the current f/1.8 has <2 stops wide open, reasonable), etc.

You are arguing with someone who agrees with you on at least a piece of this. I love the value proposition of the 'one stop slower lens with IS that is half the size/weight as the faster L lens' lenses. I personally own and love a few of them:

35 f/2 IS
16-35 f/4L IS
24-70 f/4L IS

Except both lenses would have IS, the f stop difference would be less than one stop, the weight difference would be a pound. Combine this with the value proposition, and you can see my argument about stealing sales from the f/1.4L IS USM.

But I am not the market.

If we want to disregard Canon's non-L ring USM avoidance of late, Canon could absolutely sell an 85 f/1.8 IS USM alongside an 85 f/1.4L IS USM and still sell both lenses quite well without the cheaper undercutting the more expensive one. Because the L would be sealed, outresolve the f/1.8 lens, probably have more blades and generate softer bokeh, manage aberrations better, have better build quality, etc.

Again...

1) Some people just don't care about weather sealing and build quality, unless a new 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would be worse off than the existing 85mm f/1.8.

2) Question is how big the IQ difference would be. I doubt it would be significant.

Finally, the question is not just whether the hypothetical f/1.8 IS USM would sell well, it's whether it would make more profit than the current f/1.8 USM.

Considering the large investment in making a new lens and the sales [I think] it would steal from the f/1.4L IS USM, I'm not sure it would be more profitable for Canon.

 

[mariuspavel]

IF this lens is as the new 85 1.4 is, i don't know if I can retain myself not to buy it

 

[Talys]

This would be near the top of my "want" list. The combination of focal length, aperture, and IS make it really ideal for headshots.... of my cat

I love the 70-200/2.8 IS (a near perfect cat portrait lens, IMO), but it is a bit heavy to hold steady for protracted periods 1 handed... I need a hand for to get her attention and turn this way or that, unless I want to literally wait forever

f/2.8 or better is a great help for AF when it's quite dark, even though I often have aperture set to f/8 or smaller -- and it's important to do so, because then the cat's eyes fully dilate, and when a flash goes off, with some luck, you can get really nice shots of their eyes.

Ok Ok, I know, nobody cares about my cat

 

[slclick]

This along with an EF-M 85 are it for me. I hefted a Sigma Art 135 and laughed a bit loud at the shop. Sorry, can't deal with a medium tele lens that weighs more than the body.