Canon EF 135mm f/2L II On the Way? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
symmar22 said:vscd said:That's an interesting opinion. I never would call something like 1:2 a makro at all (Zeiss often does). For what do you need a fast f2 lens in the makroworld? Just to use it as normal lens, too? Depth of field is not that likely
I do not use the 50mm 2.5 CM as a real macro lens, for real macro, 100mm lenses or more are IMO much better suited for the distance they give to the subject. My use of the 50mm is as a reproduction lens (paintings or flat material samples are a good example), close-up of small to medium subjects (food photography) and architecture.
+1. I've always heard the 50 f/2.5 Macro described as an art reproduction lens. I often completely disregard it in my list of Canon 50s as it has a relatively slow max aperture and lacks a ton of creature comforts -- no internal focusing, no USM, etc.
Oh, and it's a design from 1987. This is not 'an oldie but a goodie' -- it's just old.
- A
Upvote
0
vscd said:mb66energy said:
May not be impossible. Just look at the size of a Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color Skopar and put in an STM which should not enlarge the design too much. I think 28mm are possible, indeed, That would be a streetphotography-killer
I agree a 28mm f/2.8 pancake would be awesome. I think it can be done as well. Speaking of the Voigtlander, I'm always impressed how compact/pancake their 20mm f/3.5 Color Skopar is. I know people like to beat it up for it's corner sharpness and it's overall ability to resolve test charts. But there is just something about the way that lens renders and how the colors come out that I really enjoy the pictures that come out from that lens.
Upvote
0
symmar22 said:vscd said:
That's an interesting opinion. I never would call something like 1:2 a makro at all (Zeiss often does). For what do you need a fast f2 lens in the makroworld? Just to use it as normal lens, too? Depth of field is not that likely
I do not use the 50mm 2.5 CM as a real macro lens, for real macro, 100mm lenses or more are IMO much better suited for the distance they give to the subject. My use of the 50mm is as a reproduction lens (paintings or flat material samples are a good example), close-up of small to medium subjects (food photography) and architecture. In these fields of use, there is nothing better than a macro lens if you need a 50mm, since they offer :
- no field curvature (repro of flat subjects)
- zero distortion (architecture)
- better than normal lenses behaviour at small f-stops (11-16)
- often slightly sharper than a 100mm macro equivalent.
I've never used mine at more than 1:2 ratio (since the film days I've been using 100mm or more for super close up), so I am more talking about close-up capability than real macro, f2 would make it a bit closer to an all-rounder. I think that is the very reason Zeiss makes a 50 macro f2 1:2.
I am still surprised by the IQ of the 50mm f2.5 CM when used between f5.6 and f16, it behaves very well on the 5DSr. The main problem is the prehistoric AF, and very nasty manual focusing.
The AF and manual focusing made me end up selling mine. I didn't have your needs and the 100mm L became one of my most used lenses.
Upvote
0
carrboro said:symmar22 said:vscd said:
That's an interesting opinion. I never would call something like 1:2 a makro at all (Zeiss often does). For what do you need a fast f2 lens in the makroworld? Just to use it as normal lens, too? Depth of field is not that likely
I do not use the 50mm 2.5 CM as a real macro lens, for real macro, 100mm lenses or more are IMO much better suited for the distance they give to the subject. My use of the 50mm is as a reproduction lens (paintings or flat material samples are a good example), close-up of small to medium subjects (food photography) and architecture. In these fields of use, there is nothing better than a macro lens if you need a 50mm, since they offer :
- no field curvature (repro of flat subjects)
- zero distortion (architecture)
- better than normal lenses behaviour at small f-stops (11-16)
- often slightly sharper than a 100mm macro equivalent.
I've never used mine at more than 1:2 ratio (since the film days I've been using 100mm or more for super close up), so I am more talking about close-up capability than real macro, f2 would make it a bit closer to an all-rounder. I think that is the very reason Zeiss makes a 50 macro f2 1:2.
I am still surprised by the IQ of the 50mm f2.5 CM when used between f5.6 and f16, it behaves very well on the 5DSr. The main problem is the prehistoric AF, and very nasty manual focusing.
The AF and manual focusing made me end up selling mine. I didn't have your needs and the 100mm L became one of my most used lenses.
Clearly, the AF and manual focus are the very bad part of this lens. The manual focus feels like there is some sand inside, it is a pain to use for live view critical focus. The AF is ... well micro motor from 1987; slow and noisy. That's a shame since the optical formula is excellent considering its age. USM and IS would be very welcome additions.
Upvote
0
tron said:
Image stabilisation would definitely hurt:
1. It would hurt your wallet
2. It would hurt the sharpness of your images
3. It would hurt your arms due to the extra length and weight it adds
Ouch!
Upvote
0
Sator said:
The 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII is the sharpest 70-200 Canon have ever made, clearly IS does not impact sharpness to any visible degree.
Upvote
0
Sator said:
The 16-35 f/4L IS is a very good example of a reasonably priced and comfortable to handle image stabilized lens that's sharp out to the corners. It didn't add much weight to it's closest sibling the 17-40 and we even got an extra mm at the wide end for our trouble! (Sshh wide is where it matters!)
I think it would be safe to assume Canon could do the same for the 135L if they wanted to. They've had years to think about it!
Upvote
0
tron said:
such courage to say this.. as mortar rounds fall....around you....
I completely agree...being now spoiled by recent releases from Canon....
35L ii, 100-400L ii.......
I owned this 135 f2 lens ...and loved it.. and even a while back when I owned it... I saw a bit of CA and slight softness wideopen.... but pretty much ahead of the others in the stable...
and focus was pretty fast ... but not a drooling fast click as sometimes described...
now......I consider it moderately sharp wideopen... not stellar...
and good focus speed....that's it!!
stellar is the 35L ii i m o
I believe Canon should get the new version out ... NOW..
with 4 or 5 stop I.S. .... and industry changing sharpness ...wideopen...
....
basically a mate to 35L ii ... and good to go...on 5Dsr
.......
glad you spoke out on this.....
the lens has had a good...comfy.... ride over the past decade or so....
.... and is still a good value.. @ ~ $900 new / $700 used...
as a canon stockholder...I want the new version...
right now...
to be shown at the next executive committee meeting....
with some socks-rolling examples
and a $1900 price tag....
gimmee!!
....incoming!!!...........
Upvote
0
TommyLee said:
You should probably check this out: http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fwalters/para.html
Upvote
0
from... Etienne
You should probably check this out: http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fwalters/para.html:
your important source says: "This is an indentation. All paragraphs in English MUST begin with an indentation.
haha.......
a while ago it was a sin to play a tritone.....
using it...NOW......gives us so much more
in colors and substitution...
thank God... we broke free.... of compliance
/////
naw...I have had...structure....
an interesting journey... once...
but............................................................
I like free form...better...
..... you can follow that if it pleases you....
You should probably check this out: http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fwalters/para.html:
your important source says: "This is an indentation. All paragraphs in English MUST begin with an indentation.
haha.......
a while ago it was a sin to play a tritone.....
using it...NOW......gives us so much more
in colors and substitution...
thank God... we broke free.... of compliance
/////
naw...I have had...structure....
an interesting journey... once...
but............................................................
I like free form...better...
..... you can follow that if it pleases you....
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
