Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS Coming in 2017 [CR2]

[Maiaibing]

Agree. Shooting the 135L and 70-200 IS L II side-by-side the zoom cannot compete with the prime lens' isolation and bokeh quality wide open. This is even true if you shoot the zoom @200mm. No pixel peeping needed.

However, once you stop down, its a much closer call, among others due to the zoom having more rounded focus blades than the prime <f/16 (both need an upgrade here for sure to 9 fully rounded).

Not convinced you're right there; in a genuinely blind test of different subjects I recon it is difficult to reliably pick out the 135 @ f2 against the zoom at 135 f2.8, or certainly 200 f2.8.

I'm not a fan of ultra shallow depth of field close up, or rather ultra wide apertures close up. At a greater distance that is another story but then the performance of the lens wide open has to be in another league too.

To me the advantages of primes are the fact they are smaller, lighter, changing the handling of the camera, and also generally cheaper. I think many buy the current 135 because it is now attractively priced and is quite a bit smaller than the zoom. I can see the new 135 IS being considerably more expensive and larger to boot.

If you shoot both the 135L and the zoom wide open - even with the zoom @200mm - there is zero doubt whatsoever which is which (if there is a meaningful background for evaluating the bokeh). 135L wins hands down. Not even close.

I did extensive side-by-side shoots with the two and the 70-200mm f/4 IS L to evaluate the bokeh at all settings and with a range of backgrounds.

And yes, I'm a bokeh freak. ;D

 

[scyrene]

Agree. Shooting the 135L and 70-200 IS L II side-by-side the zoom cannot compete with the prime lens' isolation and bokeh quality wide open. This is even true if you shoot the zoom @200mm. No pixel peeping needed.

However, once you stop down, its a much closer call, among others due to the zoom having more rounded focus blades than the prime <f/16 (both need an upgrade here for sure to 9 fully rounded).

Not convinced you're right there; in a genuinely blind test of different subjects I recon it is difficult to reliably pick out the 135 @ f2 against the zoom at 135 f2.8, or certainly 200 f2.8.

I'm not a fan of ultra shallow depth of field close up, or rather ultra wide apertures close up. At a greater distance that is another story but then the performance of the lens wide open has to be in another league too.

To me the advantages of primes are the fact they are smaller, lighter, changing the handling of the camera, and also generally cheaper. I think many buy the current 135 because it is now attractively priced and is quite a bit smaller than the zoom. I can see the new 135 IS being considerably more expensive and larger to boot.

If you shoot both the 135L and the zoom wide open - even with the zoom @200mm - there is zero doubt whatsoever which is which (if there is a meaningful background for evaluating the bokeh). 135L wins hands down. Not even close.

I did extensive side-by-side shoots with the two and the 70-200mm f/4 IS L to evaluate the bokeh at all settings and with a range of backgrounds.

And yes, I'm a bokeh freak. ;D

That's a pretty bold claim. It's hard enough to judge precisely what FL/aperture was used in a given shot, let alone which lens made it (the MP-E is a notable exception, in ultra closeups that have hexagonal specular highlights, it's a dead giveaway).

But you've already modified it by saying 'meaningful background'. Can you give some side-by-side examples? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Sporgon]

Ended up getting into a very heated thread

So you mean like normal really ? ;D

I don't own the EF 135!

What ?! I thought ownership of the 135L was mandatory here on CR ?

 

[Sporgon]

Agree. Shooting the 135L and 70-200 IS L II side-by-side the zoom cannot compete with the prime lens' isolation and bokeh quality wide open. This is even true if you shoot the zoom @200mm. No pixel peeping needed.

However, once you stop down, its a much closer call, among others due to the zoom having more rounded focus blades than the prime <f/16 (both need an upgrade here for sure to 9 fully rounded).

Not convinced you're right there; in a genuinely blind test of different subjects I recon it is difficult to reliably pick out the 135 @ f2 against the zoom at 135 f2.8, or certainly 200 f2.8.

I'm not a fan of ultra shallow depth of field close up, or rather ultra wide apertures close up. At a greater distance that is another story but then the performance of the lens wide open has to be in another league too.

To me the advantages of primes are the fact they are smaller, lighter, changing the handling of the camera, and also generally cheaper. I think many buy the current 135 because it is now attractively priced and is quite a bit smaller than the zoom. I can see the new 135 IS being considerably more expensive and larger to boot.

If you shoot both the 135L and the zoom wide open - even with the zoom @200mm - there is zero doubt whatsoever which is which (if there is a meaningful background for evaluating the bokeh). 135L wins hands down. Not even close.

I did extensive side-by-side shoots with the two and the 70-200mm f/4 IS L to evaluate the bokeh at all settings and with a range of backgrounds.

And yes, I'm a bokeh freak. ;D

Then if you get more pleasure and satisfaction in your photography none can argue with that !

It's just that I find if you strip away the emotion and sentiment from having produced those kinds of images with a particular favourite tool it's really surprising what is what when you don't know what was shot with what.

 

[privatebydesign]

Agree. Shooting the 135L and 70-200 IS L II side-by-side the zoom cannot compete with the prime lens' isolation and bokeh quality wide open. This is even true if you shoot the zoom @200mm. No pixel peeping needed.

However, once you stop down, its a much closer call, among others due to the zoom having more rounded focus blades than the prime <f/16 (both need an upgrade here for sure to 9 fully rounded).

Not convinced you're right there; in a genuinely blind test of different subjects I recon it is difficult to reliably pick out the 135 @ f2 against the zoom at 135 f2.8, or certainly 200 f2.8.

I'm not a fan of ultra shallow depth of field close up, or rather ultra wide apertures close up. At a greater distance that is another story but then the performance of the lens wide open has to be in another league too.

To me the advantages of primes are the fact they are smaller, lighter, changing the handling of the camera, and also generally cheaper. I think many buy the current 135 because it is now attractively priced and is quite a bit smaller than the zoom. I can see the new 135 IS being considerably more expensive and larger to boot.

If you shoot both the 135L and the zoom wide open - even with the zoom @200mm - there is zero doubt whatsoever which is which (if there is a meaningful background for evaluating the bokeh). 135L wins hands down. Not even close.

I did extensive side-by-side shoots with the two and the 70-200mm f/4 IS L to evaluate the bokeh at all settings and with a range of backgrounds.

And yes, I'm a bokeh freak. ;D

That's a pretty bold claim. It's hard enough to judge precisely what FL/aperture was used in a given shot, let alone which lens made it (the MP-E is a notable exception, in ultra closeups that have hexagonal specular highlights, it's a dead giveaway).

But you've already modified it by saying 'meaningful background'. Can you give some side-by-side examples? I'm genuinely interested.

It's funny how the same questions roll around

http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/5109

 

[privatebydesign]

Ended up getting into a very heated thread

So you mean like normal really ? ;D

I don't own the EF 135!

What ?! I thought ownership of the 135L was mandatory here on CR ?

It was even worse than 'normal' : RLPhoto took severe exception to my comments, oh well!

If it counts I do still own the FD version

I used the FD 135 f2 for many years, when I went EOS in 2005 I got the 70-200 f2.8 IS and realized there was no point to having both so never bought the EF version.

Now if this rumored 85 f1.4 L with IS comes along I'd almost certainly get that, two stops in a smaller package is tough to say no to.

 

[geekpower]

i recall looking at comparison shots from the 135/2 and 70-200/2.8 and thinking the latter was both sharper, and had smoother bokeh, but given the facts that the 70-200 is much newer, with better coatings and rounded aperture blades, that shouldn't actually shock anyone.

that being said, the current 135 still produces beautiful images and has serious weight and size advantage, so the prospect of something that improves on that base is pretty exciting.

 

[Maiaibing]

And yes, I'm a bokeh freak. ;D

It's just that I find if you strip away the emotion and sentiment from having produced those kinds of images with a particular favourite tool it's really surprising what is what when you don't know what was shot with what.

Agree.

Our most valued pictures are the ones we are emotionally triggered by. Since they are likely to involve people we feel connected to, the importance of the technical quality of these pictures tend to converge towards zero.

However, as a photographer with a capital "P", I do get a little kick out of getting light, color, sharpness, background, bokeh etc. "right".

 

[Eldar]

When my 135/2.0 fell to its death a couple of years back, I was certain I would miss it. But instead of getting a new one, I bought a Zeiss 135/2.0. However, that did not get much use. In most portrait situations I go for the Otus 85/1.4 and if I want something longer, I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II. A new EF 85/1.4L IS will be mighty tempting, but I doubt I will be getting the 135/2.0.

 

[Jopa]

When my 135/2.0 fell to its death a couple of years back, I was certain I would miss it. But instead of getting a new one, I bought a Zeiss 135/2.0. However, that did not get much use. In most portrait situations I go for the Otus 85/1.4 and if I want something longer, I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II. A new EF 85/1.4L IS will be mighty tempting, but I doubt I will be getting the 135/2.0.

I found it's much easier to deal with the Otus compared to the 135 APO. I feel the APO's weight/design is slightly off balance, harder to get sharp photos handheld without bumping the shutter speed to 1/320. I don't have shaky hands and have no problem getting sharp shots with the Otus at 1/100. I'm not sure how it compares to the Milvus 135, it could be improved now. The 135 has it's own magic though. I had the Sony 135 1.8 ZA, that was also an exceptional lens, one of the best for the A-mount.
I've already replaced the Otus (but not planning to sell) with the new Sigma Art, and if Canon makes a great 135mm lens - will have to lay off the 135mm Zeiss most likely

 

[Deleted member 68328]

I re-up this topic.
Any more news about this lens? I'm really looking forward to it...

 

[craiglove]

I preordered the new 85mm but immediately thought that the 135 would be the first one that needed IS. I shoot a lot of music in dark clubs and love both my 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2. My 85 is a great lens but would hold out for the 135 with the IS as it is much more needed at the longer focal length. I will be thrilled to see both although the 85 looks a bit hefty at two pounds...

 

[ahsanford]

I preordered the new 85mm but immediately thought that the 135 would be the first one that needed IS. I shoot a lot of music in dark clubs and love both my 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2. My 85 is a great lens but would hold out for the 135 with the IS as it is much more needed at the longer focal length. I will be thrilled to see both although the 85 looks a bit hefty at two pounds...

It'll help in dark clubs provided no one is moving. In that environment, one would think true speed (f/1.4) is better than 'virtual' speed (i.e. f/2 IS) if moving subjects are involved, right?

- A

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I preordered the new 85mm but immediately thought that the 135 would be the first one that needed IS. I shoot a lot of music in dark clubs and love both my 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2. My 85 is a great lens but would hold out for the 135 with the IS as it is much more needed at the longer focal length. I will be thrilled to see both although the 85 looks a bit hefty at two pounds...

It'll help in dark clubs provided no one is moving. In that environment, one would think true speed (f/1.4) is better than 'virtual' speed (i.e. f/2 IS) if moving subjects are involved, right?

- A

My own personal golden rule for wedding photography is that any shutter speed below 1/50th isn't going to work due to people moving. The just of the 85mm f1.2 is the bright aperture combined with a shooting speed of 1/80th. The problem of the current 135mm f2 L is the less bright aperture and the need to shoot at 1/125th make the lens far less versatile and usable in lower light levels. Effectively, you loose over a stop due to the aperture and you loose just under a stop due to the increased shutter speed (from 1/80th to 1/125th). But a good IS unit should allow the shutter speed to drop to (hopefully) 1/50th sec... that does help a lot. Just over a stop. So the new 135 LIS could potentially come lot closer to the working light levels of the 85IIL, which would be nice because it's a really nice focal length. It would also allow me the option of taking the 135 LIS or a 70-200 f2.8 LIS, giving me options on the day depending on weather and venue brightness.

The issue I have with the 85mm f1.4 LIS is that the IS unit isn't going to offer me much until I get to my lowest usable shutter speed of 1/50th. So I loose 1/3 stop in aperture but gain 2/3 stop shutter speed. So i only really gain 1/3 stop over all...not a lot more.

So I have to say that I'm more excited about the 135LIS than I am about th 85LIS

 

[SecureGSM]

At 135mm focal length, IS would really help shooting stage at 1/60s for example, camera shake would be more of an issue than your subject slowly moving

It'll help in dark clubs provided no one is moving. In that environment, one would think true speed (f/1.4) is better than 'virtual' speed (i.e. f/2 IS) if moving subjects are involved, right?

- A

 

[SecureGSM]

at 85mm and non-stabilised I cannot really shoot slower than 1/100s with 5D IV. reciprocal rule does not work as well as with 20Mp sensors for me any longer.

... The issue I have with the 85mm f1.4 LIS is that the IS unit isn't going to offer me much until I get to my lowest usable shutter speed of 1/50th. So I lose 1/3 stop in aperture but gain 2/3 stop shutter speed. So i only really gain 1/3 stop over all...not a lot more.

So I have to say that I'm more excited about the 135LIS than I am about th 85LIS

 

[Ozarker]

Wondering what the chances are that this lens will be announced this year.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

at 85mm and non-stabilised I cannot really shoot slower than 1/100s with 5D IV. reciprocal rule does not work as well as with 20Mp sensors for me any longer.

... The issue I have with the 85mm f1.4 LIS is that the IS unit isn't going to offer me much until I get to my lowest usable shutter speed of 1/50th. So I lose 1/3 stop in aperture but gain 2/3 stop shutter speed. So i only really gain 1/3 stop over all...not a lot more.

So I have to say that I'm more excited about the 135LIS than I am about th 85LIS

I hear what you are saying.
For me, I have no particular use for a 50mp camera. For my wedding and portrait work, 25ish mp is more than plenty. For landscape work, I'm using a tripod and I'm extracting every nuance of sharpness and detail out of my images that just isn't possible without a tripod (even in half decent light levels). So while it would seem that a 50mp camera would be nice for that endeavour...I've found that a 25ish mp camera more than adequate for the max A1 prints I'm making. I have a pair of very nice A1 wall prints with plenty of detail and depth, one of which was shot using a lowly 5D classic.
So while hand holding is good and convenient, to get the most out of the sensor and the scene then a good tripod is usually the way to go.

 

[SecureGSM]

sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.

.. The issue I have with the 85mm f1.4 LIS is that the IS unit isn't going to offer me much until I get to my lowest usable shutter speed of 1/50th. So I lose 1/3 stop in aperture but gain 2/3 stop shutter speed. So i only really gain 1/3 stop over all...not a lot more.

I hear what you are saying.
For me, I have no particular use for a 50mp camera. For my wedding and portrait work, 25ish mp is more than plenty. For landscape work, I'm using a tripod and I'm extracting every nuance of sharpness and detail out of my images that just isn't possible without a tripod (even in half decent light levels). So while it would seem that a 50mp camera would be nice for that endeavour...I've found that a 25ish mp camera more than adequate for the max A1 prints I'm making. I have a pair of very nice A1 wall prints with plenty of detail and depth, one of which was shot using a lowly 5D classic.
So while hand holding is good and convenient, to get the most out of the sensor and the scene then a good tripod is usually the way to go.

 

[Maiaibing]

sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.

If it worked for him with 20 MPIX camera it'll work just as well with a 30 MPIX, 50 MPIX and 500 MPIX camera. There not a iota more motion blur. On the contrary - shutter devices are improving with newer high-MPIX cameras effectively reducing shutter-induced blur.