ExodistPhotography
Photographer, Artist & Youtuber
I hope this is freaking true and that they both have Image Stabilizer. I will hold out for the 135mm before upgrading my 85mm. But it will coming soon as well.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:to me only an EF-X 135/2 STM IS along with a highly capable mirrorless FF camera would be exciting ... unfortunately, all we are getting is ever larger, fatter and way more expensive mirrorslapper lenses. Boring.
while i am highly interested in a 135 prime with IS, i will not buy more DSLR stuff from Canon, but rather start divesting out of a system without future.
AvTvM said:Maximilian said:2017 seems to become a really interesting year for prime fans
to me only an EF-X 135/2 STM IS along with a highly capable mirrorless FF camera would be exciting ... unfortunately, all we are getting is ever larger, fatter and way more expensive mirrorslapper lenses. Boring.
while i am highly interested in a 135 prime with IS, i will not buy more DSLR stuff from Canon, but rather start divesting out of a system without future.
heretikeen said:The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.
heretikeen said:The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.
ahsanford said:heretikeen said:The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.
It'll be $1,499-ish, I would guess. We have a bad habit (myself included) of claiming 'the new one costs 2x' with the math of:
New lens price / current price for a 20 year old lens in refurb / used / shady ebay markets = 2x
When, in truth -- using the US MSRP:
35L I at launch: $1374 (tough to confirm given its age -- can't find the official launch price)
35L I at day of 35L II announcement: $1149
35L II at launch: $1799
Price markup over prior version's launch price = 30.9%
Price markup over prior version's current price at time of new lens announcement = 56.6%
____________________________________________________________________
24-70 f/2.8L I at launch: $2100
24-70 f/2.8L I at day of Mk II announcement: $1100
24-70 f/2.8L II at launch: $2299
Price markup over prior version's launch price = 9.5%
Price markup over prior version's current price at time of new lens announcement = 109.0%
____________________________________________________________________
16-35 f/2.8L II at launch: $1699 (not sure: also seeing $1599)
16-35 f/2.8L II at day of Mk III announcement: $1499
16-35 f/2.8L III at launch: $2199
Price markup over prior version's launch price = 29.4%
Price markup over prior version's current price at time of new lens announcement = 46.7%
So, it's admittedly a mixed bag, but that 'super high' price of the new one is often (but not always) a resultant of the prior version's lowered MSRP over time.
IS with a future 135L, however, makes it 'new' for Canon -- this would not be a II of the original 135L. To Canon, that's an added feature, so it potentially might come in on the high end of the numbers above.
- A
CanonFanBoy said:heretikeen said:The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.
I don't know why people always equate more expensive with more profit, but lets just say that is true. So what? Yup, there actually is a conspiracy to milk more money from people. That is the whole reason for the company to exist. Canon is not there to be an altruistic entity.
The because? Because offering what users want and improving a product is the way to more profit someday after R&D, retooling, training employees, etc. costs are recouped. It is also how to stay in business and keep market share. That assumes that the risk Canon takes investing the money pays off in the long run.
I guess I just don't understand the idea that design and marketing for profit is somehow evil. That concept seems to be taking more and more of a hold on people these days. Just don't buy.
That is just assuming you were implying what I think you were implying. If not, then sorry.
KiagiJ said:I don't know about any of y'all's experience with IS but I find small lenses don't have the claimed 4-5 stops. My 24mm 2.8 IS I even need to shoot at 1/30th! Yet I do get 5 stops on my 200 f2 to 1/8th of a second handheld! I feel the big lenses have better IS in my experience. Point is I'm not too optimistic about how good the IS would be in a smaller lens, a 135 IS, maybe 2-3 stops in reality
ahsanford said:KiagiJ said:I don't know about any of y'all's experience with IS but I find small lenses don't have the claimed 4-5 stops. My 24mm 2.8 IS I even need to shoot at 1/30th! Yet I do get 5 stops on my 200 f2 to 1/8th of a second handheld! I feel the big lenses have better IS in my experience. Point is I'm not too optimistic about how good the IS would be in a smaller lens, a 135 IS, maybe 2-3 stops in reality
TDP has mapped some of this out if you read each review -- Mr. Carnathan generally reports an honest keeper rate to peg an 'effective number of IS stops' in his hands.
But it's not a question of size so much as FL, I believe. Wider lenses appear to have less benefit for IS.
Attached are shots from my trusty 28mm f/2.8 IS on my 5D3, which I roughly peg as having about 3 stops of IS. The dog and couple are 1/6 of second and the waterfall is a full second (note the rocks in the foreground are out of focus because I was a knucklehead with my AF, not because of camera shake / poor IS -- the rocks are just barely out of field).
- A
dank said:I believe this to be true If I compare results with my 16-35mm f/4 and primes in similar range i don't see a tremendous effect. But if i think about what i saw when i had a 70-200 f/4 non-IS vs. other lenses in that range with IS (70-200mm f/2.8 is ii, 100-400mm IS II, 70-300mm L) it is dramatic. I could never use the 70-200mm f/4 hand held (i'm sure there are others that can), but i can with the others to various degrees. As always, individual results may be varied, but as I recall there had been discussions when the 16-35 came out that the conventional wisdom to that point had been that IS was not as useful in wider lenses.
photojoern.de said:In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.
photojoern.de said:In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.
photojoern.de said:In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.
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.ahsanford said:photojoern.de said:In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.
Also, the extra stop kind of matters. People don't pony up huge dollars for the 200mm f/2 IS just because it is sharp. (...)
These may not be perfect examples (shutterdial isn't curated, it's a bit robotic) -- perhaps I should have linked the lens groups on Flickr, but the f/2 glass has that extra gear for bokeh / isolation / pop that some portraiture people really crave.
- A
Maiaibing said: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.ahsanford said:photojoern.de said:In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.
Also, the extra stop kind of matters. People don't pony up huge dollars for the 200mm f/2 IS just because it is sharp. (...)
These may not be perfect examples (shutterdial isn't curated, it's a bit robotic) -- perhaps I should have linked the lens groups on Flickr, but the f/2 glass has that extra gear for bokeh / isolation / pop that some portraiture people really crave.
- A
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).
Sporgon said:Maiaibing said: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.ahsanford said:photojoern.de said:In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.
Also, the extra stop kind of matters. People don't pony up huge dollars for the 200mm f/2 IS just because it is sharp. (...)
These may not be perfect examples (shutterdial isn't curated, it's a bit robotic) -- perhaps I should have linked the lens groups on Flickr, but the f/2 glass has that extra gear for bokeh / isolation / pop that some portraiture people really crave.
- A
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.