Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS USM Coming First Half of 2018 [CR1]

[Besisika]

Just put an IS on it and take my money.
Night portraiture and indoor 4K will be very happy on my 1DX II.

 

[DaviSto]

I've heard the 135 is already a superb lens, so they would have to do more than just give it IS to make it a new seller.

The 135L f/2 is a great lens. For some reason, however, I find that I am quite prone to camera shake when I use it. I've lost a lot of shots because I set the SS at 1/125 or 1/160 and ended up with soft images despite perfect focus.

An 135L f/2 with IS would be brilliant.

 

[mjg79]

The 135L is one of my favourites and it's one of those lenses that adds a bit of magic to photographs. I hope it stays at f/2 to keep size and weight down. I would be happy to have modern element coatings and perhaps make the minimum focus distance smaller to make it easier to use indoors. The autofocus is already perfect. If they add IS that would be great.

I'm totally uninterested in how sharp it is; instead they must pay attention to the rendering. I have tried (borrowed never owned) the Zeiss 135/2 as well as the Sigma 135. I prefer the rendering of the Canon over the other two and I know that's a completely subjective and rather controversial to say here but I just think it renders in a pleasing way, especially the background. I use it on a 5DS and it is plenty sharp wide open. Is the Zeiss sharper? Yes. Will anybody in the real world ever notice the difference? No. The 135L has such a beautiful bokeh, such lovely colours, I really would just love to see it slightly improved wherever they can, especially if we can have IS and leave it at that. If the bokeh gets compromised then I am not interested, however sharp they make it.

I fear the constant demand for "more sharpness" can sometimes lead lens designers astray. Sigma's 50mm Art for example is an amazingly sharp 50mm lens but the old 50mm DG EX (the Sigmalux as it was called) had a nicer rendering and bokeh and produces photos eerily similar to Nikon's legendary Noct 58/1.2.

So for once, I rather hope they don't change too much!

The 135L is probably the best value lens Canon sells so I wouldn't be surprised if they keep selling it for many years because they won't want their only portrait lens over 100mm to be super expensive as the new lens might be.

 

[ahsanford]

The 135L is probably the best value lens Canon sells so I wouldn't be surprised if they keep selling it for many years because they won't want their only portrait lens over 100mm to be super expensive as the new lens might be.

+1. The same value argument goes for the 17-40L, 200 f/2.8L II, the two 70-200 f/4Ls, 400 f/5.6L, etc. Really well built and a wonderful 'welcome to your first really well made lens' for those who have only shot inexpensive third party or EF-S before.

- A

 

[michi]

Umm... we already have one? The 100L is great for portraits, IMHO.

If you're a bokeh junkie, that may not be the answer you want. But I think the 100L is a perfectly fine instrument for portraiture.

Full disclosure, please don't blame the rendering/color on the redhead photo on the lens. That's 100% on this natural light shooter capturing a moment with wretched harsh sunlight unevenly breaking through the leaves above -- that shot had to be massaged heavily in post.

- A

Interesting. Never really thought of the 100 Macro as a portrait lens. I had the Series E 2.8 back in the days because I was poor. I would really love a 1.4 or 1.8, I could afford that these days. So my dream would be a 100 1.8 IS I suppose. And yes, I would really like some beautiful bokeh. Anyway, thanks for your input and I will go and look around the internet now for some more samples and opinions on that lens!

 

[danfaz]

Just put an IS on it and take my money.
Night portraiture and indoor 4K will be very happy on my 1DX II.

Yup! Weather-sealing would be a welcomed addition, too.

 

[ahsanford]

Umm... we already have one? The 100L is great for portraits, IMHO.

If you're a bokeh junkie, that may not be the answer you want. But I think the 100L is a perfectly fine instrument for portraiture.

Full disclosure, please don't blame the rendering/color on the redhead photo on the lens. That's 100% on this natural light shooter capturing a moment with wretched harsh sunlight unevenly breaking through the leaves above -- that shot had to be massaged heavily in post.

- A

Interesting. Never really thought of the 100 Macro as a portrait lens. I had the Series E 2.8 back in the days because I was poor. I would really love a 1.4 or 1.8, I could afford that these days. So my dream would be a 100 1.8 IS I suppose. And yes, I would really like some beautiful bokeh. Anyway, thanks for your input and I will go and look around the internet now for some more samples and opinions on that lens!

If bokeh is your thing, one of the 85Ls or the 135L would likely be the move. If cost constrained, look at the non-L 85 f/1.8 (a common first portrait lens for FF-ers) and 100 f/2 (the lens no one talks about).

- A

 

[slclick]

Lighter than the Sigma and 1.8 or f/2. IS be damned. I'd like to use the 135L Mk2 on my M5 and from now on I might make most if not all future lens purchases based upon how well they work adapted and with the 5D3. The 100L works very well, narrow barrel, light weight. Keep it that size/weight and it would be the next magical unicorn from Canon.

 

[Larsskv]

The 135L is one of my favourites and it's one of those lenses that adds a bit of magic to photographs. I hope it stays at f/2 to keep size and weight down. I would be happy to have modern element coatings and perhaps make the minimum focus distance smaller to make it easier to use indoors. The autofocus is already perfect. If they add IS that would be great.

I'm totally uninterested in how sharp it is; instead they must pay attention to the rendering. I have tried (borrowed never owned) the Zeiss 135/2 as well as the Sigma 135. I prefer the rendering of the Canon over the other two and I know that's a completely subjective and rather controversial to say here but I just think it renders in a pleasing way, especially the background. I use it on a 5DS and it is plenty sharp wide open. Is the Zeiss sharper? Yes. Will anybody in the real world ever notice the difference? No. The 135L has such a beautiful bokeh, such lovely colours, I really would just love to see it slightly improved wherever they can, especially if we can have IS and leave it at that. If the bokeh gets compromised then I am not interested, however sharp they make it.

I fear the constant demand for "more sharpness" can sometimes lead lens designers astray. Sigma's 50mm Art for example is an amazingly sharp 50mm lens but the old 50mm DG EX (the Sigmalux as it was called) had a nicer rendering and bokeh and produces photos eerily similar to Nikon's legendary Noct 58/1.2.

So for once, I rather hope they don't change too much!

The 135L is probably the best value lens Canon sells so I wouldn't be surprised if they keep selling it for many years because they won't want their only portrait lens over 100mm to be super expensive as the new lens might be.

+1. I rarely use my 135L. The focal length doesn’t suit my kind of shooting very well, but whenever I use it, I find it to be sharp enough on my 5Ds, even at f2. For critical sharpness I will often shoot at f2.8, and then it performs great.

On another note, the lens tip sharpness chart from the 135L seems way off, compared to my experience. I am shure the 135ART is better, but the difference is nothing like those charts seems to indicate.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I sure hope this rumor is true and it's this close on the horizon!

For what I do (weddings) the 70-200 2.8 and fast 135 prime don't compete with one another. They complement one other and I already carry both to every event. The zoom gets used during ceremonies and the f/2 at receptions. The biggest shortcoming is the lack of IS on the prime. A f/1.8 with IS would be amazing, a true dream. But, if that makes it close in size/weight to the 70-200, I would prefer Canon keep it a f/2. There's only so much room in my bag, and there's a point where flexibility gets outweighed, literally.

 

[ahsanford]

On another note, the lens tip sharpness chart from the 135L seems way off, compared to my experience. I am shure the 135ART is better, but the difference is nothing like those charts seems to indicate.

Agree, and it may have something to do with how the files are generated on the 1Ds3 vs. the 5D3 in that comparison.

For another source that goes with images instead of numbers, both on a 5DS R:

Wide open: it is not close

Canon at f/2.8 vs. Sigma wide open: Getting closer, but I still take the Sigma there. (Don't let the 135L's lowered vignetting at that aperture mask the sharpness differences.)

Canon at f/4 vs. Sigma wide open: Almost the same to me, but the Sigma's better in the corners to my eyes.

Canon at f/5.6 vs. Sigma wide open: Just about identical (other than vignetting of course).

I would take no solace in the 135L stopping down brilliantly unless you're shooting landscapes with it (which I'm sure some do). But if you are ponying up the money / trouble to be one stop faster than a 70-200 f/2.8, presumably for portraiture, one imagines you probably want to use this lens towards that wide open end.

Again, sharpness isn't everything, but you have to tip your cap to Sigma on this front.

- A

 

[captainkanji]

I hope they don’t sacrifice micro contrast for sharpness. The Sigma is great for taking crime scene photos. I love the 135 L’s look.

 

[michi]

If bokeh is your thing, one of the 85Ls or the 135L would likely be the move. If cost constrained, look at the non-L 85 f/1.8 (a common first portrait lens for FF-ers) and 100 f/2 (the lens no one talks about).

- A

I have had the EF 85mm 1.8 since the 90's. I have a love hate relationship with it. AF is completely unreliable although the 5DIV seems to do much better with it than all my prior cameras. I'm leaning more towards 85mm, so it will have to be either the old L or the new one. I'll wait and watch to see some more reviews about the new one.

 

[Antono Refa]

Too late... the Sigma 135 Art is superb....

It's so late. Anyone who might have bought a 135mm prime in the next decade already bought the Sigma Art. Actually, Sigma has put the production line in Naphthalene, knowing demand is satisfied for years to come.

 

[Ozarker]

Cue people complaining it's not f/1.8 in 3, 2, 1...

Yes! I would complain!

Sigma & Sony have a f/1.8 with image stabilized equivalent.

Nikon has the NIKKOR 105mm with a f/1.4!

I'd prefer the more compact size of a f/2.0 at this FL.

Yes, but the difference between f/2 & f/1.8 IS huge. Frankly, I don't know how I have survived at f/2. Maybe we should start a petition? 100 signatures should be enough to get Canon to make this an f/1.8 lens. Stupid Canon. Canon is doomed. :

 

[Ozarker]

Honestly, in a sequel to the 135L, a few things come to mind:

• After this new one drops, tip your cap to a legendary run for the 135L. I liken it to a hall of fame player with a very long career at an underappreciated position on the field -- like an offensive lineman in football, catcher in baseball, a holding midfielder in soccer: they are never on the highlight reel, but you could not imagine your team without them.
  
  
• This lens was always deemed so sharp that it didn't need an update for so long. But I think the jump from 22 to 50 MP with the 5DS is a really big deal, and this conversation we're having about sharpness being an improvement area in a lens where sharpness was its hallmark is going to happen again with other lenses we love soon -- the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II comes to mind.
  
  
• I always thought of the 200mm f/2.8L II as the 'brother' of this lens. They came out about the same time, and the 200 f/2.8L II looks almost like it was made from strapping an extender to a 135L (see pic). Yet while the 135L had that extra stop and sharpness (at the time) vs. earlier 70-200L lenses, the 200 f/2.8L II was all but eclipsed by the 70-200 zooms because it was only a shade sharper, not any quicker and lacked IS. So I wonder if it will just be the 135L being replaced or if we get a 200 f/2.8L III as well (my money is on the former).
  
  
• Any chance Canon keeps the original 135L in production alonside a pricier newer IS version rather than discontinue it? Stranger things have happened.

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

- A

Looking at charts and reading reviews is nice, but you've already indicated that you don't own and have not rented the 135 f/2L. Your posts are good, but you should at least rent and try the lens instead of regurgitating the work of others. That's a lot of authoritative sounding posts about the older lens from someone who's never used it. I've read a recent post of yours where you ask whether the quality of the old lens is as good as people say. So, have you ever used it?

 

[ahsanford]

Looking at charts and reading reviews is nice, but you've already indicated that you don't own and have not rented the 135 f/2L. Your posts are good, but you should at least rent and try the lens instead of regurgitating the work of others. That's a lot of authoritative sounding posts about the older lens from someone who's never used it. I've read a recent post of yours where you ask whether the quality of the old lens is as good as people say. So, have you ever used it?

Never, actually. I've been intrigued about it but between my 100L and 70-200 2.8 I haven't been able to convince myself that I need it. I've had a price watch up on CPW for some time for a refurb and just haven't felt the need to pull the trigger. But the lens is interesting to me and I may try/buy one someday... which is kind of why I'm on this thread.

You can call my offerings to this thread authoritative all you want, but I just call it participating in a discussion -- care to join us? Or were there other troubling parts of my photography CV that warrant another charming post like that one above?

- A

 

[Maiaibing]

One word for success "Apodization".

This feature alone could make a new Canon 135L portrait lens a sales success as it would introduce a unique lens to Canon's line-up which cannot be manipulated digitally in any way (like soft focus can). Fuji has achieved this feat (AF and apodization together), so we know it can be done.

IS makes perfect sense with an apodization lens. It would also fit the rumour that Canon is planning a new 135L as a portrait lens.

 

[Berowne]

If bokeh is your thing, one of the 85Ls or the 135L would likely be the move. If cost constrained, look at the non-L 85 f/1.8 (a common first portrait lens for FF-ers) and 100 f/2 (the lens no one talks about).

- A

I have had the EF 85mm 1.8 since the 90's. I have a love hate relationship with it. AF is completely unreliable although the 5DIV seems to do much better with it than all my prior cameras. I'm leaning more towards 85mm, so it will have to be either the old L or the new one. I'll wait and watch to see some more reviews about the new one.

Re unreliable AF of the EF 85/1.8 - I made the same experience. Nevertheless, if AF hits, it is pin sharp even wide open.

 

[snoke]

Need this lens.

Tripod not possible, 1/15, ISO 3200, f/2.2 but cannot hold camera still.
4 stop IS big help.