Canon EF 135mm f/2L Replacement [CR1]

tron said:
m8547 said:
Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.

From what I've read, the current design is optically excellent, so I don't see much room for improvement. The old 35mm did leave plenty of room for improvement. I look forward to an updated design coming out, anyway, so I can get an old 135mm cheaper!
Don't count on that. The new version will be most probably much more expensive so the old one will keep its price more or less. Compare 24-70 2.8L with 24-70 2.8L II for example... I would say If you like it get it now new. Just my opinion...

note to tron, the 100-400 is currently 999.00, and this is how it works.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
risc32 said:
tron said:
m8547 said:
Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.

From what I've read, the current design is optically excellent, so I don't see much room for improvement. The old 35mm did leave plenty of room for improvement. I look forward to an updated design coming out, anyway, so I can get an old 135mm cheaper!
Don't count on that. The new version will be most probably much more expensive so the old one will keep its price more or less. Compare 24-70 2.8L with 24-70 2.8L II for example... I would say If you like it get it now new. Just my opinion...

note to tron, the 100-400 is currently 999.00, and this is how it works.

Not always. When the 70-200/2.8L IS II came out, prices (both new and used) for the original version rose $200-300 and stayed above the pre-MkII price for close to three years.
 
Upvote 0
PureClassA said:
Weather sealing will be added. A newer body to match the current L line along with a 77mm filter mount instead of 72mm (logical guessing). Most importantly, they will likely improve the sharpness at f2 and add the new Blue Refractive optics. Yes, the current model is still one of Canon's sharpest pieces to this day, but there is room for notable improvement. That said, I regularly shoot portrait stuff at f2 on this lens and I love it, but Canon could likely now produce the same sharpness found at f4 on the current model at f2 on the new. MAYBE we see IS, but i wouldn't suspect so.

CanoKnight said:
If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?
This would make sense. The question is going to be whether the price differential will make the upgrade worth it. For many it is going to be a hard sell, but many also loved the older 24-70 before they saw the new one.

If it is quite a bit sharper mid-frame and lower longCA and even better bokeh I think we would see many pay extra just because they use and love the lens so much that they will pay for even better.

I think I'm in that camp. The current model is good enough, but better is even better and I probably use it enough to want even better.
 
Upvote 0
tron said:
et31 said:
jebrady03 said:
I know people say this all the time, and then eat their words when a replacement is released but...

I can't possibly see what Canon could do to a 135mm lens that would make me consider replacing the EF 135mm f/2L. It's BY FAR my favorite lens and there are no flaws that it exhibits in my own personal shooting which make me pine for a replacement. The AF is fast and INSANELY accurate and consistent. It's sharp as a knife, even at f/2, it's not too heavy/light, large/small. Even the flare and ghosting is attractive, when desired!

I suppose I'd actually LOVE for Canon to release a lens which would make me want to replace my 135L, because I can't even fathom how amazing THAT lens would be!

Agreed! It is already a wonderful lens!
In future, I would love to see Sigma create a 135mm f/2.0 Art lens at a fraction of the Canon price with the sharp optical quality that manifests in their new series.
Can you be certain that if they make such a lens it will focus consistently?
can Canon make my 85mm1.8 focus consistently? They can't, it's half retared. I dislike it, and will soon be selling it. Also, I believe many people aren't entirely pleased with the AF of the 50L and 85L. Reputable people, not just " i searched google for XYZ and damn it I didn't find it!"
Not that i'm against tron, that legacy flick is one of my all time favs.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
risc32 said:
tron said:
m8547 said:
Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.

From what I've read, the current design is optically excellent, so I don't see much room for improvement. The old 35mm did leave plenty of room for improvement. I look forward to an updated design coming out, anyway, so I can get an old 135mm cheaper!
Don't count on that. The new version will be most probably much more expensive so the old one will keep its price more or less. Compare 24-70 2.8L with 24-70 2.8L II for example... I would say If you like it get it now new. Just my opinion...

note to tron, the 100-400 is currently 999.00, and this is how it works.

Not always. When the 70-200/2.8L IS II came out, prices (both new and used) for the original version rose $200-300 and stayed above the pre-MkII price for close to three years.

I'm aware of the effect, but I didn't realized that the 70-200 lens held that inflated price for that long. Shortly after i got my 300f2.8 they announced the v2 and it's price increase was dramatic. it took the street value of my lens up with it. not that i was willing to part with it for quick buck. so always, no.
 
Upvote 0

RunAndGun

CR Pro
Dec 16, 2011
497
187
While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.

Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.
 
Upvote 0
RunAndGun said:
While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.

Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.

As a matter of interest, how does it perform as a stills lens? Very keen to hear your reply
 
Upvote 0
May 15, 2014
918
0
risc32 said:
can Canon make my 85mm1.8 focus consistently? They can't, it's half retared. I dislike it, and will soon be selling it. Also, I believe many people aren't entirely pleased with the AF of the 50L and 85L. Reputable people, not just " i searched google for XYZ and damn it I didn't find it!"
Not that i'm against tron, that legacy flick is one of my all time favs.

Really? Maybe a bad copy? The 85mm f/1.8 is synonymous with fast/accurate focus. My copy is as good as a lens I own for AF purposes. And as I was just reviewing LR data, I've shot with 17 different lenses this year, all lens I've owned.
 
Upvote 0
May 15, 2014
918
0
Speaking of my 85mm. It was one of my favorite lenses to use on my crop cameras outdoors (giving a nearly 135mm FF fov). After I got this lens my 70-200 collected dust until adding a full frame camera to the mix. Due to those enjoyable experiences, the 135mm f/2L has been on my wishlist for quite some time. The current 135 is an awesome lens, so I don't think we should expect the kind of improvement we just saw with the new 35mm L. Either way this is positive news. Just means a better 135mm will be available, or hopefully see a good used market of the current 135mm. Still interested in seeing Sigma throw their hat in the ring on this focal length as well.

And count me in the camp of those who can go without IS. If it keeps the weight/size down (and obviously cost) I'd prefer no IS. As long as I'm 200m or less I don't miss IS too much. Besides, it's just another thing that can go wrong with the lens and require repair.
 
Upvote 0

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,124
827
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
I wasn't complaining. I like the heft too. The point was to extrapolate that focal length and aperture to a 135mm variety, which would take the (manageable) brick of the 85L and morph it into a virtually impossible-to-handhold 135mm f1.2. Someone posted a picture of a third party 135mm f1.4. We're talking even bigger than that. I don't want a 135mm I can't reliably hand hold to shoot. That's a portrait lens, not a long birding tele or sports lens you expect to have to mount. Even if you do choose to hand hold something that bulky and heavy, it will be much more difficult to balance it against the camera for a steady shot. The current 135 f2 balances perfectly with a 5 body. And at 135mm, how much more DOF compression do you need? At 5 feet away at f2, you're getting about an inch or less DOF with ridiculous bokeh

cayenne said:
PureClassA said:
<snip>

Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass.
<snip>

I LIKE lenses that are a giant brick of glass.....makes me feel like I got my money's worth when I heft one of those big boys up!!

:)

cayenne
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
RunAndGun said:
While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.

Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.

Have you ever taken a portrait with a CN-E lens?
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
As a matter of fact, I use my 135L for portraits, birds, and high school sports. It runs on my 70D (135mm x 1.6 = 216mm apparent focal length.) for low light sports and does a fantastic job at football. It is a great sports lens as well as birding and portraits. Fantastic around the hummingbird feeder when there are perching locations set up for when they are waiting in line. I don't think it to be as specialised as some let on. Especially not on a crop sensor camera. Very fast and accurate with more "reach" than a 200mm on FF.

PureClassA said:
I wasn't complaining. I like the heft too. The point was to extrapolate that focal length and aperture to a 135mm variety, which would take the (manageable) brick of the 85L and morph it into a virtually impossible-to-handhold 135mm f1.2. Someone posted a picture of a third party 135mm f1.4. We're talking even bigger than that. I don't want a 135mm I can't reliably hand hold to shoot. That's a portrait lens, not a long birding tele or sports lens you expect to have to mount. Even if you do choose to hand hold something that bulky and heavy, it will be much more difficult to balance it against the camera for a steady shot. The current 135 f2 balances perfectly with a 5 body. And at 135mm, how much more DOF compression do you need? At 5 feet away at f2, you're getting about an inch or less DOF with ridiculous bokeh

cayenne said:
PureClassA said:
<snip>

Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass.
<snip>

I LIKE lenses that are a giant brick of glass.....makes me feel like I got my money's worth when I heft one of those big boys up!!

:)

cayenne
 
Upvote 0
To improve a very sharp 135mm lens lacking IS, they'd need to add IS. Sure you can make a mk. 2 version of a 35mm without IS because 35mm is so much shorter. And the old 35 was not as sharp already as the current 135mm is.

Canon can do what it likes though. It can add a little weather sealing. Add some coatings to resist flare. But since they are also going to want to nearly double the price they would be wise to give it the simple simple feature so many people feel is needed for a lens of its substantial focal length. IS. If the kit 18-55 they give away with every Rebel can have IS, why in the world not this long-ish L lens?
 
Upvote 0

RunAndGun

CR Pro
Dec 16, 2011
497
187
CanonFanBoy said:
RunAndGun said:
While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.

Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.

Have you ever taken a portrait with a CN-E lens?

That's essentially what I'm doing with it. Or the TV equivalent. The 135 and 85 are my primary interview lenses. I'm talking about lit, sit-down, feature piece interviews. Now, like most things when you start to get to that level, it becomes a part of a larger equation: lighting(Most important), composition, lens, camera, etc., BUT theses lenses are important and I love the results they give.

I did a shoot several months ago with a friend and for my shot I needed a longer focal length and the ability to zoom between a two-shot and a single. He had a few "cinemized" lenses(there are a few companies out there that take still lenses and more or less convert them to mechanically behave like manual Cine lenses(repackaging the optics, manual aperture ring, hard focus stops, uniform and standard gearing on focus, iris and zoom rings, etc.), but they're usually limited by the original still lens design: not parfocal and in the case of Canon lenses, the iris direction is backwards(not the case with Canons real Cine lens line). So I used one of his lenses instead of one of my CN-E that I would have used under normal circumstances. I was disappointed. The subjects(people) just did not look as good to me. And funny enough, we were shooting together a few weeks ago and he walked over to me while we were shooting a two-camera interview and he commented on how good that lens(my 135) looked. And I was shooting it wide open(T2.2) or VERY close to it. They just have this warm, creamy quality to them and even though they are incredibly sharp lenses, they are not unflattering on people.
 
Upvote 0

RunAndGun

CR Pro
Dec 16, 2011
497
187
Sabaki said:
RunAndGun said:
While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.

Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.

As a matter of interest, how does it perform as a stills lens? Very keen to hear your reply

Besides just playing around with it at the house, I've never "really" used it as a still lens, although I have used it more than once on my 5DmkIII when we were using it as a second or third camera on some interviews. If your subject isn't moving so that you have time to focus, you would probably be fine, but keep in mind besides the manual iris, the focus barrel rotates 300 degrees from stop-to-stop. And it's probably going to be a lot heavier than the stills version. But the bokeh whores would love the 11 bladed rounded aperture. All of Canon's Cine lenses have an 11 bladed rounded aperture.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 14, 2012
910
7
TeT said:
Does anyone have an idea of what they might be able to do that would improve the 135? What are the 135's week spots?

The c $550 Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f2 is considerably sharper than the 135L, has superb microcontrast, has barely detectable chromatic aberrations even wide open and viewed at 100% on a high resolution sensor (there's absolutely no need to stop it down except to get less shallow focus), and has bokeh that's at least as good as the Canon's, perhaps even better (check out Dustin Abbott's review and others'). But it's MF and thus a pain to use on a dslr. It hardly seems implausible to suggest that Canon could make a 135L with comparable image quality, except it would also have AF and, with luck, IS; but it won't cost $550....
 
Upvote 0