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

[Canon Rumors]

Every so often we get a mention of a new 135mm lens. The latest 135mm lens announced turned out be the TS-E 135mm f/4L, and I think there may have been some incorrect assumptions as to what the “135mm” lens was going to be, and we were probably guilty of that. I think most people expected an update to the EF 135mm f/2L.</p>

<p>We’re now being told by an anonymous source that another 135mm portrait lens is scheduled to be announced in the first half of 2018 and that it will have IS.</p>
<p>We’re still <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-unreleased-canon-gear-has-appeared-for-certification/">trying to confirm what two new lenses Canon will be announcing</a> in the first quarter of 2018.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[JoSto]

It will have a very tough stand against the 70-200 f2.8 mkII, especially if they are priced similarly.

It has to be lightweight, feeling like a feather attached to the body.

 

[BeenThere]

It will have a very tough stand against the 70-200 f2.8 mkII, especially if they are priced similarly.

It has to be lightweight, feeling like a feather attached to the body.

Maybe. Usually primes have better characteristics (sharpness, CA, Bokeh, etc) than zooms, although zooms can get close to prime country. If this is in the league of the Sigma Art 135mm, with Canon AF, there will be quite a few who will covet this lens.

 

[ethanz]

It will have a very tough stand against the 70-200 f2.8 mkII, especially if they are priced similarly.

It has to be lightweight, feeling like a feather attached to the body.

Maybe. Usually primes have better characteristics (sharpness, CA, Bokeh, etc) than zooms, although zooms can get close to prime country. If this is in the league of the Sigma Art 135mm, with Canon AF, there will be quite a few who will covet this lens.

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.

 

[Loswr]

Maybe the new 135 will bring back soft focus.

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[kiwiengr]

It will have a very tough stand against the 70-200 f2.8 mkII, especially if they are priced similarly.

It has to be lightweight, feeling like a feather attached to the body.

Maybe. Usually primes have better characteristics (sharpness, CA, Bokeh, etc) than zooms, although zooms can get close to prime country. If this is in the league of the Sigma Art 135mm, with Canon AF, there will be quite a few who will covet this lens.

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.

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

 

[infared]

It will have a very tough stand against the 70-200 f2.8 mkII, especially if they are priced similarly.

It has to be lightweight, feeling like a feather attached to the body.

Maybe. Usually primes have better characteristics (sharpness, CA, Bokeh, etc) than zooms, although zooms can get close to prime country. If this is in the league of the Sigma Art 135mm, with Canon AF, there will be quite a few who will covet this lens.

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.

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

Yes...I own one....and I own the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS , too. Two separate uses in my world. Both lenses are great....but the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART is amazing piece of glass. Just incredible. ....but its a good time to be a photographer...the original Canon 135mm f/2 is amazingly priced and a great performer, too. Price/performance is perfect there. Now Canon could best them all with a state-of-the-art modern lens AND IS, which the Sigma does not have. The Sigma is a tank....but it focuses super fast and really delivers...so it is worth the haul when I use it. Really love that lens.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

For a high resolution shooter, it should be significantly sharper. Consider the Sigma 135 f/1.8 Art for what is possible on that front in this day and age.

That lens (to my eyes) at TDP shot wide open at f/1.8 looks as sharp as the 135L stopped down to f/4. That's a staggering accomplishment.

LensTip goes even further. The least sharp measurements anywhere in the frame of the 135 Art from f/1.8 to f/5.6 were sharper than the most sharp measurement anywhere in the frame at any aperture of the 135L. (They compared a 21 MP 1Ds3 (135L) to a 22 MP 5D3 (135 Art), but it's the closest resolving sensor test I could find.)

And this is just at 21-22 MP. Imagine the 5DS users out there. DXO [throw up in my mouth sound] would have us believe the 135L is terrific at 22 MP but it is leaving money on the table on the 5DS:

5D3: 20 out maximum 22 in their pix mpix mp pixie stix whatevers
5DS: 30 out of 50

Now, of course, sharpness isn't everything. But if Canon could get near Sigma's stratospheric resolving power and couple it with the 135L's dreamy bokeh and a 'take it to the bank' top shelf AF setup, that lens would be something folks would pay good money for.

- A

 

[dolina]

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!

 

[ahsanford]

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!

The Sigma is not stabilized. And it is still 80% the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom!

IMHO, a 135 prime needs to be sharper/creamier/shorter/lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom that so many folks already own or it will be relegated to niche use status. ... which is kind of where the 135L has sat since the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II came out.

- A

 

[kiwiengr]

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

Yes...I own one....and I own the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS , too. Two separate uses in my world. Both lenses are great....but the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART is amazing piece of glass. Just incredible. ....but its a good time to be a photographer...the original Canon 135mm f/2 is amazingly priced and a great performer, too. Price/performance is perfect there. Now Canon could best them all with a state-of-the-art modern lens AND IS, which the Sigma does not have. The Sigma is a tank....but it focuses super fast and really delivers...so it is worth the haul when I use it. Really love that lens.

One used to have the 70~200 F2.8L IS. Traded in when getting the 135 Art. Also have the Canon 300 F2.8L II. Shooting with a 5D IV, both lens excel.

An acquaintance of mine who was a press photographer using Canon gear when seeing a full res photo of mine with the 135 said "Holy shizzle, that's sharp". So is the Canon 300 (and 400 which I have rented once).

 

[michi]

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

Back in the film days I had a Nikon FE with a Series E 105 2.8 lens. I loved that lens. I wish Canon had a modern 105 or thereabouts. I'm racking my brain right now whether I should go with any of the new 85's or 135's for portraits.

 

[ethanz]

IMHO, a 135 prime needs to be sharper/creamier/shorter/lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom that so many folks already own or it will be relegated to niche use status. ... which is kind of where the 135L has sat since the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II came out.

- A

Exactly

 

[Maximilian]

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.

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[dolina]

Fair enough neither the Sony or Sigma has in-lens image stabalization.

But wouldnt it be awesome if it were a 1.8 with IS?

 

[ahsanford]

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

Back in the film days I had a Nikon FE with a Series E 105 2.8 lens. I loved that lens. I wish Canon had a modern 105 or thereabouts. I'm racking my brain right now whether I should go with any of the new 85's or 135's for portraits.

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

 

[ahsanford]

Fair enough neither the Sony or Sigma has in-lens image stabalization.

But wouldnt it be awesome if it were a 1.8 with IS?

Sure, I guess, but considering the Sigma Art is a nearly a pound heavier than the 135L, you'd really have to be a bokeh fanatic, videographer (or dark indoor wedding shooter?) to accept that tradeoff.

f/2 IS is totally fine by me, but I admit I am not the market. Others might love an f/1.8 IS.

- A

 

[Berowne]

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

The 200/2.8L is a good lens.