135 F1.8L IS

[GMCPhotographics]

[...] the current L lens is a pretty old design [...]

The 17 year "pretty old design" is the reason why this lens is so good. With the current trend, I am afraid that the new one will be made for chart shooters and will screw the bokeh.

Not that there is no room for improvement - better coating and IS would be welcome but I am afraid that the IS may pose design restrictions which would change the character of this lens.

What a bizarre thing to say. I can't think of any of the newer mkII lenses which have worse out of focus rendering than the mk I versions. 24mm f1.4L mkII comes to mind. All of the big white tele zooms. The 70-200 f2.8 II LIS is another example, in fact it's only slightly better than the mk I.

The 135mm f2.0 L's bokeh is pretty bad when stopped down due to uneven or non-rounded aperture blades. Drop to f2.8 or f4 and see the Bokeh shape....pretty mis-shapen

 

[Viggo]

[...] the current L lens is a pretty old design [...]

The 17 year "pretty old design" is the reason why this lens is so good. With the current trend, I am afraid that the new one will be made for chart shooters and will screw the bokeh.

Not that there is no room for improvement - better coating and IS would be welcome but I am afraid that the IS may pose design restrictions which would change the character of this lens.

What a bizarre thing to say. I can't think of any of the newer mkII lenses which have worse out of focus rendering than the mk I versions. 24mm f1.4L mkII comes to mind. All of the big white tele zooms. The 70-200 f2.8 II LIS is another example, in fact it's only slightly better than the mk I.

The 135mm f2.0 L's bokeh is pretty bad when stopped down due to uneven or non-rounded aperture blades. Drop to f2.8 or f4 and see the Bokeh shape....pretty mis-shapen

Actually the 70-200 mkII has less smooth bokeh than the mk1, but to me it was a non issue compared to all the things that are way better with the mk2.

And it's why the 50 L is soft, because of fantastic bokeh. The Zeiss 135 is less smooth than the 135 L because it is sharper wide open.

 

[Pi]

What a bizarre thing to say. I can't think of any of the newer mkII lenses which have worse out of focus rendering than the mk I versions. 24mm f1.4L mkII comes to mind. All of the big white tele zooms. The 70-200 f2.8 II LIS is another example, in fact it's only slightly better than the mk I.

The 135mm f2.0 L's bokeh is pretty bad when stopped down due to uneven or non-rounded aperture blades. Drop to f2.8 or f4 and see the Bokeh shape....pretty mis-shapen

I was not talking about Canon only, I had Sigma (35) in mind, as well. Oh, and Zeiss, I agree with the poster above. And the 70-200 II has worse bokeh than the I, and they both seem to have worse bokeh than the non IS.

Who in their right mind would stop the 135 down? I have to try it some day... Anyway, this is not a question of lack of optical modern design, which was the point of my remark.

 

[Vern]

I love the 135 f2 for indoor volleyball - IQ, focal length and AF performance are 'just right'. For sports, the IS isn't really needed, but I certainly agree that for theater and live performance, this would be great - as well as any other low light portrait opportunities. I would pay a few $K for such a lens. Still, the current 135 is very nice - attached photo = 1Dx, ISO 8000, f2, 1/1000.

 

[Sporgon]

I love the 135 f2 for indoor volleyball - IQ, focal length and AF performance are 'just right'. For sports, the IS isn't really needed, but I certainly agree that for theater and live performance, this would be great - as well as any other low light portrait opportunities. I would pay a few $K for such a lens. Still, the current 135 is very nice - attached photo = 1Dx, ISO 8000, f2, 1/1000.

Great shot, lovely girl !

 

[sdsr]

In body stabilizers

Yes, please - not that I expect it to happen, but if Panasonic can start doing it after years of doing it in-lens only.... Meanwhile, I'm hoping that Sony will have abandoned it's STM technology and provide better high ISO in its next Alphas; several old Minolta lenses look rather appealing, especially coupled Sony's IBIS; and if Pentax ever made a FF camera that would liven things up too.

 

[monopodman]

Could any of you guys comment on the image quality of Canon 135 f2 vs. Zeiss 138 1.8 T and Zeiss 135 f2 ZE? I've had Canon 135 f2 and I really loved it for outdoor portraits. I've just heard that Zeiss 135 f1.8 T has more pleasant color rendition than Canon, is that true? Sorry for off top. Thank you, guys.

Without being too scientific, 135/1.8 ZA is more or less equal to the stellar 70-200/2.8L IS II (i.e. slightly better than classic 135L), while Zeiss 135/2 ZE easily destroys both and performes on par with super telephoto lenses (200/2L IS)