Another Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS USM Mention [CR2]

[Ozarker]

I wonder whether BR will appear here.

As everybody tells you every time you ask this about every new lens, no, BR is only useful for wide angle lenses.

Well, then why don't you explain to me why that is and what makes you say that... other than forum speculation. Show me the facts / data or where Canon says this. Then I'll stop asking. So far only the 35mm f/1.4 II has it. Personally, I think you are wrong. BTW, everybody does not tell me this. Just a few who have no facts to back it up. None.

Geek out over this:
http://lenses.reviewed.com/features/canon-quietly-shows-new-600mm-f4l-do-with-br-optics

Let me google that for you...

This is from Canon themselves:

http://www.canon-asia.com/cplus/en/br-lens-elements/

"As conventional glass lens combinations are unable to correct chromatic aberration, this is usually done using special lenses with different refractive indices, such as fluorite or UD lenses. However, there are some residual chromatic aberrations even these lenses may not be able to fully correct, which we refer to as “secondary spectrum”. Large, wide-angle lenses tend to be particularly prone to them."

So while BR certainly wouldn't hurt on a telephoto, the phenomenon that BR is meant to combat is much more severe in wide-angle lenses, and it's very reasonable to assume that from a bang for the buck perspective, that's where you will tend to see it applied.

Ahhh... but that is not what you wrote. You wrote: "BR is only useful for wide angle lenses." That's what you wrote. Now you admit, I see, that it can also be useful in telephoto lenses. The 135 f/2L (current lens) suffers from CA. So it is reasonable to ask if the new lens will have it. Especially since Canon has a 600 DO prototype with BR. Canon does not say in your googled link what you want Canon to say. So, I guess I'll keep wondering whether BR will be included with each new L lens that gets released.

Bang for the buck? For who? I'd be happy to pay for it on my end, especially since I see how well it performs on my 35 II. You know what happens when we assume. People paying $10k for a great white would be happy not to have CA problems too. That's real bang for the buck.

 

[Pippan]

I bet if everyone stopped buying the current 50mm f/1.4 USM they'd make a new one.

That won't happen though!

I've stopped buying it. In fact I've never bought it!

 

[ahsanford]

An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.

Because the 85 f/1.8 USM ruined the 85 f/1.2L USM II sales, and no one owns the 50 f/1.2L due to the powerhouse value that is the 50 f/1.4 USM. :

Lenses' value are so much more than their max aperture and if they have IS.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.

Because the 85 f/1.8 USM ruined the 85 f/1.2L USM II sales, and no one owns the 50 f/1.2L due to the powerhouse value that is the 50 f/1.4 USM. :

Lenses' value are so much more than their max aperture and if they have IS.

- A

Perfect.

 

[Ozarker]

I bet if everyone stopped buying the current 50mm f/1.4 USM they'd make a new one.

That won't happen though!

I've stopped buying it. In fact I've never bought it!

We need a petition and a boycott.

 

[stevelee]

I bet if everyone stopped buying the current 50mm f/1.4 USM they'd make a new one.

That won't happen though!

I've stopped buying it. In fact I've never bought it!

I bought just one 50mm f/1.4 several years ago, and then I quit buying them. I got it mainly to be a portrait lens for my T3i. I've never had occasion to try it on my 6D2. I haven't shot a real portrait in the short time I've had it, and would probably use the 100mm f/2.8 macro for that purpose on the 6D2 if the situation comes up. So far the kit zoom covers that range just fine, and I haven't needed to use a faster lens. In theory I think I should have an 85mm lens, and I certainly loved the 85mm lens I used with my film Canon decades ago. But since I haven't missed having one, my priorities will be toward lenses outside the 24-105mm range. My old 75-300mm lens is not that great, and I don't have anything in the super-wide range. For now, if that latter need came along, I'd still use the T3i with the 10-22mm lens that won't work on the 6D2.

So the odds of my ever buying a 50mm lens again are closer to none than to slim.

 

[Maximilian]

I bet if everyone stopped buying the current 50mm f/1.4 USM they'd make a new one.

That won't happen though!

I've stopped buying it. In fact I've never bought it!

We need a petition and a boycott.

I did and do boycott Canon on 50 mm lenses since I was born

In my family my father was the last one to buy a 50 mm lens, I suppose shortly after I was born.
It was a Canon FD 50mm F/1.2 (non L) and was stolen several years ago.

And I will keep boycotting that until I see a (non L) 50 mm lens similar to ahsanfords specification.


Edit: but I am really interested in that 135 mm refresh as well

 

[Antono Refa]

An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.

Because the 85 f/1.8 USM ruined the 85 f/1.2L USM II sales, and no one owns the 50 f/1.2L due to the powerhouse value that is the 50 f/1.4 USM. :

Lenses' value are so much more than their max aperture and if they have IS.

If you have to use a straw man argument, and refer to the 85mm f/1.2 rather than the f/1.4, then you know you don't have an argument.

The f/1.2 lenses are specialty portraiture lenses, which is what makes it "so much more than their max aperture and ... IS", compared to the 85mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.4

Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?

 

[midluk]

Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?

Build quality, weather sealing, red ring, likely some slight differences in optical quality (e.g. vignetting), CPS eligibility, mirror box clipping, price.
But there is no use speculating about 50mm IS, those will not happen any time soon (if at all).

 

[mb66energy]

Please update the 50L with 1.4 and IS before you touch the 135

No, this will not happen. Canon will release an update of every other lens with added IS before a new 50mm.

I bet if ahsanford just stopped asking, they'd make the new 50/1.4 IS USM.

Dear ahsanford, please stop asking immediately !

 

[mb66energy]

But will it work with extenders?

For me that's the biggest plus about the 135 2.0L

I'm not sure if optical stabilization works with extenders since it's inherently designed to work with a specific focal length. I'd like to know this as well. Maybe Canon has IS teleconverters?

From what I understand:
(1) In lens IS trys to produce a stable image on the (non-stabilized) sensor plane.
(2) A tele converter is a lens / lens arrangement that blows up the image projected by the primary lens.
(3) maybe there are minor imperfections due to variations of the incident angle of the light by the image
stabilizer group.

If the image generated by the lens is stable, the tele converter should leave this stabilization unchanged.
But: effective shake (amplitude e.g. in pixels) is increased by the factor of the teleconverter - same goes
for lens imperfections.

 

[Ozarker]

An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.

Because the 85 f/1.8 USM ruined the 85 f/1.2L USM II sales, and no one owns the 50 f/1.2L due to the powerhouse value that is the 50 f/1.4 USM. :

Lenses' value are so much more than their max aperture and if they have IS.

If you have to use a straw man argument, and refer to the 85mm f/1.2 rather than the f/1.4, then you know you don't have an argument.

The f/1.2 lenses are specialty portraiture lenses, which is what makes it "so much more than their max aperture and ... IS", compared to the 85mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.4

Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?

Antonio, I would rather know from you: In what way will the "85 f/1.8 IS USM perform almost like the 85 f/1.4L IS USM"? IQ? Bokeh? CA? Distortion? Build quality? Weather sealing? I ask because if what you say is true then I might save $$$$ buying the 1.8 if the performance is nearly the same as you claim. Maybe Mr. Stanford's comparison to the 1.2L was a typographical error. Straw man or not, I don't think your claim is valid.

 

[stevelee]

In the film era I believe my 85mm FL lens was f/1.8, and I never felt a need for it to be faster or have shallower DOF.

 

[Chaitanya]

Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or shitty APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere. But are there really only two categories? People who buy Rebels and then pros with no price/weight limits?

I always thought the Canon's strategy of not-offering better EF-S glass is to lure people into fullframe. But how many people really jump into fullframe with such a huge money leap? Because it's mostly targetted on pros, the bodies are expensive and so are L lenses (and heavy because f/1.4 etc). The non-L primes are mostly really old. Sure, people could buy older versions of L glass, but that usually means no IS, serious IQ pitfalls and big weight. I would expect Canon to offer more tiers of fullframe bodies and lenses (f/2 or f/2.8, STM, no weather sealing), especially with the potential release of a mirrorless EF fullframe and DSLR sales falling. Canon seems like a split personality, they are luring people in and keeping it an exclusive club at the same time.

Sure, Canon still sells a lot (but mostly Rebels right?), and Canon knows the market best, but it's inevitable that in a couple of years even more people would be happy with cameras in their phones. Which would mean even less people would care for entry-level APS-C cameras. Isn't this the best time to move more people into fullframe, where the prices will inevitably be higher?

Sorry for the rant, I guess I'll just have to get used to the fact I am not the market. ;D

You are forgetting about prehistoric 50mm Compact Macro(which was recently discontinued) which in even more dire need of replacement compared to 50mm 1.4. There are rumours of Nikon replacing their AF-S 60mm macro soon which was already an updated version of AF-D 60mm lens. Feels really sad that Canon is concentrating on high end and cheap lenses rather than the ones people can afford to replace their cheap kit lenses.

 

[Antono Refa]

An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.

Because the 85 f/1.8 USM ruined the 85 f/1.2L USM II sales, and no one owns the 50 f/1.2L due to the powerhouse value that is the 50 f/1.4 USM. :

Lenses' value are so much more than their max aperture and if they have IS.

If you have to use a straw man argument, and refer to the 85mm f/1.2 rather than the f/1.4, then you know you don't have an argument.

The f/1.2 lenses are specialty portraiture lenses, which is what makes it "so much more than their max aperture and ... IS", compared to the 85mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.4

Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?

Antonio, I would rather know from you: In what way will the "85 f/1.8 IS USM perform almost like the 85 f/1.4L IS USM"? IQ? Bokeh? CA? Distortion? Build quality? Weather sealing? I ask because if what you say is true then I might save $$$$ buying the 1.8 if the performance is nearly the same as you claim.

As this is a medium telephoto lens, I'll bet IQ, bokeh, CA, and distortion

Photographers who care enough about build quality & weather sealing to pay a premium are a minority.

Maybe Mr. Stanford's comparison to the 1.2L was a typographical error. Straw man or not, I don't think your claim is valid.

Don't make excuses for him. It doesn't help any.

 

[Ozarker]

An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.

Because the 85 f/1.8 USM ruined the 85 f/1.2L USM II sales, and no one owns the 50 f/1.2L due to the powerhouse value that is the 50 f/1.4 USM. :

Lenses' value are so much more than their max aperture and if they have IS.

If you have to use a straw man argument, and refer to the 85mm f/1.2 rather than the f/1.4, then you know you don't have an argument.

The f/1.2 lenses are specialty portraiture lenses, which is what makes it "so much more than their max aperture and ... IS", compared to the 85mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.4

Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?

Antonio, I would rather know from you: In what way will the "85 f/1.8 IS USM perform almost like the 85 f/1.4L IS USM"? IQ? Bokeh? CA? Distortion? Build quality? Weather sealing? I ask because if what you say is true then I might save $$$$ buying the 1.8 if the performance is nearly the same as you claim.

As this is a medium telephoto lens, I'll bet IQ, bokeh, CA, and distortion

Photographers who care enough about build quality & weather sealing to pay a premium are a minority.

Maybe Mr. Stanford's comparison to the 1.2L was a typographical error. Straw man or not, I don't think your claim is valid.

Don't make excuses for him. It doesn't help any.

Here's the problem I am having with what you wrote: "EF 85 f/1.8 IS USM". As far as I can tell there is no such lens. In fact, the EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM is the only Canon EF 85 with Image Stabilization. Is that a typo from you? Will you now accept the possibility that Mr. Sanford might have done the same?

So does the pseudo IS in your mythical lens perform as well as the genuine IS in the EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM?

Many professional photographers and enthusiasts care about IS a great deal.

 

[jd7]

An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.

Because the 85 f/1.8 USM ruined the 85 f/1.2L USM II sales, and no one owns the 50 f/1.2L due to the powerhouse value that is the 50 f/1.4 USM. :

Lenses' value are so much more than their max aperture and if they have IS.

If you have to use a straw man argument, and refer to the 85mm f/1.2 rather than the f/1.4, then you know you don't have an argument.

The f/1.2 lenses are specialty portraiture lenses, which is what makes it "so much more than their max aperture and ... IS", compared to the 85mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.4

Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?

Antonio, I would rather know from you: In what way will the "85 f/1.8 IS USM perform almost like the 85 f/1.4L IS USM"? IQ? Bokeh? CA? Distortion? Build quality? Weather sealing? I ask because if what you say is true then I might save $$$$ buying the 1.8 if the performance is nearly the same as you claim.

As this is a medium telephoto lens, I'll bet IQ, bokeh, CA, and distortion

Photographers who care enough about build quality & weather sealing to pay a premium are a minority.

Maybe Mr. Stanford's comparison to the 1.2L was a typographical error. Straw man or not, I don't think your claim is valid.

Don't make excuses for him. It doesn't help any.

If you read what ahsanford wrote, I think it's clear he didn't make any error when he referred to the 85 1.2L, and no one needs to make any excuses for him. His point was that there is a lot more to a lens than just maximum aperture and whether or not it has IS, and that that is illustrated by the fact that Canon has for a long time happily sold an 85 1.8 USM alongside a much higher priced 85 1.2L (original and mk II), and sold a 50 1.4 USM alongside a much higher priced 50 1.2L (not to mention a much cheaper 50 1.8 micro USM and more recently STM).

It is hard to see why anyone should expect if Canon produces a cheaper 85 1.8 IS USM (which you'd think is likely to happen at some point or other), it would perform "almost like the 85 1.4L IS USM" (taking into account all facets of lens performance), it is hard to see why Canon wouldn't be happy to sell an 85 1.8 IS USM alongside an 85 1.4L IS, and it is hard to imagine the cheaper lens stealing too many genuine sales from the L lens. (Many of us may want the L lens but settle for the cheaper lens, but that is not the same as saying we would have paid up for the L lens if the cheaper lens was not available.)

 

[Antono Refa]

Here's the problem I am having with what you wrote: "EF 85 f/1.8 IS USM". As far as I can tell there is no such lens.

My argument is about why there would or wouldn't be one, so of course there isn't one. If there was, there would be no point in having the discussion, would there?

In fact, the EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM is the only Canon EF 85 with Image Stabilization. Is that a typo from you? Will you now accept the possibility that Mr. Sanford might have done the same?

Now you're joining him in putting words in my mouth. Great work!

 

[Antono Refa]

His point was that there is a lot more to a lens than just maximum aperture and whether or not it has IS, and that that is illustrated by the fact that Canon has for a long time happily sold an 85 1.8 USM alongside a much higher priced 85 1.2L (original and mk II), and sold a 50 1.4 USM alongside a much higher priced 50 1.2L (not to mention a much cheaper 50 1.8 micro USM and more recently STM).

And I explained why, IMHO, that's a different case.

...it is hard to imagine the cheaper lens stealing too many genuine sales from the L lens. (Many of us may want the L lens but settle for the cheaper lens, but that is not the same as saying we would have paid up for the L lens if the cheaper lens was not available.)

No, it isn't.

The 85mm f/1.8 is very good as it is. If Canon just added IS, plenty of people who can afford the L would settle on buying the non-L to save the money.

[Why? Because some people, say those who shoot in a studio, don't need weather sealing. Same for CPS, etc.]

 

[Maximilian]

Hi to Antono and all other discussing the Canon 85 mm lens strategy on a 135 mm Lens thread!

I don't want to add more fuel to the fire but I'd like to give my 5 cents to this discussion because it's a lot of "if's" and "when's" and "how's" of new lenses that might be released and might have some higher or lower quality.

So what do we have right now?

• an old light beast, 85/1.2 L, that will be continued at least for some time
• a new great performer, 85/1.4 IS L, that seems to be able to compete well with the new competition, e.g. S Art
• a very old but also cheap 85/1.8

Personally I am sure, that we will see a successor of the 85/1.8 in less than 10 years. But I don't expect it within the next 1 or 2 years. If so, Canon would really surprise me.
If that successor comes the aimed market will stay similar to its predecessor and Canon surely will not make it good enough to steal sales from the two L lenses.
I don't see an IS in that lens or if so, they won't keep the f/1.8. But that's just IMO.

And to this

The 85mm f/1.8 is very good as it is. If Canon just added IS, plenty of people who can afford the L would settle on buying the non-L to save the money.

[Why? Because some people, say those who shoot in a studio, don't need weather sealing. Same for CPS, etc.]

I say:
No I don't see that, in several ways:
[list type=decimal]
[*]the old 85/1.8 has a very good price performance, but I wouldn't call it good
[*]also the optical performance is okay but not compareable to the 24/28/35 IS lenses
[*]a studio photograph would rather prefer f/1.4 and more possibilities of DOF control over IS, as they either use tripods or can produce enough light
[*]so that studio maket is not the focus market of an 85/1.8 (IS)
[/list]

But ... if Canon makes the 85/1.8

• slightly better in IQ (CA, color control and contrast) but keep almost the same form factor
• put in a faster AF
• could rise the price just to the level of the 24/28/35 IS lenses
• maybe - just maybe - add an IS as icing

Then this would be a really great allround (portrait) lens for all hobbyists, available light photographers and so on.
And if they keep the IQ noticeably below the L lenses I see markets for all of them.

But as I've said, I don't expect such a lens soon.