Canon EF 135mm f/2L II On the Way? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<p>Every so often we hear things about Canon’s longer prime lenses, but nothing ever comes to fruition. There is an expectation we’re going to see new 50mm and 85mm lenses in the next year or so, though we haven’t heard anything we’d consider definitive.</p>
<p>We’re told that an EF 135mm f/2L II prototype currently exists internally at Canon, but hasn’t yet been given to photographers for field testing.</p>
<p>Development of an “L” lens can take years and we don’t doubt that this lens is on the upgrade cycle. However, we’re not sure it’s coming in the <em>near</em> future.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

I would have to say owning this lens I cannot think of any way in which it needs improving as its damn good and does exactly what it should. Would expect there would be other things canon could better spend their time on !

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria

 

[vscd]

I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...

...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.

 

[Proscribo]

I would have to say owning this lens I cannot think of any way in which it needs improving as its damn good and does exactly what it should.

I can think a few things they can improve: AF, image quality and add IS. I can remember people speaking about canon upgrading their 70-200mm/2.8L IS II, and that's at least on par with (stopped down to 2.8 ) the 135mmL!
Maybe it could be also made even smaller?

Tho I agree that there's other lenses that would require a replacement more than this... I'm looking at you, 50mm/1.4.

 

[canonic]

Bring it on! I need to feed my Sony camera(s)

 

[mclaren777]

I hope every single L prime that Canon makes going forward will use its new BR optics technology.

 

[Pookie]

I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...

...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.

Where do you get your crack from because it must be some good stuff? Or have you moved on to bath salts...

 

[privatebydesign]

I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...

...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.

Where do you get your crack from because it must be some good stuff? Or have you moved on to bath salts...

What don't you understand about somebody not being interested in a 135 f2 if they have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS?

 

[Pookie]

I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...

...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.

Where do you get your crack from because it must be some good stuff? Or have you moved on to bath salts...

What don't you understand about somebody not being interested in a 135 f2 if they have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS?

You can put a 1.4 converter on a 85mm L? I'd like to see that...

 

[rs]

I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...

...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.

Where do you get your crack from because it must be some good stuff? Or have you moved on to bath salts...

What don't you understand about somebody not being interested in a 135 f2 if they have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS?

You can put a 1.4 converter on a 85mm L?

last time I checked, that rear element was as in your face as the front element. I'd like to see a 1.4x TC which that lens can mount on.

Actually, on second thoughts I wouldn't.

 

[Pookie]

I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...

...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.

Where do you get your crack from because it must be some good stuff? Or have you moved on to bath salts...

What don't you understand about somebody not being interested in a 135 f2 if they have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS?

You can put a 1.4 converter on a 85mm L?

last time I checked, that rear element was as in your face as the front element. I'd like to see a 1.4x TC which that lens can mount on.

Actually, on second thoughts I wouldn't.

Yea... my point exactly. Maybe if you use a ball peen hammer and a anvil it might fit :

But if you do have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS you surely must have a nice big bag of crack to go with those focal lengths.

 

[privatebydesign]

I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...

...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.

Where do you get your crack from because it must be some good stuff? Or have you moved on to bath salts...

What don't you understand about somebody not being interested in a 135 f2 if they have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS?

You can put a 1.4 converter on a 85mm L?

last time I checked, that rear element was as in your face as the front element. I'd like to see a 1.4x TC which that lens can mount on.

Actually, on second thoughts I wouldn't.

Yea... my point exactly. Maybe if you use a ball peen hammer and a anvil it might fit :

But if you do have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS you surely must have a nice big bag of crack to go with those focal lengths.

Just about every 1.4TC apart from the Canon ones fit and work fine. Indeed some have argued the Tamron 1.4 TC is every bit as good optically as the Canon one and works on a lot more lenses.

No hammer or drugs needed...........

 

[ahsanford]

Shocked no one is angry that this (rumored) lens lacks IS and is not faster than f/2.

I personally am ambivalent, but some folks on this forum have been asking for a 135mm f/1.8 IS for some time.

Also: large aperture prime L lens --> will we get more of the BR gunk in this one like the 35 f/1.4L II?

- A

 

[Xyxyll]

IQ of the original 135mm f/2L is superb. I can't imagine any ways to improve on that side. If they're not adding IS or opening it up to f/1.8, I don't know why they'd ever cycle out a new one. The original is sooo good; I don't expect I'll ever upgrade.

 

[photojoern.de]

I would not consider this lens, because compared to the L 70-200 f2.8 IS II it is just on f-stop quicker, does not have the IS and the 70-200 is a masterpiece (both, f4 and f2.8) regarding sharpness and bokeh. It´s a very special lens for only a few studio portrait photographer, I would think.

 

[Pookie]

I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...

...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.

Where do you get your crack from because it must be some good stuff? Or have you moved on to bath salts...

What don't you understand about somebody not being interested in a 135 f2 if they have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS?

You can put a 1.4 converter on a 85mm L?

last time I checked, that rear element was as in your face as the front element. I'd like to see a 1.4x TC which that lens can mount on.

Actually, on second thoughts I wouldn't.

Yea... my point exactly. Maybe if you use a ball peen hammer and a anvil it might fit :

But if you do have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS you surely must have a nice big bag of crack to go with those focal lengths.

Just about every 1.4TC apart from the Canon ones fit and work fine. Indeed some have argued the Tamron 1.4 TC is every bit as good optically as the Canon one and works on a lot more lenses.

No hammer or drugs needed...........

Nope, not going to happen with the 85L. You'll have to do better than say it will work, I'd need a picture. You'd still need a bag of drugs and a hammer...

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I've been holding out for a 135mm f/2 with IS. Those are my needs. I think it's safe to say Sigma or Tamron will probably be first to offer one.

 

[ahsanford]

IQ of the original 135mm f/2L is superb. I can't imagine any ways to improve on that side. If they're not adding IS or opening it up to f/1.8, I don't know why they'd ever cycle out a new one. The original is sooo good; I don't expect I'll ever upgrade.

I'm loathe to do this, but DX- [throw up in my mouth noise] excuse me DXO may actually have some insight to offer here:

Zeiss (Pre-Milvus) 135mm f/2 on 5D3: Sharpness = 22
Zeiss (Pre-Milvus) 135mm f/2 on 5DS R: Sharpness = 41

Canon 135mm f/2L on 5D3: Sharpness = 20
Canon 135mm f/2L on 5DS R: Sharpness = 30

No testing on the Samyang or Zeiss Milvus yet.

(I know it's just one copy, but) It might imply that the 135L improves with 50 MP but is starting to show its age on such a fine canvas. As excellent as it is, it could clearly be improved.

And our very own Dustin Abbott (regular poster here) backs up that notion. He has tested the bejeezus out of 135mm primes and has said the Samyang 135mm f/2 "beats the pants off [the 135L] optically" and the new Milvus is even better than that.

So the notion that the 135L is stellar is true, but if you can live without AF, there appear to be better instruments out there. Canon can absolutely improve their offering.

- A

 

[helpful]

Canon, if you're reading this, this is my most-used lens according to my film archives and digital EXIF data, over 495K images across three copies of the lens. Other lenses come and go, but I always depend on the 135mm f/2. I would greatly appreciate it if you would update this lens with Otus-grade optics, and your fastest focusing technology. IS would be nice as well, but if it reduces even slightly the image quality then I would rather have the image quality. (Usage cases when I could use a slow enough shutter speed for IS to matter are far fewer than the 100% of the time where image quality matters.)

 

[ahsanford]

Canon, if you're reading this, this is my most-used lens according to my film archives and digital EXIF data, over 495K images across three copies of the lens. Other lenses come and go, but I always depend on the 135mm f/2. I would greatly appreciate it if you would update this lens with Otus-grade optics, and your fastest focusing technology. IS would be nice as well, but if it reduces even slightly the image quality then I would rather have the image quality. (Usage cases when I could use a slow enough shutter speed for IS to matter are far fewer than the 100% of the time where image quality matters.)

AF is their ace in the hole. They need to improve there as well as optically. I say that because Tamron and Sigma *surely* are making 135 primes someday, so Canon's monopoly on autofocusing 135 primes will end someday.

- A