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

[vlad]

Sign me up for one that's sharper at f2 and has IS! The AF is already pretty good, but I wouldn't be angry if they made it quieter and/or faster. The current version sharpens and edits very nicely, but the look is relatively flat wide open, which is where you probably want to be keeping it most of the time.

 

[tron]

It is a very nice portrait lens. Its sharpness is adequate but a stabilizer wouldn't hurt 8)

 

[Ozarker]

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...

I was laughing at the same thing and I don't even have an 85L. Okay, I only smiled real big and shook my head.

 

[unfocused]

I would not jump to the conclusion that it would NOT have IS, simply because it's not specifically mentioned in a rumor.

 

[Ozarker]

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

135mm f/1.8L would be a hoss! I'm wondering, though, if f/1.8 would offer much advantage at all over f/2.

IS and BR would be nice, but the current less is good enough for me.

 

[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.)

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

Absolutely agreed. When I switch from my 400mm f/2.8 II back to this, I notice a huge difference in AF speed. The 135mm is very fast but incredibly slow compared to what it could be with the latest technology.

AF speed is everything when using the 135mm for action which is one of its biggest applications already.

 

[LordofTackle]

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...........

yeah, I would love to see how you put this

on that:

Hint: don't forget that hammer

I'm pretty sure that those two lenses would scratch each other rather nicely^^

 

[Ryananthony]

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...........

yeah, I would love to see how you put this

on that:

Hint: don't forget that hammer

I'm pretty sure that those two lenses would scratch each other rather nicely^^

Wouldn't someone just throw an extension tube in the middle. Why wouldn't that work

 

[ahsanford]

I cringe just looking at that 85L rear element. That's a scratch magnet from poor handling if I ever saw one.

- A

 

[Tuke]

Canon vs Zeiss

This review by Dustin probably gives you what you are looking for:
http://dustinabbott.net/2014/07/zeiss-apo-sonnar-t-2135mm-ze-review-2/

I had the 135/2L, but wrecked it. I then got the Zeiss and it is optically a better lens, but the lack of AF is an issue now and then. But with the Ec-S focusing screen in the 1DX, I get good keeper rates even wide open, provided things does´t move much.

There is room for improvement! Also there is that Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm f/1.4. And adding IS would't hurt!

 

[j-nord]

The 135f2 is a fantastic lens, one of the best by many accounts. However, of course there is room to improve.

- Sharper for high m-pix bodies
- Faster AF (it's not particularly fast compared to newer L lenses)
- Closer minimum focus distance
- IS
- lighter/smaller - maybe
- f1.8 - maybe

 

[LordofTackle]

Wouldn't someone just throw an extension tube in the middle. Why wouldn't that work

It would. But you would loose the ability to focus to infinity and I guess it would be even more detrimental to IQ (I think the 1.4x would be already a pretty big hit on IQ since the lens was never designed for TC use).

 

[mackguyver]

This has been on my wish list for a long time - I would love to see it with IS and sharper with less LoCA wide open.

Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Zhongyi 135mm F1.4 Speedmaster. It weighs a mere 6.6lbs and costs $3k US...

 

[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.

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

I don't know what you like to smoke but in my world my 85L works very fine with a Kenko 1.7x and I don't think this would change with a smaller 1.4x. But hey, at least you dropped a funny speech and felt superiour for a moment. Indulge yourself something. Remember, there is more than the Canon TC 1.4, which is a big failure in design in my eyes...

The Canon TCs were failures back in the old days, when they even failed to work with the Magic Drainpipe Workhorse 80-200L.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

While it's a great lens for sure...the min focus distance is a little long, the coatings are very old. So never coatings for flare and the new blue element would be good too. The AF is very old and certainly could do with a tweak. While it's still fast, accurate and reliable, it's slow compared to a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II. It's casing is a little fragile and flexible compared to say the 100mm LIS macro. Also...it's optics could do with a tweak too, they could easily push the lens diameter to 77mm and push the aperture to f1.8 for another 1/3 stop. Then there's the better aperture diagram units. More blades give better sunstars and smoother out of focus areas when stopped down.
So while the current lens is excellent...there is always tech and room for improvement. Just look at what Canon did with the legendary 35mm f1.4 L.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Canon vs Zeiss

This review by Dustin probably gives you what you are looking for:
http://dustinabbott.net/2014/07/zeiss-apo-sonnar-t-2135mm-ze-review-2/

I had the 135/2L, but wrecked it. I then got the Zeiss and it is optically a better lens, but the lack of AF is an issue now and then. But with the Ec-S focusing screen in the 1DX, I get good keeper rates even wide open, provided things does´t move much.

There is room for improvement! Also there is that Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm f/1.4. And adding IS would't hurt!

That photo on the left is questionably out of focus, not softer. My 135L is VERY sharp, but it's no macro lens and it's AF accuracy gets worse as it gets close to MFD. Wide open, shooting "head and shoulders" portraits (roughly 2.5m away) it's sharpness is breath taking, up there with the greats.

 

[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...

I don't know what you like to smoke but in my world my 85L works very fine with a Kenko 1.7x and I don't think this would change with a smaller 1.4x. But hey, at least you dropped a funny speech and felt superiour for a moment. Indulge yourself something. Remember, there is more than the Canon TC 1.4, which is a big failure in design in my eyes...

The Canon TCs were failures back in the old days, when they even failed to work with the Magic Drainpipe Workhorse 80-200L.

Any chance of a photo of the 85L mounted on the 17.x? I've had a look around online and can't see a single example of any 85L mounted on any TC...

 

[slclick]

Fix not what is not broken

 

[zim]

From Kenko site, seems they think it would fit. Wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer was optimistic about their products though! ;D

 

[verysimplejason]

50mm with IS and USM please...