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

[Zv]

I do like the 135L very much but I've rarely used it as I find myself opting for my image stabilized 70-200 more. In low light I actually prefer the f/4 IS to the 135L. The 135L is great when there loads of light. Shoot at 1/250s or faster and you get nice crisp images. F/2 is actually usable but f/2.8 is where the magic is.

So, unless I'm shooting f/2.8 and faster than 1/250s I'm probably gonna go with my f/4 IS. Might have to just accept that I have no business owning this lens and sell it!

Things that could be improved include reduced CA (blue gunk?), weather sealing, IS, better coatings, lighter (made with that plastic stuff the new lenses are made of) and make it sharper at f/2.

So yeah there's room for improvement!

 

[ahsanford]

+1000 ... a good 50mm f/1.4 IS is much more useful than a 135 f/2. Although I'd take both if the 135 has IS.
I seem to be the odd ball. The 35 f/1.4 is just not quite enough, where the 50 f/1.4 makes the image pop like 3D. 35mm is not quite wide enough and not quite tight enough.
My favorite focal lengths right now are 24, 50, 135, and 400 ... in that order

I think the 50 is an important inflection point (for large aperture work) too. I love love love a 28 or 35 on my 5D3 (those are my go-to FLs for walkaround, env portraiture, etc.), but the magic of slamming a lens wide open and getting that near 3D effect doesn't kick in until 50mm or so for me. You can do it with wider FLs of course, but you need to creep closer and obviously we avoid doing that for facial distortion reasons.

- A

 

[vscd]

As for a pissy little 85 snapping the TC right off, I don't think so. I have put my 300 f2.8 on the end of a TC and used the body mount on a tripod with no ill effects.

Correct. Don't know what he meant, but most 400 f2.8 users I know, carry them along with a TC2.0 or TC1.4 and nothing breaks off. That's BS.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

The current lens is on my to get list for this spring. So hopefully the new model will be out before then. If not then o well, this current model is amazing anyway. That said if they are updating it, it will likely come with IS, improved coatings and updated AF system. But honestly I would be surprised to see this lens next year, the 85mm L lenses is much older and need updating first IMHO, followed by the 50mm L lens which isnt very impressive considering the 50mm STM is actually little sharper. Also the NON L 85mm is old and dirt and really expect a nano USM version of it in the next year or about.

 

[PureClassA]

Canon 135L is my Go-To lens for the overwhelming majority of my portrait shots. Nothing else looks like it. A MarkII upgrade would be an instant pre-order for me. The compression and Bokeh you get off this monster is pretty much identical to the 85L 1.2 thanks to the longer focal length. Certainly you need more distance to target to get the same framing, but the results are unmatched when shooting wide open. For half the price of the 85L it's not even a contest for me. Only thing lacking is weather sealing, and I would prefer they build the new one with the seemingly more modernly-common 77mm filter ring. (Selfish reasons, I always forget my damn step-down rings lol)


All that said, Give us a new 50L. I'm tired of waiting! I've come close to just buying the 35L II, but just don't shoot that focal length all that much outside of landscape, and I use the 16-35 f4 for that. Don't you know this is all about ME, Canon?

 

[PureClassA]

Having further read some commentary here...

Yes to New Lens Coatings, Blue Goo, IS (perhaps), weather sealing, new lens body design, etc...

Bigger aperture? How big we wanna make this thing? f2 at that focal length is already pretty razor thin DOF for portrait.

And owning both the 70-200 IS II and the 135... The 135 just has such an amazing 3D characteristic the zoom just can't ever seem to achieve for me. I think that's due to the fact that the optical design of the 135 is is very simple and clean by comparison to the zoom. Don't get me wrong. I've shot portrait on 70-200 when it was more convenient or the 135 focal length just could not work. (Or I grab my 85 non-L and shoot at 2.8 ). It's a great portrait lens and I know a lot pros who use it for that. While it's certainly far more versatile and has excellent image sharpness and IS .... just doesn't look as magical as the 135.

 

[symmar22]

Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :

- 20mm f2.8
- 28mm f1.8
- 45mm TS-E
- 50mm f1.4
- 50 f2.5 cm
- 85mm f1.8
- 100mm f2

They are all very old designs from the film era and should not be still listed any more in 2016.

 

[ahsanford]

Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :

- 20mm f2.8
- 28mm f1.8
- 45mm TS-E
- 50mm f1.4
- 50 f2.5 cm
- 85mm f1.8
- 100mm f2

They are all very old designs from the film era and should not be still listed any more in 2016.

I'm not convinced we'll ever see the 20mm f/2.8 or 28mm f/1.8 replaced. They are such odd ducks / exceptions to the non-L line. Attached is what I think we'll see before too long. The non-L USM 50 and 85 are #1 and #2 with a bullet for me.

- A

 

[vscd]

Yep... a new 50L with Blue Element would be awesome and I would prefere a 50mm 1.4L IS over an 1.2L...

Oh,and I really like my small 40mm pancake and would love to see a fullframe 28mm or 24mm pancake.

The 135mm f2 is of course a nice portraitlens, especially für head-portraits or longer distances but I already own a 135mm f1.8, so this specific Focallenght is already filled 8)

 

[ahsanford]

Yep... a new 50L with Blue Element would be awesome and I would prefere a 50mm 1.4L IS over an 1.2L...

Oh,and I really like my small 40mm pancake and would love to see a fullframe 28mm or 24mm pancake.

The 135mm f2 is of course a nice portraitlens, especially für head-portraits or longer distances but I already own a 135mm f1.8, so this specific Focallenght is already filled 8)

+1 on a wide pancake. Would love a 24-28mm-ish pancake on my 5D3.

- A

 

[Ryananthony]

Yep... a new 50L with Blue Element would be awesome and I would prefere a 50mm 1.4L IS over an 1.2L...

Oh,and I really like my small 40mm pancake and would love to see a fullframe 28mm or 24mm pancake.

The 135mm f2 is of course a nice portraitlens, especially für head-portraits or longer distances but I already own a 135mm f1.8, so this specific Focallenght is already filled 8)

+1 on a wide pancake. Would love a 24-28mm-ish pancake on my 5D3.

- A

Me too. Prefer 28, but 24 would be good too.

 

[csista]

I'll always keep an open mind, but it would be tough to get me to part with my 135L. IS would obviously be nice, although less of an issue with high iso quality with each new body Canon produces. And minimal focus is a bit long at times. But even if I did upgrade, I'd keep my original copy. This the lens I always say "Just has a certain feel..." to the images it captures that can't be replaced. Something a chart could never quite explain. My favorite bokeh by far. It's the first lens I want to shoot with when a model is backlit because it produces my favorite flares. And maybe I just got a superb copy, but I still feel like this is my sharpest lens. But that could be because I only use it as a portrait lens and sometimes I don't want pores to be so clear. ;-)

 

[mb66energy]

Yep... a new 50L with Blue Element would be awesome and I would prefere a 50mm 1.4L IS over an 1.2L...

Oh,and I really like my small 40mm pancake and would love to see a fullframe 28mm or 24mm pancake.

The 135mm f2 is of course a nice portraitlens, especially für head-portraits or longer distances but I already own a 135mm f1.8, so this specific Focallenght is already filled 8)

+1 on a wide pancake. Would love a 24-28mm-ish pancake on my 5D3.

- A

Me too. Prefer 28, but 24 would be good too.

Yes, would be nice, but I am shure this will never happen because you need a retrofocus design to ke ep the mirror box free.
The 40mm lens is the lower limit of using some double gaussian inspired compact lens design ...

Maybe it is possible to shave off 15mm from the existing 24 2.8 USM while making it f/4.0 and omit IS at nearly the same cost but I would prefer to live with 15mm more and the goodies of f/2.8 + IS. Don't misunderstand me: I myself are happy with the EF 40 2.8 because my 5D with that lens can sit neatly in a larger lens compartment which is important to store a second body in a compact back pack.

With full frame mirrorless even a very compact 24 2.0 should be possible ...

 

[vscd]

Yes, would be nice, but I am shure this will never happen because you need a retrofocus design to ke ep the mirror box free.
The 40mm lens is the lower limit of using some double gaussian inspired compact lens design ...

May not be impossible. Just look at the size of a Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color Skopar and put in an STM which should not enlarge the design too much. I think 28mm are possible, indeed, That would be a streetphotography-killer

 

[mb66energy]

Yes, would be nice, but I am shure this will never happen because you need a retrofocus design to ke ep the mirror box free.
The 40mm lens is the lower limit of using some double gaussian inspired compact lens design ...

May not be impossible. Just look at the size of a Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color Skopar and put in an STM which should not enlarge the design too much. I think 28mm are possible, indeed, That would be a streetphotography-killer

O.k., you are right: I have forgotten these options (on 2nd hand market) and that it has been done. From what I have read about the Voigtlaender compact lenses they arent the best in terms of IQ (wide) open and have to be stopped down.
But sometimes size matters and a tiny lens which gets the shot is much better than a massive 1.4 24 which to visible for street photography. So I should correct my statement by adding "with similar IQ like the shorty fourty"

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :

- 20mm f2.8 A pointless lens now that it's focal length and aperture are covered by many excellent zooms
- 28mm f1.8 I can't see a big market for it
- 45mm TS-E I have one and it's excellent already...does it really need an expensive update? Really?
- 50mm f1.4 yes...it's a bit of a dog...and yes it REALLY could do with an update along with the 50L
- 50 f2.5 cm An odd ball lens, which is irrelevant in the current line up
- 85mm f1.8 Yep, an expensive warm over with IS would be good
- 100mm f2 A pointless lens considering how cheap 135L's currently are

They are all very old designs from the film era and should not be still listed any more in 2016.

I think what the Canon line up really needs at the moment is some 50mm primes that are good wide open and some sub 24mm fast primes. An 11mm f2.8 would be amazing, so would a 17mm f1.4 and a 21mm f1.4.

 

[tron]

Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :

- 20mm f2.8 A pointless lens now that it's focal length and aperture are covered by many excellent zooms
- 28mm f1.8 I can't see a big market for it
- 45mm TS-E I have one and it's excellent already...does it really need an expensive update? Really?
- 50mm f1.4 yes...it's a bit of a dog...and yes it REALLY could do with an update along with the 50L
- 50 f2.5 cm An odd ball lens, which is irrelevant in the current line up
- 85mm f1.8 Yep, an expensive warm over with IS would be good
- 100mm f2 A pointless lens considering how cheap 135L's currently are

They are all very old designs from the film era and should not be still listed any more in 2016.

I think what the Canon line up really needs at the moment is some 50mm primes that are good wide open and some sub 24mm fast primes. An 11mm f2.8 would be amazing, so would a 17mm f1.4 and a 21mm f1.4.

17 1.4 would be a super astro lens (coma dependent of course...)

 

[symmar22]

Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :

- 20mm f2.8
- 28mm f1.8
- 45mm TS-E
- 50mm f1.4
- 50 f2.5 cm
- 85mm f1.8
- 100mm f2

They are all very old designs from the film era and should not be still listed any more in 2016.

I'm not convinced we'll ever see the 20mm f/2.8 or 28mm f/1.8 replaced. They are such odd ducks / exceptions to the non-L line. Attached is what I think we'll see before too long. The non-L USM 50 and 85 are #1 and #2 with a bullet for me.

- A

Agreed, the 20mm f2.8 and 28mm f1.8 are unlikely to be replaced, a 20mm f2 with zero distortion and low coma could be nice though. Maybe is there some space for a high end 28mm f1.4-ish L lens.

My point was that it's time to remove all the "gold ring" lenses from the catalogue and replace them with something modern. From a marketing point, only 3 lenses series would be easier to read as well : L, silver ring and STM.

Aside from the obvious 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8, there is a need for an updated "standard" macro, I would replace mine immediately if they would release a 50-60mm macro IS USM, preferably f2 with 1:2 ratio than f2.8 with 1:1 ratio.

My second most urgent wish would be the 45 TS-E, I use the 17, 24 and 90 all the time, but never bought the 45 because of the (very) average IQ. I rented it a few times and was always disappointed. Last time I did, I used it on an assignment on my 5DSr, it was just a plain disaster. This is the only TS-E focal length that is worse than its Nikon equivalent. It is likely the less common TS-E, because it's the worst, although the focal length / aperture ratio would make it the easiest to design.

The 90 TS-E was much better designed and holds up very well to modern standards, but I am sure there is a bit of margin to improve as well.

Please canon, release an updated 45 TS-E and you'll have my money the next day.

 

[vscd]

Aside from the obvious 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8, there is a need for an updated "standard" macro, I would replace mine immediately if they would release a 50-60mm macro IS USM, preferably f2 with 1:2 ratio than f2.8 with 1:1 ratio

That's an interesting opinion. I never would call something like 1:2 a makro at all (Zeiss often does). For what do you need a fast f2 lens in the makroworld? Just to use it as normal lens, too? Depth of field is not that likely

 

[symmar22]

Aside from the obvious 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8, there is a need for an updated "standard" macro, I would replace mine immediately if they would release a 50-60mm macro IS USM, preferably f2 with 1:2 ratio than f2.8 with 1:1 ratio

That's an interesting opinion. I never would call something like 1:2 a makro at all (Zeiss often does). For what do you need a fast f2 lens in the makroworld? Just to use it as normal lens, too? Depth of field is not that likely

I do not use the 50mm 2.5 CM as a real macro lens, for real macro, 100mm lenses or more are IMO much better suited for the distance they give to the subject. My use of the 50mm is as a reproduction lens (paintings or flat material samples are a good example), close-up of small to medium subjects (food photography) and architecture. In these fields of use, there is nothing better than a macro lens if you need a 50mm, since they offer :

- no field curvature (repro of flat subjects)
- zero distortion (architecture)
- better than normal lenses behaviour at small f-stops (11-16)
- often slightly sharper than a 100mm macro equivalent.

I've never used mine at more than 1:2 ratio (since the film days I've been using 100mm or more for super close up), so I am more talking about close-up capability than real macro, f2 would make it a bit closer to an all-rounder. I think that is the very reason Zeiss makes a 50 macro f2 1:2.

I am still surprised by the IQ of the 50mm f2.5 CM when used between f5.6 and f16, it behaves very well on the 5DSr. The main problem is the prehistoric AF, and very nasty manual focusing.