Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS Coming in 2017 [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
The current EF 135L is so so good... in ALL aspects... how can it be better...
I'm not sure about this apodization filters... but if it is really going to have IS onboard... now that would be the only real upgrade IMO. This will be something I'd consider for my camera bag (I'd sell my 100L IS macro for this)! The downside will be a high price I guess (somewhere around 1600 bucks probably). :-( So... We will have to see.
I'm not sure about this apodization filters... but if it is really going to have IS onboard... now that would be the only real upgrade IMO. This will be something I'd consider for my camera bag (I'd sell my 100L IS macro for this)! The downside will be a high price I guess (somewhere around 1600 bucks probably). :-( So... We will have to see.
Upvote
0
Crosswind said:
Short answer: The addition of IS and the implementation of 21 years worth of newer technology and lens design know-how from Canon will deliver a better instrument.
I hate referencing DXO, but as the only site that seems to catalog lenses across multiple sensors, consider:
135L on a 22 MP 5D3 sensor --> 20 out of 22 for sharpness (in their P-MPix metric)
135L on a 30 MP 5D4 sensor --> 24 out of 30
135L on a 50 MP 5DS R sensor --> 30 out of 50
Keep in mind, 30/50 is still a fine result (better than many recent L zooms measured on such a detailed canvas), but yes, it could get better.
- A
Upvote
0
bokehmon22 said:
Fixed that for you.
The 135L has coexisted well with 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for 20 years now, so it would appear that people truly do value the sharpness and extra stop of the 135L.But, in the era of the super-resolving FF lenses (cough: Sigma Art), it's possible someone grabs the 85 Art or (in Nikon land) a 105mm f/1.4 and opts out of a new 135mm f/2 lens. So, of your original list, you may not see the upside of a 135 f/2 vs. your Art lens.
- A
Upvote
0
I like the image perspective of my 135mm, use it for urban landscape, but I find something about the image rendering slightly disconcerting a bit like an overt noise reduction plus sharpening in post production. Perhaps struggling with resolution of modern sensors?
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:bokehmon22 said:
Fixed that for you.
But, in the era of the super-resolving FF lenses (cough: Sigma Art), it's possible someone grabs the 85 Art or (in Nikon land) a 105mm f/1.4 and opts out of a new 135mm f/2 lens. So, of your original list, you may not see the upside of a 135 f/2 vs. your Art lens.
- A
I'm just trying to find a reason to spend sensibly. 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 II is very convenient for my wedding works. Adding a fast prime 85 1.4 Art is good for indoor shots/low light shots. I was hoping to add Tamron 115 1.4 (as my poor man 200 f2) but the 135 f2 is always one where so many gave it high praise but I can't find a place in my arsenal.
Upvote
0
bokehmon22 said:ahsanford said:bokehmon22 said:
Fixed that for you.
But, in the era of the super-resolving FF lenses (cough: Sigma Art), it's possible someone grabs the 85 Art or (in Nikon land) a 105mm f/1.4 and opts out of a new 135mm f/2 lens. So, of your original list, you may not see the upside of a 135 f/2 vs. your Art lens.
- A
I'm just trying to find a reason to spend sensibly. 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 II is very convenient for my wedding works. Adding a fast prime 85 1.4 Art is good for indoor shots/low light shots. I was hoping to add Tamron 115 1.4 (as my poor man 200 f2) but the 135 f2 is always one where so many gave it high praise but I can't find a place in my arsenal.
I think the 135 2 has quite similar characteristics to the 70-200 2.8 L IS (@ 200mm / 2.8) in terms of IQ, at least to the point where newly weds wouldn't notice. The zooming is probably worth having more than a prime, unless you really need, and probably want, a low light portrait lens. I would look no further than the 84 1.4 IS L for weddings.
The reason I love the 135 2 L is because it replaces my 70-200 2.8 IS L when traveling. Having IS would be incredibly useful.
Upvote
0
ranplett said:bokehmon22 said:ahsanford said:bokehmon22 said:
Fixed that for you.
But, in the era of the super-resolving FF lenses (cough: Sigma Art), it's possible someone grabs the 85 Art or (in Nikon land) a 105mm f/1.4 and opts out of a new 135mm f/2 lens. So, of your original list, you may not see the upside of a 135 f/2 vs. your Art lens.
- A
I'm just trying to find a reason to spend sensibly. 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 II is very convenient for my wedding works. Adding a fast prime 85 1.4 Art is good for indoor shots/low light shots. I was hoping to add Tamron 115 1.4 (as my poor man 200 f2) but the 135 f2 is always one where so many gave it high praise but I can't find a place in my arsenal.
I think the 135 2 has quite similar characteristics to the 70-200 2.8 L IS (@ 200mm / 2.8) in terms of IQ, at least to the point where newly weds wouldn't notice. The zooming is probably worth having more than a prime, unless you really need, and probably want, a low light portrait lens. I would look no further than the 84 1.4 IS L for weddings.
The reason I love the 135 2 L is because it replaces my 70-200 2.8 IS L when traveling. Having IS would be incredibly useful.
Thanks for the advice. I think so too. 70-200 II 2.8 is too versatile for wedding works. I added the 85 1.4 Art for vacations when I dont want to bring 70-200, indoor portraits, low light portrait lens. It gives me a different look than 70-200 II 2.8 @ 200mm.
It looks like it's going to a great year for Canon with 2 refreshes of Canon's great lens. I hope Canon 6D II will good upgrade as well.
Upvote
0
Not sure how they can improve on perfection. This is my favorite lens. If they can keep it around $1000-1200, I might just have to start saving (the 6DII will have to wait). I hope that whatever they put inside the current one (magic gnomes?) ends up in the new one.
Upvote
0
Jopa said:captainkanji said:
The Zeiss 135 APO / Milvus 135 is a perfection, but no AF... If Canon matches this one - it will be a super duper perfection with AF and IS
+1 -- great example. I've not shot these 135 lenses, but as much as folks rave about the 135L, see Dustin's reviews of other 135mm options. The 135L can clearly be outresolved by some more modern offerings.
I see the 35L I vs. 35 Art --> 35L II as a good example. All Canon has to do marry up modern optics to their AF and this will be a win.
- A
Upvote
0
I don't know why anyone would think it'll be less than $2k
If the 200 f2 IS is 6k, makes sense a 135 f2 IS would be more like 2k
I wish canon prioritized its lenses by necessity. I imagine 35 and 50mm lenses are the most common n popular. Canon needs a new 50 asap as theirs suck compared to the sigma and zeiss
I want a 50 1.2 or 1.4 IS!
If the 200 f2 IS is 6k, makes sense a 135 f2 IS would be more like 2k
I wish canon prioritized its lenses by necessity. I imagine 35 and 50mm lenses are the most common n popular. Canon needs a new 50 asap as theirs suck compared to the sigma and zeiss
I want a 50 1.2 or 1.4 IS!
Upvote
0
ranplett said:
That's actually why I pack the 100 f/2.8L IS Macro when I travel -- I would pack that instead of my large and heavy 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I recognize you don't get the same bokeh as either the 135L or 70-200 at the longer FLs, but you get a very serviceable longer prime for portraiture, you get the macro functionality, you get IS, etc. in a compact package.
- A
Upvote
0
What a brilliant idea to release such fast primes with stabilization... that Canon already could have had when they released their 100/2.8 IS macro 9 years ago, and people started to shoot video like crazy 8 years ago.
Now today with cameras like the Olympus E-M1II, in body stabilization is already much better than any lens stabilization quality. Since 2 years unstabilized Canon lenses already do have decent body stabiliation when using Sony cameras, and most likely will have Olympus/Pansonic kind of perfect stabilization once they release their new A7/A9 models, that also might keep up with most of the left 5D4/1DX2 advantages.
Canon is way too late on this, and even worse it might lead to the situation that Canon will be 10 years late to the body stabilization party as well because of a wrong strategy. The 85/1.4 IS and 135/2 IS both might cost 2500 USD/EUR. Makes more sense to invest that kind of money in other camera models, and keep the old unstabilized lenses.
Now today with cameras like the Olympus E-M1II, in body stabilization is already much better than any lens stabilization quality. Since 2 years unstabilized Canon lenses already do have decent body stabiliation when using Sony cameras, and most likely will have Olympus/Pansonic kind of perfect stabilization once they release their new A7/A9 models, that also might keep up with most of the left 5D4/1DX2 advantages.
Canon is way too late on this, and even worse it might lead to the situation that Canon will be 10 years late to the body stabilization party as well because of a wrong strategy. The 85/1.4 IS and 135/2 IS both might cost 2500 USD/EUR. Makes more sense to invest that kind of money in other camera models, and keep the old unstabilized lenses.
Upvote
0
Maiaibing said:
the 135 f2 looks like the 200 f2 ...a lot....
i try to say on the 200 f2......"i.s. closer-focus and coatings and even body weight.... are due....."
saying..."i want the update...
used the current model...lovely...but it is due...."
but people get upset..
its just that we have new standards.. and that lovely lens could get a new boost.
i want one..
plus...
the 135, 85...in this post
do it.... canon......now
Upvote
0
