Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS Coming in 2017 [CR2]

[ExodistPhotography]

I hope this is freaking true and that they both have Image Stabilizer. I will hold out for the 135mm before upgrading my 85mm. But it will coming soon as well.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

to me only an EF-X 135/2 STM IS along with a highly capable mirrorless FF camera would be exciting ... unfortunately, all we are getting is ever larger, fatter and way more expensive mirrorslapper lenses. Boring.

while i am highly interested in a 135 prime with IS, i will not buy more DSLR stuff from Canon, but rather start divesting out of a system without future.

Why STM and not Nano USM? STM is slow for focusing compared to USM. The Nano USM is a great combination of both. Also, I am confused about your comment about these lenses being only for DSLR. People put Canon EF lenses on their Sony A7 series all the time before well Sony lenses are crap. But with a simple adapter they can work perfectly. Jason Lanier does this all the time and gets excellent results. Besides if you make a lens for FF mirorrless, you still have to offset the distance from the sensor to the back of the lens. So if you remove the mirror, there still must be a distance gap. If you do not believe me, take a look at sony's FF mirrorless lenses. They have extra meat at the base of them to offset that distance. Also take a look at Sigma's SD Quattro cameras. Small bodies, but still have to have that space between the lens and sensor. No getting around it.
Matter of fact is Canon makes a FF mirrorless body, they will very likely follow this path and will not create new lenses just for that new camera.

 

[scyrene]

2017 seems to become a really interesting year for prime fans

to me only an EF-X 135/2 STM IS along with a highly capable mirrorless FF camera would be exciting ... unfortunately, all we are getting is ever larger, fatter and way more expensive mirrorslapper lenses. Boring.

while i am highly interested in a 135 prime with IS, i will not buy more DSLR stuff from Canon, but rather start divesting out of a system without future.

Wow, stop the presses. We definitely didn't know that from your previous thousand posts :

Some people prefer improved quality/capability over small size. Clearly, that market is significant, judging by a lot of recent lens releases by a range of manufacturers.

 

[heretikeen]

The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.

 

[Ozarker]

The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.

I don't know why people always equate more expensive with more profit, but lets just say that is true. So what? Yup, there actually is a conspiracy to milk more money from people. That is the whole reason for the company to exist. Canon is not there to be an altruistic entity.

The because? Because offering what users want and improving a product is the way to more profit someday after R&D, retooling, training employees, etc. costs are recouped. It is also how to stay in business and keep market share. That assumes that the risk Canon takes investing the money pays off in the long run.

I guess I just don't understand the idea that design and marketing for profit is somehow evil. That concept seems to be taking more and more of a hold on people these days. Just don't buy.

That is just assuming you were implying what I think you were implying. If not, then sorry.

 

[ahsanford]

The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.

It'll be $1,499-ish, I would guess. We have a bad habit (myself included) of claiming 'the new one costs 2x' with the math of:

New lens price / current price for a 20 year old lens in refurb / used / shady ebay markets = 2x

When, in truth -- using the US MSRP:

35L I at launch: $1374 (tough to confirm given its age -- can't find the official launch price)
35L I at day of 35L II announcement: $1149
35L II at launch: $1799

Price markup over prior version's launch price = 30.9%
Price markup over prior version's current price at time of new lens announcement = 56.6%
____________________________________________________________________
24-70 f/2.8L I at launch: $2100
24-70 f/2.8L I at day of Mk II announcement: $1100
24-70 f/2.8L II at launch: $2299

Price markup over prior version's launch price = 9.5%
Price markup over prior version's current price at time of new lens announcement = 109.0%
____________________________________________________________________
16-35 f/2.8L II at launch: $1699 (not sure: also seeing $1599)
16-35 f/2.8L II at day of Mk III announcement: $1499
16-35 f/2.8L III at launch: $2199

Price markup over prior version's launch price = 29.4%
Price markup over prior version's current price at time of new lens announcement = 46.7%


So, it's admittedly a mixed bag, but that 'super high' price of the new one is often (but not always) a resultant of the prior version's lowered MSRP over time.

IS with a future 135L, however, makes it 'new' for Canon -- this would not be a II of the original 135L. To Canon, that's an added feature, so it potentially might come in on the high end of the numbers above.

- A

 

[JoFT]

The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.

It'll be $1,499-ish, I would guess. We have a bad habit (myself included) of claiming 'the new one costs 2x' with the math of:

New lens price / current price for a 20 year old lens in refurb / used / shady ebay markets = 2x

When, in truth -- using the US MSRP:

35L I at launch: $1374 (tough to confirm given its age -- can't find the official launch price)
35L I at day of 35L II announcement: $1149
35L II at launch: $1799

Price markup over prior version's launch price = 30.9%
Price markup over prior version's current price at time of new lens announcement = 56.6%
____________________________________________________________________
24-70 f/2.8L I at launch: $2100
24-70 f/2.8L I at day of Mk II announcement: $1100
24-70 f/2.8L II at launch: $2299

Price markup over prior version's launch price = 9.5%
Price markup over prior version's current price at time of new lens announcement = 109.0%
____________________________________________________________________
16-35 f/2.8L II at launch: $1699 (not sure: also seeing $1599)
16-35 f/2.8L II at day of Mk III announcement: $1499
16-35 f/2.8L III at launch: $2199

Price markup over prior version's launch price = 29.4%
Price markup over prior version's current price at time of new lens announcement = 46.7%


So, it's admittedly a mixed bag, but that 'super high' price of the new one is often (but not always) a resultant of the prior version's lowered MSRP over time.

IS with a future 135L, however, makes it 'new' for Canon -- this would not be a II of the original 135L. To Canon, that's an added feature, so it potentially might come in on the high end of the numbers above.

- A

just to compare German pricing:


35mm f1.4L II: 2.329 € now 1879
16-35mm f2.8L III: 2625 € now 2.299
24-70mm f2.8L II: 2.319 € now 1.789

 

[funkboy]

Great news!

In the mean time, I bought myself a Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 VC for pagan winter festival, & it's amazing.

 

[TommyLee]

The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.

I don't know why people always equate more expensive with more profit, but lets just say that is true. So what? Yup, there actually is a conspiracy to milk more money from people. That is the whole reason for the company to exist. Canon is not there to be an altruistic entity.

The because? Because offering what users want and improving a product is the way to more profit someday after R&D, retooling, training employees, etc. costs are recouped. It is also how to stay in business and keep market share. That assumes that the risk Canon takes investing the money pays off in the long run.

I guess I just don't understand the idea that design and marketing for profit is somehow evil. That concept seems to be taking more and more of a hold on people these days. Just don't buy.

That is just assuming you were implying what I think you were implying. If not, then sorry.

having a thought ....dealing in longer waves/sound.

if I may add an analogy ... as a guitarist...
Taylor makes fine guitars.... mine is a bit old...
but, with the newer ones, BobTaylor fixed the 'attached neck issue'
(neck 'flatness' used to change with humidity...severely... where it attaches to the body)
that is an issue that so many various branded guitars still have....
now...people are still recording with the old ones... writing songs... making art..
some of that art - made with the older Taylor neck system - is possibly more beautiful than the art made with the new system....some.....

(Frankly BobTaylor's team likely just improved the system...because it needed fixing)

extend that to WillyNelson's guitar with a fist-hole in it...
I wonder ....which songs did he write on that dog?...after the hole was there?
/////
back to the shorter waves...
I know FOR SURE of someone using the 35mm f1.4L mark 1 lens and making wonderful photos..
and yet ... a newer, fantastically performing 35mmf1.4L mk 2 lens is available at 2x the price...
so...?
that's this scenario - IMO

////
so
my point is ..... the old 135 f2 will STILL make some great art...if someone wants to try..
and likely at 1/2 the price of the new 135 f2 I.S. ....
a new LOWER entry for a FF person.
so...this is an opportunity for even tighter budget FF users...

the new tech/new version.. may ALSO allow some new art because of the new abilities.

no need to weep.....

further...and..
I might be wrong
the incremental profitability on the 135(old) is maximum.... right when it is replaced
and the new 135 lens has a little while to go - to again - get to that level of profitability

if you want it ..can use it..............get it...
or ........get/keep the old one and get to shooting...

I want it ...for sure....the I.S. will really be synergistic.... beyond the old one (that I owned/loved)
a small ...stabilized...tele lens ..... keeps your kit small, but with world-class resulting photos...
some of which MIGHT BECOME great art.

it is IMO .... some great news!

 

[KiagiJ]

I don't know about any of y'all's experience with IS but I find small lenses don't have the claimed 4-5 stops. My 24mm 2.8 IS I even need to shoot at 1/30th! Yet I do get 5 stops on my 200 f2 to 1/8th of a second handheld! I feel the big lenses have better IS in my experience. Point is I'm not too optimistic about how good the IS would be in a smaller lens, a 135 IS, maybe 2-3 stops in reality

 

[ahsanford]

I don't know about any of y'all's experience with IS but I find small lenses don't have the claimed 4-5 stops. My 24mm 2.8 IS I even need to shoot at 1/30th! Yet I do get 5 stops on my 200 f2 to 1/8th of a second handheld! I feel the big lenses have better IS in my experience. Point is I'm not too optimistic about how good the IS would be in a smaller lens, a 135 IS, maybe 2-3 stops in reality

TDP has mapped some of this out if you read each review -- Mr. Carnathan generally reports an honest keeper rate to peg an 'effective number of IS stops' in his hands.

But it's not a question of size so much as FL, I believe. Wider lenses appear to have less benefit for IS.

Attached are shots from my trusty 28mm f/2.8 IS on my 5D3, which I roughly peg as having about 3 stops of IS. The dog and couple are 1/6 of second and the waterfall is a full second (note the rocks in the foreground are out of focus because I was a knucklehead with my AF, not because of camera shake / poor IS -- the rocks are just barely out of field).

- A

 

[dank]

I don't know about any of y'all's experience with IS but I find small lenses don't have the claimed 4-5 stops. My 24mm 2.8 IS I even need to shoot at 1/30th! Yet I do get 5 stops on my 200 f2 to 1/8th of a second handheld! I feel the big lenses have better IS in my experience. Point is I'm not too optimistic about how good the IS would be in a smaller lens, a 135 IS, maybe 2-3 stops in reality

TDP has mapped some of this out if you read each review -- Mr. Carnathan generally reports an honest keeper rate to peg an 'effective number of IS stops' in his hands.

But it's not a question of size so much as FL, I believe. Wider lenses appear to have less benefit for IS.

Attached are shots from my trusty 28mm f/2.8 IS on my 5D3, which I roughly peg as having about 3 stops of IS. The dog and couple are 1/6 of second and the waterfall is a full second (note the rocks in the foreground are out of focus because I was a knucklehead with my AF, not because of camera shake / poor IS -- the rocks are just barely out of field).

- A

I believe this to be true If I compare results with my 16-35mm f/4 and primes in similar range i don't see a tremendous effect. But if i think about what i saw when i had a 70-200 f/4 non-IS vs. other lenses in that range with IS (70-200mm f/2.8 is ii, 100-400mm IS II, 70-300mm L) it is dramatic. I could never use the 70-200mm f/4 hand held (i'm sure there are others that can), but i can with the others to various degrees. As always, individual results may be varied, but as I recall there had been discussions when the 16-35 came out that the conventional wisdom to that point had been that IS was not as useful in wider lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

I believe this to be true If I compare results with my 16-35mm f/4 and primes in similar range i don't see a tremendous effect. But if i think about what i saw when i had a 70-200 f/4 non-IS vs. other lenses in that range with IS (70-200mm f/2.8 is ii, 100-400mm IS II, 70-300mm L) it is dramatic. I could never use the 70-200mm f/4 hand held (i'm sure there are others that can), but i can with the others to various degrees. As always, individual results may be varied, but as I recall there had been discussions when the 16-35 came out that the conventional wisdom to that point had been that IS was not as useful in wider lenses.

The 70-200 f/4 is 100% handholdable at 200mm, but you need the corresponding shutter speed for your level of grip/stability. For most, that tends to be 1 / FL, though some 5DS R folks would argue that rule needs to be amended for such a high res canvas. But I find that rule to be about right, and I don't have a vise-like grip or super stable holding technique. But if that doesn't work for you, speed up the shutter until it does I guess.

What bugs people with longer lenses without IS is that they need (say) ISO 6400 to get that minimum shutter speed in some cases. They don't want the ISO to climb too high, so they see if they can pull off a 1/125 shutter at ISO 3200 and get a blurry shot. This is where IS saves the day, IMHO.

- A

 

[photojoern.de]

In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.

 

[scyrene]

In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.

Couldn't you make the same argument about the current 135L versus the 70-200 IS II, and even more so? Yet many people go for the prime because it's smaller, lighter, cheaper, and supposedly has a magical image quality for portraits (I can't comment on that but people say it regularly). I don't think adding IS need add too much weight, or cost, but that remains to be seen (even doubling the price will keep it well under the RRP for the 70-200 2.8 IS though, at least here in the UK).

 

[ahsanford]

In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.

Keep in mind that when the original 135L came out, the now legendary 70-200 f/2.8L IS II that seemingly everyone owns did not exist. The 135L had more than 'just a stop' on the 70-200 zooms -- it absolutely mopped the floor with them optically.

Times have changed and that great 70-200 had made people question the value of the 100 f/2 USM, the 135L, the 200 f/2.8L, etc. because the 70-200 is so damn good.

But if recent 135mm prime offerings from Zeiss and even RokiBowYang are any indication, Canon has considerable room to improve the 135L for a high megapixel future. I have little doubt that Canon could make a breathtakingly sharp 135mm lens that (once again) puts the zoom of its day in its place.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.

Also, the extra stop kind of matters. People don't pony up huge dollars for the 200mm f/2 IS just because it is sharp.

Consider the value that one stop actually gets you:

135mm f/2 portraiture: http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=bokeh&f=135&a=5

135mm f/2.8 portraiture: http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=bokeh&f=135&a=7

200mm f/2 portraiture: http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=bokeh&f=200&a=5

200mm f/2.8 portraiture: http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=bokeh&f=200&a=7

These may not be perfect examples (shutterdial isn't curated, it's a bit robotic) -- perhaps I should have linked the lens groups on Flickr, but the f/2 glass has that extra gear for bokeh / isolation / pop that some portraiture people really crave.

- A

 

[Maiaibing]

In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.

Also, the extra stop kind of matters. People don't pony up huge dollars for the 200mm f/2 IS just because it is sharp. (...)

These may not be perfect examples (shutterdial isn't curated, it's a bit robotic) -- perhaps I should have linked the lens groups on Flickr, but the f/2 glass has that extra gear for bokeh / isolation / pop that some portraiture people really crave.

- A

Agree. Shooting the 135L and 70-200 IS L II side-by-side the zoom cannot compete with the prime lens' isolation and bokeh quality wide open. This is even true if you shoot the zoom @200mm. No pixel peeping needed.

However, once you stop down, its a much closer call, among others due to the zoom having more rounded focus blades than the prime <f/16 (both need an upgrade here for sure to 9 fully rounded).

 

[Sporgon]

In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.

Also, the extra stop kind of matters. People don't pony up huge dollars for the 200mm f/2 IS just because it is sharp. (...)

These may not be perfect examples (shutterdial isn't curated, it's a bit robotic) -- perhaps I should have linked the lens groups on Flickr, but the f/2 glass has that extra gear for bokeh / isolation / pop that some portraiture people really crave.

- A

Agree. Shooting the 135L and 70-200 IS L II side-by-side the zoom cannot compete with the prime lens' isolation and bokeh quality wide open. This is even true if you shoot the zoom @200mm. No pixel peeping needed.

However, once you stop down, its a much closer call, among others due to the zoom having more rounded focus blades than the prime <f/16 (both need an upgrade here for sure to 9 fully rounded).

Not convinced you're right there; in a genuinely blind test of different subjects I recon it is difficult to reliably pick out the 135 @ f2 against the zoom at 135 f2.8, or certainly 200 f2.8.

I'm not a fan of ultra shallow depth of field close up, or rather ultra wide apertures close up. At a greater distance that is another story but then the performance of the lens wide open has to be in another league too.

To me the advantages of primes are the fact they are smaller, lighter, changing the handling of the camera, and also generally cheaper. I think many buy the current 135 because it is now attractively priced and is quite a bit smaller than the zoom. I can see the new 135 IS being considerably more expensive and larger to boot.

 

[privatebydesign]

In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.

Also, the extra stop kind of matters. People don't pony up huge dollars for the 200mm f/2 IS just because it is sharp. (...)

These may not be perfect examples (shutterdial isn't curated, it's a bit robotic) -- perhaps I should have linked the lens groups on Flickr, but the f/2 glass has that extra gear for bokeh / isolation / pop that some portraiture people really crave.

- A

Agree. Shooting the 135L and 70-200 IS L II side-by-side the zoom cannot compete with the prime lens' isolation and bokeh quality wide open. This is even true if you shoot the zoom @200mm. No pixel peeping needed.

However, once you stop down, its a much closer call, among others due to the zoom having more rounded focus blades than the prime <f/16 (both need an upgrade here for sure to 9 fully rounded).

Not convinced you're right there; in a genuinely blind test of different subjects I recon it is difficult to reliably pick out the 135 @ f2 against the zoom at 135 f2.8, or certainly 200 f2.8.

I'm not a fan of ultra shallow depth of field close up, or rather ultra wide apertures close up. At a greater distance that is another story but then the performance of the lens wide open has to be in another league too.

To me the advantages of primes are the fact they are smaller, lighter, changing the handling of the camera, and also generally cheaper. I think many buy the current 135 because it is now attractively priced and is quite a bit smaller than the zoom. I can see the new 135 IS being considerably more expensive and larger to boot.

I actually did that, posted pictures from both lenses wide open, and nobody could reliably identify which was from which even with the same subjects. In fact nobody came close to getting it right or even beating blind chance in guessing.

Ended up getting into a very heated thread with the main thrust being I have no right to air an opinion because I don't own the EF 135! Though I have owned its predecessor, the FD 135 f2 for a bajillion years.