Canon EF 135mm f/2L Replacement [CR1]

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<p>Over the last few months we’ve received a few mentions of a replacement for the EF 135mm f/2L being in active development, with a possible announcement in 2016. A couple of the mentions have said the lens could possibly be an f/1.8, as opposed to a straight f/2 replacement of this classic Canon lens. There have been no mention of the lens getting IS, which I’d wager is the case.</p>
<p>The current EF 135mm f/2L was announced almost 20 years ago and could definitely use some modernization in build and optics.</p>
<p>We do think we’ll see an updated 50mm lens, either the f/1.4 or f/1.2L before we see any other high performance prime getting a refresh.</p>

 

[AE-1Burnham]

I would buy both the new 50L and 135L in a heartbeat. I love and rely regularly on the current optics but both could be even better with IF (50), BR (both), SWC (both) and IS (135),-and yes to F/1.8 for the 135L even if the price doubles triples! ;D

Happy shooting all

 

[plam_1980]

Amazing! Can't wait, it is still my favourite lens but definitely it can use some new optics. 2016 will be a wonderful (and expensive) year for Canon fans ;D

 

[helpful]

Canon, please, this is exactly what I need.

1.8, no IS, pure unrivaled optical and autofocus performance.

I just lost one of my 135mm f/2s at the NCAA tournament. Coincidence or a sign?

 

[jebrady03]

I know people say this all the time, and then eat their words when a replacement is released but...

I can't possibly see what Canon could do to a 135mm lens that would make me consider replacing the EF 135mm f/2L. It's BY FAR my favorite lens and there are no flaws that it exhibits in my own personal shooting which make me pine for a replacement. The AF is fast and INSANELY accurate and consistent. It's sharp as a knife, even at f/2, it's not too heavy/light, large/small. Even the flare and ghosting is attractive, when desired!

I suppose I'd actually LOVE for Canon to release a lens which would make me want to replace my 135L, because I can't even fathom how amazing THAT lens would be!

 

[Mr1Dx]

f1.8 with IS would be a killer.

 

[AE-1Burnham]

A case for F/1.8 (Here I go again on this one):
After selling the 135L more than a decade ago and relying on the 70-200 2.8 variants for many years -- I always missed the 135L! A few years ago, after getting sick of using the sports/journalism lens (the 2.8s) for portraiture & events, I went back to the 135L and am so happy.
The ONLY issue was when I decided to get her back there was this new lens: the 100 2.8L IS Macro and it was very hard to ignore the various benefits/versatility of the high IQ macro... THIS is why the 135L should be 1.8 to add one more differentiator from the 100L.
An aside: My mind wants to use the metaphor of cars: the current 135L is the 6 litre naturally aspirated engine with direct power connected to a hard suspension and no traction control, whereas the 70-200 2.8L II IS is like a fancy turbo charged, cushy S-class (and equally oversized and heavy,-and costly!). 8)

 

[CanoKnight]

If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?

 

[bseitz234]

If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?

Maybe you heard about the new 35L II they made recently...

 

[Sabaki]

If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?

Like The Amazing Spider-Man, this is just a reboot

 

[Ozarker]

It took just two or three shots with my 135L for it to become my favorite lens. I don't need IS as much as I thought.

A new lens might be better. I cannot see how, but it could.

Better is always... better.

From f/2 to f/1.8? That isn't a big enough difference for me. F/1.2 would be enough, but not 1.8. Not for me.

Mine is good enough for a lifetime. It won't be replaced. Best $1000 I ever spent on a lens. It performs much higher than that.

 

[PureClassA]

The 135L is already a full stop faster than the 100L Macro. No need to go further with R&D. Canon already has an extremely good formula for the 135 length at f2 they only need tweak further with modern technology. Going to f1.8 only sends everything back to the drawing board.

A case for F/1.8 (Here I go again on this one):
After selling the 135L more than a decade ago and relying on the 70-200 2.8 variants for many years -- I always missed the 135L! A few years ago, after getting sick of using the sports/journalism lens (the 2.8s) for portraiture & events, I went back to the 135L and am so happy.
The ONLY issue was when I decided to get her back there was this new lens: the 100 2.8L IS Macro and it was very hard to ignore the various benefits/versatility of the high IQ macro... THIS is why the 135L should be 1.8 to add one more differentiator from the 100L.
An aside: My mind wants to use the metaphor of cars: the current 135L is the 6 litre naturally aspirated engine with direct power connected to a hard suspension and no traction control, whereas the 70-200 2.8L II IS is like a fancy turbo charged, cushy S-class (and equally oversized and heavy,-and costly!). 8)

 

[PureClassA]

Weather sealing will be added. A newer body to match the current L line along with a 77mm filter mount instead of 72mm (logical guessing). Most importantly, they will likely improve the sharpness at f2 and add the new Blue Refractive optics. Yes, the current model is still one of Canon's sharpest pieces to this day, but there is room for notable improvement. That said, I regularly shoot portrait stuff at f2 on this lens and I love it, but Canon could likely now produce the same sharpness found at f4 on the current model at f2 on the new. MAYBE we see IS, but i wouldn't suspect so.

If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?

 

[PureClassA]

A 135mm length at f1.2 would be obscenely huge. probably close to Double the area of what it is now. You're talking about a front element way bigger than what's there now. Even f1.8 would increase the front element a decent bit.

Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass. The same filter thread of 72mm as the 135 at f2. Both those lenses have the front element going right out to the edge of the body. Now extrapolate that to what f 1.2 would demand on a much longer 135mm length. The front element would be probably closer to 90. (I need the wizards who know the formula to help me here lol)

It took just two or three shots with my 135L for it to become my favorite lens. I don't need IS as much as I thought.

A new lens might be better. I cannot see how, but it could.

Better is always... better.

From f/2 to f/1.8? That isn't a big enough difference for me. F/1.2 would be enough, but not 1.8. Not for me.

Mine is good enough for a lifetime. It won't be replaced. Best $1000 I ever spent on a lens. It performs much higher than that.

 

[bseitz234]

A 135mm length at f1.2 would be obscenely huge. probably close to Double the area of what it is now. You're talking about a front element way bigger than what's there now. Even f1.8 would increase the front element a decent bit.

Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass. The same filter thread of 72mm as the 135 at f2. Both those lenses have the front element going right out to the edge of the body. Now extrapolate that to what f 1.2 would demand on a much longer 135mm length. The front element would be probably closer to 90. (I need the wizards who know the formula to help me here lol)

It took just two or three shots with my 135L for it to become my favorite lens. I don't need IS as much as I thought.

A new lens might be better. I cannot see how, but it could.

Better is always... better.

From f/2 to f/1.8? That isn't a big enough difference for me. F/1.2 would be enough, but not 1.8. Not for me.

Mine is good enough for a lifetime. It won't be replaced. Best $1000 I ever spent on a lens. It performs much higher than that.

LOL. For telephoto lenses, at least, the formula is focal length divided by max f/stop. Granted, this technically gives you the size of the entrance pupil, not any particular element, but good luck designing a lens with a smaller front element than entrance pupil. You can consider this the minimum size of the front element, and it may have to be bigger (in the case of an f/1.2 lens, I'd bet the cost of that lens it would have to be bigger) to correct for aberrations.

But yes, a 135 f/1.2 would have at least a 112.5mm front element. What does that mean for filter threads, is 115 the next size up?

 

[m8547]

Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.

From what I've read, the current design is optically excellent, so I don't see much room for improvement. The old 35mm did leave plenty of room for improvement. I look forward to an updated design coming out, anyway, so I can get an old 135mm cheaper!

 

[tron]

Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.

From what I've read, the current design is optically excellent, so I don't see much room for improvement. The old 35mm did leave plenty of room for improvement. I look forward to an updated design coming out, anyway, so I can get an old 135mm cheaper!

Don't count on that. The new version will be most probably much more expensive so the old one will keep its price more or less. Compare 24-70 2.8L with 24-70 2.8L II for example... I would say If you like it get it now new. Just my opinion...

 

[privatebydesign]

Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.

From what I've read, the current design is optically excellent, so I don't see much room for improvement. The old 35mm did leave plenty of room for improvement. I look forward to an updated design coming out, anyway, so I can get an old 135mm cheaper!

The front element of a 135 f1.2 would need to be 112mm, 12% bigger than the 200 f2. It isn't going to happen, and if it did, we couldn't afford it!

 

[TeT]

While optically very very good, a refresh might very well be better than the 200 f2 just to throw a benchmark out there...

 

[AE-1Burnham]

Just for fun (see below). There was some free time around the office... 8)
Edit: I removed the medium res image to be nice to the internet.