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

[SOD]

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!

For the 7D you are using, there is likely little that will change in optical quality from old 135L to new 135L. But for all FF bodies, especially the newest 5DS and DS R bodies, the current 135L doesn't have the sharpness to keep up with the new sensor. The Zeiss 135/2 blows it out of the park as far as sharpness goes.

If Canon can make the new one even sharper than the 1996 edition (rated at 30 MP on new bodies) and keep its great bokeh, like the Zeiss (rated at 41 MP on new bodies), but keep its fast AF unlike the Zeiss, Canon will sell them by the truckload.

TL;DR: Canon just needs to build the Zeiss 135/2 that is currently much better than the L, but include AF. Forget 1.8 and forget IS. Relatively few shooters care about those features (the 1.8 makes it too heavy, and the IS is near useless for a fixed focal length portrait lens as most everyone is using a tripod).

 

[JMZawodny]

I just spent the evening shooting my daughter's holiday concert with the original 135. I generally do not do portraits, but I put myself out of my comfort zone and shot portraits all evening. Yes the 135 can be improved for sharpness, but the uniformity of the ever so slightly soft focus over the full frame and the smooth bokeh at f/2 might be compromised with "an improved" version. I really need to shoot with this lens more than I do. I plan to hold onto the one I have.

 

[bholliman]

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!

For the 7D you are using, there is likely little that will change in optical quality from old 135L to new 135L. But for all FF bodies, especially the newest 5DS and DS R bodies, the current 135L doesn't have the sharpness to keep up with the new sensor. The Zeiss 135/2 blows it out of the park as far as sharpness goes.

If Canon can make the new one even sharper than the 1996 edition (rated at 30 MP on new bodies) and keep its great bokeh, like the Zeiss (rated at 41 MP on new bodies), but keep its fast AF unlike the Zeiss, Canon will sell them by the truckload.

TL;DR: Canon just needs to build the Zeiss 135/2 that is currently much better than the L, but include AF. Forget 1.8 and forget IS. Relatively few shooters care about those features (the 1.8 makes it too heavy, and the IS is near useless for a fixed focal length portrait lens as most everyone is using a tripod).

I shoot portraits all the time wth my 135L and almost never on a tripod. I also use it frequently on my 5DS R with excellent results. Personally, I'm very happy with this venerable lens.

 

[Ozarker]

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!

For the 7D you are using, there is likely little that will change in optical quality from old 135L to new 135L. But for all FF bodies, especially the newest 5DS and DS R bodies, the current 135L doesn't have the sharpness to keep up with the new sensor. The Zeiss 135/2 blows it out of the park as far as sharpness goes.

If Canon can make the new one even sharper than the 1996 edition (rated at 30 MP on new bodies) and keep its great bokeh, like the Zeiss (rated at 41 MP on new bodies), but keep its fast AF unlike the Zeiss, Canon will sell them by the truckload.

TL;DR: Canon just needs to build the Zeiss 135/2 that is currently much better than the L, but include AF. Forget 1.8 and forget IS. Relatively few shooters care about those features (the 1.8 makes it too heavy, and the IS is near useless for a fixed focal length portrait lens as most everyone is using a tripod).

I shoot portraits all the time wth my 135L and almost never on a tripod. I also use it frequently on my 5DS R with excellent results. Personally, I'm very happy with this venerable lens.

Start using a tripod and you might land a job at Sears or Olin Mills.

 

[scyrene]

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!

For the 7D you are using, there is likely little that will change in optical quality from old 135L to new 135L. But for all FF bodies, especially the newest 5DS and DS R bodies, the current 135L doesn't have the sharpness to keep up with the new sensor. The Zeiss 135/2 blows it out of the park as far as sharpness goes.

If Canon can make the new one even sharper than the 1996 edition (rated at 30 MP on new bodies) and keep its great bokeh, like the Zeiss (rated at 41 MP on new bodies), but keep its fast AF unlike the Zeiss, Canon will sell them by the truckload.

TL;DR: Canon just needs to build the Zeiss 135/2 that is currently much better than the L, but include AF. Forget 1.8 and forget IS. Relatively few shooters care about those features (the 1.8 makes it too heavy, and the IS is near useless for a fixed focal length portrait lens as most everyone is using a tripod).

The 7D's pixels are 4.3µm, the 5Ds's 4.14µm (source: TDP). At least in the centre, there should be little difference in resolving power of the same lens on the two bodies.

 

[SOD]

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!

For the 7D you are using, there is likely little that will change in optical quality from old 135L to new 135L. But for all FF bodies, especially the newest 5DS and DS R bodies, the current 135L doesn't have the sharpness to keep up with the new sensor. The Zeiss 135/2 blows it out of the park as far as sharpness goes.

If Canon can make the new one even sharper than the 1996 edition (rated at 30 MP on new bodies) and keep its great bokeh, like the Zeiss (rated at 41 MP on new bodies), but keep its fast AF unlike the Zeiss, Canon will sell them by the truckload.

TL;DR: Canon just needs to build the Zeiss 135/2 that is currently much better than the L, but include AF. Forget 1.8 and forget IS. Relatively few shooters care about those features (the 1.8 makes it too heavy, and the IS is near useless for a fixed focal length portrait lens as most everyone is using a tripod).

The 7D's pixels are 4.3µm, the 5Ds's 4.14µm (source: TDP). At least in the centre, there should be little difference in resolving power of the same lens on the two bodies.

Good point. There was less of a difference between the lenses on the 6D, so I assumed it would be even more the case on the 7D. I was wrong. There isn't as much difference as you'll see with the 5DS, but there's more difference than you'll see with the 6D.

Here is the resolving power of the two lenses on each body according to DxOMark:

5DS R
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 41 MP (+37%)
Canon 135/2 L: 30 MP

6D
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 20 MP (+11%)
Canon 135/2 L: 18 MP

7D
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 14 MP (+27%)
Canon 135/2 L: 11 MP

So scratch what I said about not keeping up on "any Full Frame." The current 135L can keep up with the Zeiss on the 6D but cannot keep up either on the 5DS R or the 7D. DxOMark does not test the 5DS, but I'd assume the numbers would be pretty close to the 5DS R.

 

[scyrene]

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!

For the 7D you are using, there is likely little that will change in optical quality from old 135L to new 135L. But for all FF bodies, especially the newest 5DS and DS R bodies, the current 135L doesn't have the sharpness to keep up with the new sensor. The Zeiss 135/2 blows it out of the park as far as sharpness goes.

If Canon can make the new one even sharper than the 1996 edition (rated at 30 MP on new bodies) and keep its great bokeh, like the Zeiss (rated at 41 MP on new bodies), but keep its fast AF unlike the Zeiss, Canon will sell them by the truckload.

TL;DR: Canon just needs to build the Zeiss 135/2 that is currently much better than the L, but include AF. Forget 1.8 and forget IS. Relatively few shooters care about those features (the 1.8 makes it too heavy, and the IS is near useless for a fixed focal length portrait lens as most everyone is using a tripod).

The 7D's pixels are 4.3µm, the 5Ds's 4.14µm (source: TDP). At least in the centre, there should be little difference in resolving power of the same lens on the two bodies.

Good point. There was less of a difference between the lenses on the 6D, so I assumed it would be even more the case on the 7D. I was wrong. There isn't as much difference as you'll see with the 5DS, but there's more difference than you'll see with the 6D.

Here is the resolving power of the two lenses on each body according to DxOMark:

5DS R
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 41 MP (+37%)
Canon 135/2 L: 30 MP

6D
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 20 MP (+11%)
Canon 135/2 L: 18 MP

7D
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 14 MP (+27%)
Canon 135/2 L: 11 MP

So scratch what I said about not keeping up on "any Full Frame." The current 135L can keep up with the Zeiss on the 6D but cannot keep up either on the 5DS R or the 7D. DxOMark does not test the 5DS, but I'd assume the numbers would be pretty close to the 5DS R.

Well.... I gather DxO's 'perceptual megapixel' ratings are controversial. You might want to search these forums for discussions on them. I've never looked into it myself. I see what you mean by 'keep up' though - in comparison with the Zeiss, I thought you meant in general. Assuming those figures are representative, it's still doing much better on the newer body (though surely a mark II version would do better) than the older ones.

 

[SOD]

Start using a tripod and you might land a job at Sears or Olin Mills.

Oh. Is that where Peter Hurley is hanging out now? :

 

[SOD]

5DS R
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 41 MP (+37%)
Canon 135/2 L: 30 MP

6D
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 20 MP (+11%)
Canon 135/2 L: 18 MP

7D
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 14 MP (+27%)
Canon 135/2 L: 11 MP

So scratch what I said about not keeping up on "any Full Frame." The current 135L can keep up with the Zeiss on the 6D but cannot keep up either on the 5DS R or the 7D. DxOMark does not test the 5DS, but I'd assume the numbers would be pretty close to the 5DS R.

Well.... I gather DxO's 'perceptual megapixel' ratings are controversial. You might want to search these forums for discussions on them. I've never looked into it myself. I see what you mean by 'keep up' though - in comparison with the Zeiss, I thought you meant in general. Assuming those figures are representative, it's still doing much better on the newer body (though surely a mark II version would do better) than the older ones.

I think this DxO sharpness/resolution rating is controversial only in that it does not specify an aperture and uses an average of, IIRC, all apertures that they share. In this case, the Zeiss is much sharper than the Canon wide open at f/2, but is not all that much sharper at f/5 and is virtually the same by f/8. The Canon is actually sharper than the Zeiss on the other end of the spectrum at say f/22.

And yes: just having trouble keeping up with that Apo Sonnar 135/2, not in general. Among all L's, it has historically been the very sharpest and is today rated only behind the magnificent new 35/1.4 L II (37 MP by that same DxO scale).

 

[jebrady03]

I think this DxO sharpness/resolution rating is controversial only in that it does not specify an aperture and uses an average of, IIRC, all apertures that they share. In this case, the Zeiss is much sharper than the Canon wide open at f/2, but is not all that much sharper at f/5 and is virtually the same by f/8. The Canon is actually sharper than the Zeiss on the other end of the spectrum at say f/22.

And yes: just having trouble keeping up with that Apo Sonnar 135/2, not in general. Among all L's, it has historically been the very sharpest and is today rated only behind the magnificent new 35/1.4 L II (37 MP by that same DxO scale).

They report the results at the BEST aperture, not an average of all apertures. I didn't know that either until I emailed them asking to pull f/22 out of the measurements for the EF 35mm f/1.4L II to make it more directly comparable to the Sigma 35mm Art (I explained that I felt like f/22 was bringing the new Canon lens down) and they corrected me.

 

[SOD]

I think this DxO sharpness/resolution rating is controversial only in that it does not specify an aperture and uses an average of, IIRC, all apertures that they share. In this case, the Zeiss is much sharper than the Canon wide open at f/2, but is not all that much sharper at f/5 and is virtually the same by f/8. The Canon is actually sharper than the Zeiss on the other end of the spectrum at say f/22.

And yes: just having trouble keeping up with that Apo Sonnar 135/2, not in general. Among all L's, it has historically been the very sharpest and is today rated only behind the magnificent new 35/1.4 L II (37 MP by that same DxO scale).

They report the results at the BEST aperture, not an average of all apertures. I didn't know that either until I emailed them asking to pull f/22 out of the measurements for the EF 35mm f/1.4L II to make it more directly comparable to the Sigma 35mm Art (I explained that I felt like f/22 was bringing the new Canon lens down) and they corrected me.

Ahhh, thank you very much for that correction.

And I guess we've gotten a little off-track, but I question the value of f/1.8 in a fixed 135mm portrait lens. I already struggle to get both eyes in at f/2 and would never use f/1.8 for anything. The IS would be a little more useful, but I fear that (much like f/1.8 aperture) it would add unnecessary weight to a lens which is used outdoors quite often.

Things I do want:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Shorter minimum focus length, like the Apo Sonnar
[*]A sharper lens, like the Apo Sonnar
[*]Lightweight, like the old 135L
[*]Fast AF, like the old 135L
[*]Better weather sealing than the old 135L, which is already better than the Zeiss
[/list]

Now that I think of it, despite a couple of flaws the old 135L is still pretty much the best thing ever. Looking forward to what they can do with the sharpness and resolution though now that other lenses (Apo Sonnar, 35L II, etc.) are finally pushing well ahead of it after the 16 or so years it spent at both the top of all 135mm lenses, and at the top of all L lenses.

The 35L II pretty much just added weather sealing and a ton of sharpness to the old 35L. Those alone will add weight, so please no wider apertures. Hope we see the same technique in the 135L!

EDIT: And I'm also looking forward to see what the rumored Sigma 135/2 can bring to the table. After so many years with the 135L alone at the top, it finally is getting quite a load of competition!

 

[wallstreetoneil]

as a 5D3, 5DSR and A7Rii owner, I have stopped using my 50L, 85L and 135L on the 5DSR because SS have to be way too high to extract the detail if you are hand holding - I have tested and tested and to get at a 90% hit rate for tack sharpness, you need to be at almost 1/ 4X FL - with the A7Rii you can be below 1/FL no problem

i want to buy the new 35L II but I would just use it on the A7Rii - otherwise the existing 35L on the 5D3 gives you basically the same results as on the 5DSR unless you are able to use high SS which pushes the ISO and starts killing the colours - obviously with great light or flash the new lenses on the new bodies is better

as a 135L owner, i would buy it just to use on the A7Rii for portraits - but I would only buy it if it comes with IS to use on the 5DSR - i do use it for indoor sports where IS doesn't matter but from an indoor sports perspective it just isn't worth the IQ upgrade

finally, while the 135L is a loved lens by those that use it, it is not a big seller for Canon so if they are going to upgrade it I think it will be a very low cost upgrade - weather sealing, new coatings = slight price increase

while I hope they come out with a modern 135 with IS, i can't see it being worth the development expenses - it is too much of a niche lens

 

[SOD]

as a 135L owner, i would buy it just to use on the A7Rii for portraits

Do you enjoy tons of manual focusing a lens with a short focus throw? The 135L does not focus well or fast when adapted to the A7R. Might as well get the Apo Sonnar at that point.

while the 135L is a loved lens by those that use it, it is not a big seller for Canon so if they are going to upgrade it I think it will be a very low cost upgrade - weather sealing, new coatings = slight price increase

The 135L II was actually the most requested II lens (even over the since-released 35L II) in the thread on this forum about which new lens they'd most like to buy: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22809. At least until I stopped counting a few pages in. I'm sure it's a pretty big seller, though nothing like the kit zoom L (24-105) and the 50/1.4.

 

[Ozarker]

Start using a tripod and you might land a job at Sears or Olin Mills.

Oh. Is that where Peter Hurley is hanging out now? :

;D

 

[cellomaster27]

hmm. I have the opportunity to buy a very new 135L for $600... should I buy or not??

 

[Ozarker]

hmm. I have the opportunity to buy a very new 135L for $600... should I buy or not??

I would say absolutely! It is my favorite lens for portraits and is also a great sports lens in low light. I think the new model will be much more than the $999 retail it commands now. It really is one of the great lenses. $600 is a steal for a "very new" pre-owned 135L. I don't have enough words to describe how great this lens is.

 

[Random Orbits]

hmm. I have the opportunity to buy a very new 135L for $600... should I buy or not??

I would. The 135L will slot nicely below the 70-200 f/4 IS. If you had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, then the decision would be harder.

And even if you don't use it much, you won't lose much (or more likely gain) reselling it.

 

[MickDK]

@CanonFanBoy:

Just noticed your signature.... do you really have an Canon 135mm f/2L IS ?! ;D

 

[cellomaster27]

hmm. I have the opportunity to buy a very new 135L for $600... should I buy or not??

I would. The 135L will slot nicely below the 70-200 f/4 IS. If you had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, then the decision would be harder.

And even if you don't use it much, you won't lose much (or more likely gain) reselling it.

okay! Yeah, just knowing that there may be a new version coming out.. but $600 is a very good deal for sure. Alrighty, can't wait to buy it! haha

 

[jd7]

I think this DxO sharpness/resolution rating is controversial only in that it does not specify an aperture and uses an average of, IIRC, all apertures that they share. In this case, the Zeiss is much sharper than the Canon wide open at f/2, but is not all that much sharper at f/5 and is virtually the same by f/8. The Canon is actually sharper than the Zeiss on the other end of the spectrum at say f/22.

And yes: just having trouble keeping up with that Apo Sonnar 135/2, not in general. Among all L's, it has historically been the very sharpest and is today rated only behind the magnificent new 35/1.4 L II (37 MP by that same DxO scale).

They report the results at the BEST aperture, not an average of all apertures. I didn't know that either until I emailed them asking to pull f/22 out of the measurements for the EF 35mm f/1.4L II to make it more directly comparable to the Sigma 35mm Art (I explained that I felt like f/22 was bringing the new Canon lens down) and they corrected me.

Interesting. DxO's own website says they use an average:
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Lens-scores

It does refer to a weighted average, but I didn't see a detailed explanation about that. I get the impression the weighted average is used for zoom lens, but I don't know how/why they weighting any of the results.