tron said: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...m8547 said: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!
risc32 said:tron said: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...m8547 said: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!
note to tron, the 100-400 is currently 999.00, and this is how it works.
This would make sense. The question is going to be whether the price differential will make the upgrade worth it. For many it is going to be a hard sell, but many also loved the older 24-70 before they saw the new one.PureClassA said: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.
CanoKnight said:If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?
can Canon make my 85mm1.8 focus consistently? They can't, it's half retared. I dislike it, and will soon be selling it. Also, I believe many people aren't entirely pleased with the AF of the 50L and 85L. Reputable people, not just " i searched google for XYZ and damn it I didn't find it!"tron said:Can you be certain that if they make such a lens it will focus consistently?et31 said:jebrady03 said: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!
Agreed! It is already a wonderful lens!
In future, I would love to see Sigma create a 135mm f/2.0 Art lens at a fraction of the Canon price with the sharp optical quality that manifests in their new series.
neuroanatomist said:risc32 said:tron said: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...m8547 said: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!
note to tron, the 100-400 is currently 999.00, and this is how it works.
Not always. When the 70-200/2.8L IS II came out, prices (both new and used) for the original version rose $200-300 and stayed above the pre-MkII price for close to three years.
RunAndGun said:While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.
Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.
risc32 said:can Canon make my 85mm1.8 focus consistently? They can't, it's half retared. I dislike it, and will soon be selling it. Also, I believe many people aren't entirely pleased with the AF of the 50L and 85L. Reputable people, not just " i searched google for XYZ and damn it I didn't find it!"
Not that i'm against tron, that legacy flick is one of my all time favs.
PureClassA said:<snip>
Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass.
<snip>
cayenne said:PureClassA said:<snip>
Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass.
<snip>
I LIKE lenses that are a giant brick of glass.....makes me feel like I got my money's worth when I heft one of those big boys up!!
cayenne
RunAndGun said:While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.
Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.
PureClassA said:I wasn't complaining. I like the heft too. The point was to extrapolate that focal length and aperture to a 135mm variety, which would take the (manageable) brick of the 85L and morph it into a virtually impossible-to-handhold 135mm f1.2. Someone posted a picture of a third party 135mm f1.4. We're talking even bigger than that. I don't want a 135mm I can't reliably hand hold to shoot. That's a portrait lens, not a long birding tele or sports lens you expect to have to mount. Even if you do choose to hand hold something that bulky and heavy, it will be much more difficult to balance it against the camera for a steady shot. The current 135 f2 balances perfectly with a 5 body. And at 135mm, how much more DOF compression do you need? At 5 feet away at f2, you're getting about an inch or less DOF with ridiculous bokeh
cayenne said:PureClassA said:<snip>
Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass.
<snip>
I LIKE lenses that are a giant brick of glass.....makes me feel like I got my money's worth when I heft one of those big boys up!!
cayenne
CanonFanBoy said:RunAndGun said:While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.
Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.
Have you ever taken a portrait with a CN-E lens?
Sabaki said:RunAndGun said:While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.
Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.
As a matter of interest, how does it perform as a stills lens? Very keen to hear your reply
TeT said:Does anyone have an idea of what they might be able to do that would improve the 135? What are the 135's week spots?