IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

[CarlTN]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

So, while I also would often not trade larger aperture (f/1.2-f/1.4) for smaller aperture (f/1.8-f/2. 8) + IS, it is rare that the former offers no disadvantages and the latter no advantages. In fact, I'd say for most the new "IS" range is probably the best bang-per-buck combination in the primes. With Canon zoom lenses, though, getting the more expensive L range is almost a necessity as the non-L lenses are too slow.

I agree with you on the new range of non L IS primes; they are very good and not only the best value for money but also versatility, as you say.

However I don't agree on the 135L; the Sporgon crystal ball doesn't see an IS version of this coming, or at least not in the foreseeable future. Whilst the current lens may be the Holy Grail of L lenses to many aspiring photographers - indeed if CR had Coat of Arms it would probably be two crossed 135L lenses mounted in front of a FF sensor atop a pile of third party junk - it's reached that position because it is 'affordable'. To be worthwhile for Canon to develop a better lens with IS it is going to have to be considerably more expensive, and I suspect at the present time they won't feel there is a financial benefit to themselves as a business. Also the third party manufacturers haven't produced a 135 IS or 1.8 version which is a sign they don't think the sales volume / price point is worthwhile.

I do think we will see a 50 IS very soon, and possibly a 85 version after that which bridges the price gulf between the current version and the 1.2L

For anyone who has used the 135 f/2 for a long time, we understand the quality of bokeh it has, and it's not something trivial. Any new version, or third party version, will very likely have a poorer quality of bokeh. That's the reason I may never sell mine. Sure, it's priced at a point that is accessible to entry level photogs (and for that reason it's spat on by those who won't be caught dead using any lens under $1500). But its overall image quality combined with its usable medium telephoto focal length (especially on a full frame) really is as good as it gets, it seems to me. It simply can't be improved upon.

And given the history of these new IS primes, they seem to favor replacing the older lens with a slower aperture, along with the IS...and making it all very dinky and feather light. Given the existence of (what I say would actually be on a coat of arms instead) the ubiquitous 70-200 f/2.8 ii IS and the 100mm f/2.8 IS macro, there certainly will never be a 135mm f/2.8 IS, especially one that is a macro.

Is a new 135mm f/1.8 stabilized third party lens, going to be enough to make me buy one (let alone replace my 135L with it)? No. Would I if it were f/1.6 or f/1.4? Yes, I would at least buy it and use it alongside the current 135! I'd love even faster primes at other focal lengths also, though...but I guess since the "rebel masses" don't ever want to buy a big lens of any kind, and the "pro photogs" like things the way they are...it will never happen.

I feel the same way its going to be VERY hard to beat the current 135 i always take the 135 over the 70-200 now unless i am shooting something where the zoom is essential

You've touched on an interesting point. The 135L doesn't drop much focal length when it's focussed close to MFD. Most 70-200 lenses drop a little or a lot depending on the design (The newest Nikon version took quite a rap over it). So I find that the difference in framing between a 135L and a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II fully zoomed is only a few foot steps difference. There isn't a great deal between them at the long end if you are prepared to step forward a few feet.

The 135L is one of Canon's finest in terms of image output and rendering. But there is a small room for improvement, it could do with newer coatings. The MFD could do with matching or exceeding the current 70-200 lenses. It could gain an extra 1/3 stop easily by pushing the filter size to 77mm and upping the objective lens diameter a tad. The aperture blades are from an older era and are a round design when stopped down. Drop down to f2.8 or f4 and shoot at a spectacular highlight and you will see a distinct shape to the bokeh, corresponding to the aperture blades. Wide open, it's fine.
So yes, it's a stunning lens to use and in the right hands can achieve lovely photographs, yes it's a lot easier to use than a 85mm f1.2 II L. Yes it has a small margin of potential improvement...as long as all of the benefits which the current model has.
The new 24-70IIL sacrifices some of the older models benefits, the new hood isn't any where near as useful as the old one. The new one flares worse as a result (even with the new coatings). It's slightly wider at the 24mm end...but is no where near a 70mm at the long end. Looks more like a 60mm to me. Plus, it looses focal length as the point of focus draws to MFD and it's MFD isn't anywhere near as close. For wedding work, a stellar copy of the mkI is the better choice. For landscape work, the mkII is the better choice.

Needs new coatings? I see no reason for that. It has superb contrast and very low flare in my experience. The color rendition could be less cool (I'm sure you probably think it's too warm!). As for the aperture blade shape imposing itself on bokeh highlights...never noticed that either, at all. How about posting an example? The 135 has smoother bokeh than the 200 f/2L in my experience, at least wide open. Sure the 200's is more extreme, but it is inferior.

Again, it really can't be improved on, without sacrificing some of its good qualities, even you admit that yourself. Frankly 1/3 stop is not enough, it should be 2/3 and go to an 82mm filter size, or else just use filter inserts and go to f/1.2 or f/1.0. But they'll never do it, because the current 135L, "old" though it is...is just too good and too much value at its price point. They sell so many of them, there's just no incentive to "improve" on it.

Best of all would be, as I keep calling for...a narrow focal range zoom with a really fast aperture, a megabuck lens by comparison. But it would be worth it. And Sigma should make it, rather than Canon. They could call it the "mega art" or something!

 

[RLPhoto]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

I feel the same way its going to be VERY hard to beat the current 135

Actually both the Zeiss APO Sonnar and probably the Sony-Zeiss ZA versions beat the Canon in sheer IQ. The now discontinued CV 125mm APO Macro Lanthar was also a jewel (and a macro too!); very difficult to find used and mostly at exorbitant prices.

There is plenty of room for improvement. The Canon does deserve praise though for being still competitive many years after its release.

I object, you're full of conjecture there. You've not used any of those lenses you mention, have you? Have you even used the Canon 135? Certainly the Zeiss f/2 135 is sharper, but is it "better"? It has no autofocus, not sure about its bokeh. It couldn't possibly have better bokeh...because that's quite impossible. As for the Sony mount f/1.8, I very highly doubt it is as sharp as the Canon. So yeah, sorry but no...neither of those is "better". If you want to speak soley about sharpness, there are a few Leica M lenses that are sharper, but so what?

I like the Sony 135mm 1.8 better than the 135L because of that extra speed and IBIS. That's coming from a die hard 135L user but seriously, Canon should update this lens with at minimum IS and possibly better aperture blades and f/1.8. Plus it'd give canon a great campaign of the first sub f/2 35 mm lens with built in IS.

 

[slclick]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

Yes there is a rumor they are all coming, but not from Canon!

 

[CarlTN]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

I feel the same way its going to be VERY hard to beat the current 135

Actually both the Zeiss APO Sonnar and probably the Sony-Zeiss ZA versions beat the Canon in sheer IQ. The now discontinued CV 125mm APO Macro Lanthar was also a jewel (and a macro too!); very difficult to find used and mostly at exorbitant prices.

There is plenty of room for improvement. The Canon does deserve praise though for being still competitive many years after its release.

I object, you're full of conjecture there. You've not used any of those lenses you mention, have you? Have you even used the Canon 135? Certainly the Zeiss f/2 135 is sharper, but is it "better"? It has no autofocus, not sure about its bokeh. It couldn't possibly have better bokeh...because that's quite impossible. As for the Sony mount f/1.8, I very highly doubt it is as sharp as the Canon. So yeah, sorry but no...neither of those is "better". If you want to speak soley about sharpness, there are a few Leica M lenses that are sharper, but so what?

I like the Sony 135mm 1.8 better than the 135L because of that extra speed and IBIS. That's coming from a die hard 135L user but seriously, Canon should update this lens with at minimum IS and possibly better aperture blades and f/1.8. Plus it'd give canon a great campaign of the first sub f/2 35 mm lens with built in IS.

I don't know what "IBIS" is?

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

In Body Image Stabilisation.

 

[CarlTN]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

In Body Image Stabilisation.

Thank you!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

In Body Image Stabilisation.

Yep and it's not quite as good as an bespoke in lens stabilization...each lens has an optimized IS unit and not a sensor which wobbles

 

[Zv]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

In Body Image Stabilisation.

Yep and it's not quite as good as an bespoke in lens stabilization...each lens has an optimized IS unit and not a sensor which wobbles

I've been asked which is better but I still can't say for sure because I don't know the mechanism for IBIS. I understand optical IS is better but why exactly? Can anyone help nail it?

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

Canon have always put two main reasons for putting IS in the lens.

First, the IS is custom made for the specific focal length and lens characteristics.

Second, for optical viewfinders lens based IS steadies the view through the viewfinder, this is not the case with IBIS systems with optical viewfinders, it is true for EVF's though.

 

[Zv]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

Canon have always put two main reasons for putting IS in the lens.

First, the IS is custom made for the specific focal length and lens characteristics.

Second, for optical viewfinders lens based IS steadies the view through the viewfinder, this is not the case with IBIS systems with optical viewfinders, it is true for EVF's though.

Thanks for clarifying. I had forgotton about the second point.

So the IS in the lens is designed to compensate for movement in ways that a sensor just couldn't do? I imagine a sensor can only move in certain ways - for example up down left right and maybe tilt? And maybe not all at the same time right? That would be some clever sensor acrobatics if it could!

The in lens is basically a series of small optical elements that move in response to the way light enters the barrel, right? Meaning there is more than just one thing moving. So is in lens IS more acurate too? And what about Hybrid IS? Could a sensor mimic that too or not?

 

[CarlTN]

Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]

Canon have always put two main reasons for putting IS in the lens.

First, the IS is custom made for the specific focal length and lens characteristics.

Second, for optical viewfinders lens based IS steadies the view through the viewfinder, this is not the case with IBIS systems with optical viewfinders, it is true for EVF's though.

Thanks for clarifying. I had forgotton about the second point.

So the IS in the lens is designed to compensate for movement in ways that a sensor just couldn't do? I imagine a sensor can only move in certain ways - for example up down left right and maybe tilt? And maybe not all at the same time right? That would be some clever sensor acrobatics if it could!

The in lens is basically a series of small optical elements that move in response to the way light enters the barrel, right? Meaning there is more than just one thing moving. So is in lens IS more acurate too? And what about Hybrid IS? Could a sensor mimic that too or not?

A moving sensor is never going to be able to mimic what in-lens IS can do. However, a stationary sensor with "digital IS", as found in compact cameras, does seem to work pretty well (in my experience). In any case though, IS is a bandaid for people who like to shoot slow shutter speeds hand-held, or on a monopod (like me). Mode 2 IS for panning, is very useful, but stationary IS, is simply a compromise for when your focal length is long, the light is low, and the aperture is not big enough. Sure it comes in handy, especially if you want really deep focus even in bright light...but really the reason you're using it, is because you're too lazy to use a tripod. The final result will never be as sharp as it would have on a tripod, at least with proper technique. But who has time to use a tripod? I usually don't. I use mine mostly for long exposure night images.