Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2.8 IS

[tron]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

Of course, I also think a 135mm f/2.8 IS would be dead in the water as well. Who would buy it? It'd have to be priced under the 135L, and less than an 85 and 100 IS lens to even gain traction.

This is an easy one

Personally, I think the 135L f/2 will also be discontinued, and replaced with a 135L f/2 IS for double the price; 135mm is long enough where you really see some large benefits w/ IS.

As a result of that, this 135 f/2.8 IS lens will then be the only 135mm prime choice in the $500-$1000 range.

For me a good reason to keep my 135 f/2
It is a very good lens

+1000000 !

 

[Vern]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS



A 135 2.8 would feel even more unnecessary!

But a 135 f/1.8 (and with IS).. Please give me.
[/quote]

+1, a real upgrade on the very good 135 f2 would be exciting. Faster for sports, IS for portraits - a winner for me. f 1.8 should be doable w/o being too heavy - lighter than the 200 f2 IS anyway (?).

 

[mrzero]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

This lineup would actually make sense with the previous IS primes released: 24/2.8, 28/2.8, and 35/2. Each of the non-L IS primes replaced a low-cost model of the same focal length and aperture. The 50/1.8 is ripe for replacement with a 50/1.8 IS. These three would make sense, replacing their non-L counterparts. The 135/2.8 IS would take the place of the 135/2.8 soft focus. Consider the ultimate price points of the three IS primes we have now -- around $500 to $600. That would leave plenty of room for somebody who wants a 2.8 telephoto with IS but doesn't want to shell out for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. It also gives you options in the 135 (2 without or 2.8 with IS) and 100 ranges (2 with IS or 2.8 with macro and maybe IS). The 85 makes sense because the L is such a specialty high price lens, and they could probably even keep all 3 in the lineup. A lot of folks could probably get excited over a "holy trinity" with IS and 2-2.8 apertures that could be shot wide open, handheld, and for the price of a single 2.8 zoom lens.

 

[pj1974]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

This lineup would actually make sense with the previous IS primes released: 24/2.8, 28/2.8, and 35/2. Each of the non-L IS primes replaced a low-cost model of the same focal length and aperture. The 50/1.8 is ripe for replacement with a 50/1.8 IS. These three would make sense, replacing their non-L counterparts. The 135/2.8 IS would take the place of the 135/2.8 soft focus. Consider the ultimate price points of the three IS primes we have now -- around $500 to $600. That would leave plenty of room for somebody who wants a 2.8 telephoto with IS but doesn't want to shell out for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. It also gives you options in the 135 (2 without or 2.8 with IS) and 100 ranges (2 with IS or 2.8 with macro and maybe IS). The 85 makes sense because the L is such a specialty high price lens, and they could probably even keep all 3 in the lineup. A lot of folks could probably get excited over a "holy trinity" with IS and 2-2.8 apertures that could be shot wide open, handheld, and for the price of a single 2.8 zoom lens.

+1

I'm still very much looking forward to (and waiting ... impatiently for...) Canon's 50mm true USM (hopefully with IS)... Hoping 2014 will be a great Canon year!

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

I'm taking all of this in with a skeptical eye. Consider:

• Bundling the 135 in with the 85 and 100 makes little sense. The 85 F/1.8 and 100 F/2 are 'paired' lenses and the 135 (disregarding the soft-focus version) is an L lens paired with the lesser discussed 200 F/2.8L. I say 'paired' in that they seem to share some aspects of the housing and general design, and they were released on or about the same time (the first pair was '91/'92 and the second pair both came out in '96). I would hazard a guess that Canon would design these lenses simultaneously to maximize subcomponent efficiencies, limit subcomponent inventory, all that. They still seem to be doing that with recent non-L IS refreshes: the 24 and 28 are highly similar in size/shape and I would guess the much-discussed 50 F/(unknown) non-L IS they are working on will have some size/footprint similarities as the 35 F/2 non-L IS.
  
  
• Only one prime L lens under 200mm has IS, and that's the 100L macro. Surely if an L lens 'IS refresh' program was to get underway, despite IS' greater value at longer FL, the money would be in the high-seller FL, which are the 24, 35, 50, etc. -- just like with the non-L IS refresh campaign has done.
  
  
  
• It seems curious that the (admittedly ancient) non-L primes have been getting the big upgrades (those new lenses are a lot more than just IS upgrades) treatment and the L lenses have not. The last time an L prime in a common focal length was updated was some six years ago. One might wonder if they have the upgrades planned, but will only release them after they ensure they are good enough to work on the high-MP full-frame rigs that we all expect are coming.

Personally, I see the 135mm length as a separate animal from the 85 and 100, and being such a sacred cow to so many users, Canon will probably take quite some time to offer a replacement for the 135L.

- A

 

[DJL329]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

I think I'll grab the 135 without IS once the new one is out...

FYI: Prices for discontinued lenses typically go up, not down, as no more new ones are getting produced.

 

[ugly.|.face]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

Will the 135 f/2 IS not be a L lens?

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

Will the 135 f/2 IS not be a L lens?

One would assume it will be an L lens. A 135mm F/2 prime is certainly more aimed at pros than hobbyists, right?

But if it's F/2.8 like the patent says, to many on this forum it will appear to be a downgraded lens from the current F/2 offering (even if it is sharper, lighter, etc.).

- A

 

[PepeSilvia]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

I've been looking to get something like the 85mm f/1.8 since upgrading from a 20D to a 5Dc. I love my 50mm f/1.8, but need a longer prime now (at least 85). I see the 85mm f/1.8 around $200-300 used, but can never commit, wondering what the replacement will be.

What price range are you all expecting these to come in at? If the current 85mm f/1.8 is about $400 retail (often closer to $300), and the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS revisions are around $500-600 retail, is it unreasonable to hope the 85mm f/1.8 IS will cost less than $500? I would love to see a new short-tele prime with IS and great optical quality for under $500. On the flip side, what are the chances the 85mm f/1.8 drop in price a bit new/used after the IS version is available?

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

I've been looking to get something like the 85mm f/1.8 since upgrading from a 20D to a 5Dc. I love my 50mm f/1.8, but need a longer prime now (at least 85). I see the 85mm f/1.8 around $200-300 used, but can never commit, wondering what the replacement will be.

What price range are you all expecting these to come in at? If the current 85mm f/1.8 is about $400 retail (often closer to $300), and the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS revisions are around $500-600 retail, is it unreasonable to hope the 85mm f/1.8 IS will cost less than $500? I would love to see a new short-tele prime with IS and great optical quality for under $500. On the flip side, what are the chances the 85mm f/1.8 drop in price a bit new/used after the IS version is available?

All the non-L IS refreshes opened at high prices and quickly came down to earth:

24 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $500-ish (18 months post-launch)
28 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $549 (18 months post-launch)
35 F/2 IS: Released at $849, but now $549 (15 months post-launch)

It's unusual to see these kind of shortly-after-release price drops with lenses. The presumption is that these lenses aren't selling well.

If interested in the 85 IS, I'd certainly wait a bit for a better deal based on the numbers above. But expect the new lens to soundly beat the current one based on the quality of those three above -- they really are terrific, and IS is only a piece of their appeal.

- A

 

[zlatko]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

I don't see the point of a 135 f/2.8.
At the time of superlative sharp f/2.8 zoom lenses (24-70 II and 70-200 II), why would you buy a 135 that doesn't add anything "big" to your pics ? Maybe a tiny little bit sharpening ? Is it really worth it…? For me, it definitely ain't.

I see the point - small and light 135 2.8 IS prime for M would be nice

I agree. It would be much smaller and lighter and cheaper than a 70-200/2.8, and yet it could do much of the same work. It definitely has a point. If a 70-200 is used for, say, just 10% of your photos, it may not be worth lugging the big zoom. This lens could be a great alternative, sort of mid-way in the 70-200 range. It offers much of the same reach without so much of the weight and bulk, and saves money too. (Of course, many people will still prefer the 70-200.)

 

[zlatko]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

Of course, I also think a 135mm f/2.8 IS would be dead in the water as well. Who would buy it? It'd have to be priced under the 135L, and less than an 85 and 100 IS lens to even gain traction. More likely its just to protect the design

Dead in the water?! Not at all. For weddings, I've used the 70-200 (several versions) for a very small percentage of my photos, and yet I need something in that range. The current 135/2 has been a great substitute (much smaller & lighter), but it lacks IS. With IS it would be a dream, even if f/2.8 and even if not an L. With a 24-70 on one camera, having a 135/2.8IS on a 2nd camera would be perfect for many wedding ceremonies. Likewise, an 85/1.8 with IS would be similarly perfect on an APS-C camera. Canon knows that their customers have diverse needs.

 

[zlatko]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

All the non-L IS refreshes opened at high prices and quickly came down to earth:

24 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $500-ish (18 months post-launch)
28 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $549 (18 months post-launch)
35 F/2 IS: Released at $849, but now $549 (15 months post-launch)

It's unusual to see these kind of shortly-after-release price drops with lenses. The presumption is that these lenses aren't selling well.

These price drops are bigger than I expected, but I'm guessing exchange rates account for part of it. Eighteen months ago, a dollar bought just 80 yen. Now it buys over 100 yen. That's a rather big difference.

Introductory pricing takes into account that the lenses have a higher value for early adopters — people who've eagerly awaited exactly such a lens. They're willing to pay more. It also takes into account the fact that exchange rates can go up or down. If the value of the yen decreases, it's easy to reduce the price of the lenses abroad. If the value of the yen increases, there's no need to raise prices for a while as the initial pricing already took into account that possibility.

A possibly related example: The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 for micro four thirds was introduced in Sept. 2012 at $1,500. It now sells for ~$1,275 in the US and can be imported from Japan for as little as $1,020.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

I don't see the point of a 135 f/2.8.
At the time of superlative sharp f/2.8 zoom lenses (24-70 II and 70-200 II), why would you buy a 135 that doesn't add anything "big" to your pics ? Maybe a tiny little bit sharpening ? Is it really worth it…? For me, it definitely ain't.

I see the point - small and light 135 2.8 IS prime for M would be nice

I agree. It would be much smaller and lighter and cheaper than a 70-200/2.8, and yet it could do much of the same work. It definitely has a point. If a 70-200 is used for, say, just 10% of your photos, it may not be worth lugging the big zoom. This lens could be a great alternative, sort of mid-way in the 70-200 range. It offers much of the same reach without so much of the weight and bulk, and saves money too. (Of course, many people will still prefer the 70-200.)

I hear you. I often choose the 28 or the 50 prime as the walkaround and have the 100L macro as my compact tele option.

I feel the pros doing wedding/portrait work will want the 135 to be F/2 despite the size/weight, but as the second option in my bag, lighter is better. I can't tell you how many times I wasn't sure I was going to need my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II and just threw the 100L in the bag instead.

Sadly, I now save the 70-200 for specialized needs -- sports, moving targets, wildlife, etc. It's a pity b/c it's a spectacular lens.

- A

 

[FilipOk]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

I've been looking to get something like the 85mm f/1.8 since upgrading from a 20D to a 5Dc. I love my 50mm f/1.8, but need a longer prime now (at least 85). I see the 85mm f/1.8 around $200-300 used, but can never commit, wondering what the replacement will be.

What price range are you all expecting these to come in at? If the current 85mm f/1.8 is about $400 retail (often closer to $300), and the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS revisions are around $500-600 retail, is it unreasonable to hope the 85mm f/1.8 IS will cost less than $500? I would love to see a new short-tele prime with IS and great optical quality for under $500. On the flip side, what are the chances the 85mm f/1.8 drop in price a bit new/used after the IS version is available?

All the non-L IS refreshes opened at high prices and quickly came down to earth:

24 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $500-ish (18 months post-launch)
28 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $549 (18 months post-launch)
35 F/2 IS: Released at $849, but now $549 (15 months post-launch)

It's unusual to see these kind of shortly-after-release price drops with lenses. The presumption is that these lenses aren't selling well.

This is nothing but a shameless marketing of Canon to take extra money from those who strongly waited for a new product on start of sales ). This applies to all company products regardless of how well they are on sale.

 

[zlatko]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

I've been looking to get something like the 85mm f/1.8 since upgrading from a 20D to a 5Dc. I love my 50mm f/1.8, but need a longer prime now (at least 85). I see the 85mm f/1.8 around $200-300 used, but can never commit, wondering what the replacement will be.

What price range are you all expecting these to come in at? If the current 85mm f/1.8 is about $400 retail (often closer to $300), and the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS revisions are around $500-600 retail, is it unreasonable to hope the 85mm f/1.8 IS will cost less than $500? I would love to see a new short-tele prime with IS and great optical quality for under $500. On the flip side, what are the chances the 85mm f/1.8 drop in price a bit new/used after the IS version is available?

All the non-L IS refreshes opened at high prices and quickly came down to earth:

24 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $500-ish (18 months post-launch)
28 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $549 (18 months post-launch)
35 F/2 IS: Released at $849, but now $549 (15 months post-launch)

It's unusual to see these kind of shortly-after-release price drops with lenses. The presumption is that these lenses aren't selling well.

This is nothing but a shameless marketing of Canon to take extra money from those who strongly waited for a new product on start of sales ). This applies to all company products regardless of how well they are on sale.

Canon doesn't "take extra money" from anyone. They set a price but no one is forced to pay it. They were able to offer lower prices later when the yen took a huge hit. Would you be happier and give Canon more credit if prices went UP instead?

 

[vscd]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

This is nothing but a shameless marketing of Canon to take extra money from those who strongly waited for a new product on start of sales ). This applies to all company products regardless of how well they are on sale.

I may agree, but not to the full extend. The new lenses are expensive indeed, but they all have new technologies within... everyone want IS, aspherical elements, USM and everything in a small package but no one wants to pay the price. You can *always* get the old lenses, used, for a bargain.

For example Canon builds create lense for a small price if they don't have the latest gadgets in it. You can get the new 40mm 2.8 STM for about 120$ or less... and this lense is fantastic, even wide open. Except of some vignetting which is no catch nowadays.

 

[mackguyver]

Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS

This is nothing but a shameless marketing of Canon to take extra money from those who strongly waited for a new product on start of sales ). This applies to all company products regardless of how well they are on sale.

I may agree, but not to the full extend. The new lenses are expensive indeed, but they all have new technologies within... everyone want IS, aspherical elements, USM and everything in a small package but no one wants to pay the price. You can *always* get the old lenses, used, for a bargain.

For example Canon builds create lense for a small price if they don't have the latest gadgets in it. You can get the new 40mm 2.8 STM for about 120$ or less... and this lense is fantastic, even wide open. Except of some vignetting which is no catch nowadays.

There's also this other little thing called supply & demand . Think about new music & movies. When they first come out, everyone wants one, and they charge full price. Six months later, they're in the bargain bin after demand drops off - lenses and camera gear aren't much different.

 

[Cali Capture]

With the maybe 135 f/2 "L is", nobody has speculated about color. Not to be a lens racist but the question comes with prejudice! In the off white camp we will have the sports guys who will want this for low light action, the marketing group who will say a new "Baby White Tele" will help drive sales and the collectors who will want to differentiate the legend from the new kid. The Black is beautiful crowd will be portrait, studiosos, streetwalkers, and old school conservApetures! Will Darth 135 be telling Luke 135Lis he is his father?
In review of Canon's white boys, the line in the paint booth starts in reach with the 70mm zooms with the 70-200mm f/4 (no IS) and for primes at the 200mm f/2. So this is gray scale area for sure! Another question will be barrel material, does composite plastic come in white? The largest is the macro 100mm L is and she runs on the dark side. The macros run to 180mm and stick together with thier tans, so perhaps that is not a good white balance. Will the "is" require a larger diameter barrel, score one for blanco! Mixed race is always an option in cameras, black hood/white body. Yet Obama & Tiger Woods supporters will contend you are black no matter what the other half!
So what say you? Where do you think a 135mm f/2L is will land on the paint belt, what color would you like to see it and why?

 

[vscd]

I usually find the white ones too conspicuous. Especially for the short focal range it would be too flashy in my eyes...

So, I would like to see another black one. Plastic or not is not important, but weathersealing would be.