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

[ahsanford]

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?

I don't particularly care about the color, but the 200 F/2.8L that no one ever talks about is black, whereas the 200 F/2L IS (and its predecessor 200 F/1.8 IS) is white. So it seems that 200mm is the 'gray' inflection point for primes.

So my guess is that a new 135 would be black.

- A

 

[RLPhoto]

If canon makes it f/1.8 and IS... I'd have no need for a 70-200.

 

[vscd]

I don't particularly care about the color, but the 200 F/2.8L that no one ever talks about is black, whereas the 200 F/2L IS (and its predecessor 200 F/1.8 IS) is white. So it seems that 200mm is the 'gray' inflection point for primes.

I dont' know if it's only the focal length. It's just a calculation of how big the lenses are and how affected to heating the whole system will be or maybe how likely the lense is used in the sun (for some hours). But the turning point may be around those 200mm length... because no one need longer focal lenghts inside buildings

On the other side I never got problems with my black 80-200L 2.8 drainpipe. And I wouldn't like the attention of a white one.

 

[FilipOk]

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.

Exactly! New technologies - are what makes the production cheaper and allows to produce better products FOR THE SAME MONEY. Just compare the TV that you bought ten years ago and modern at the same price. It's natural that companies are updating their product lines to be competitive. But I do not see any reason why renewed version of for example 24-70/F2.8 L should cost a half times more than the previous one. 10 - 20% for all innovations - maybe, but not 50! Because of it is the same product in fact.

And in general it is a little not about that... for example Sigma recently announced new 50 mm atr lens. And I'm going to buy it immediately as soon as it's released. Because I know that the price will be resonable and actual for many years (and not dependent on fluctuations in the yen) or perhaps just slightly increase due to inflation. But after Canon's new product release it's may be better to wait a couple of years if your budget is limited: the price may fall by a third ).

 

[vscd]

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

New technologies - are what makes the production cheaper and allows to produce better products FOR THE SAME MONEY.

This is just true if you build an *old* product with *new* technologies. But the 24-70II is a new calculated lens, with 2 more glasses and other specs. You have to pay for the development, for the ingeneers and for the new expensive ULD elements et cetera. The price rises fast if you come to the limit, see @OTUS/Zeiss.

My point was that the old product can be bought for a lower price, too, after the new one came to the market. So, *if* you want the latest you have to pay for it. If not, everyone can get along with the old one. An old one, matured for years and known for the best press photos shoot everyday. Better than most of us, maybe.

 

[tron]

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

New technologies - are what makes the production cheaper and allows to produce better products FOR THE SAME MONEY.

This is just true if you build an *old* product with *new* technologies. But the 24-70II is a new calculated lens, with 2 more glasses and other specs. You have to pay for the development, for the ingeneers and for the new expensive ULD elements et cetera. The price rises fast if you come to the limit, see @OTUS/Zeiss.

My point was that the old product can be bought for a lower price, too, after the new one came to the market. So, *if* you want the latest you have to pay for it. If not, everyone can get along with the old one. An old one, matured for years and known for the best press photos shoot everyday. Better than most of us, maybe.

Except for the fact that the price of the old 24-70 2.8L went up when the new version was announced!!!

 

[sagittariansrock]

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

New technologies - are what makes the production cheaper and allows to produce better products FOR THE SAME MONEY.

This is just true if you build an *old* product with *new* technologies. But the 24-70II is a new calculated lens, with 2 more glasses and other specs. You have to pay for the development, for the ingeneers and for the new expensive ULD elements et cetera. The price rises fast if you come to the limit, see @OTUS/Zeiss.

My point was that the old product can be bought for a lower price, too, after the new one came to the market. So, *if* you want the latest you have to pay for it. If not, everyone can get along with the old one. An old one, matured for years and known for the best press photos shoot everyday. Better than most of us, maybe.

Except for the fact that the price of the old 24-70 2.8L went up when the new version was announced!!!

Unfortunately, it will depend on how Canon prices the next version. If they bring out a 135 f/2 IS for $ 1200, then I don't foresee the 135 f/2's price going up.

 

[tron]

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

New technologies - are what makes the production cheaper and allows to produce better products FOR THE SAME MONEY.

This is just true if you build an *old* product with *new* technologies. But the 24-70II is a new calculated lens, with 2 more glasses and other specs. You have to pay for the development, for the ingeneers and for the new expensive ULD elements et cetera. The price rises fast if you come to the limit, see @OTUS/Zeiss.

My point was that the old product can be bought for a lower price, too, after the new one came to the market. So, *if* you want the latest you have to pay for it. If not, everyone can get along with the old one. An old one, matured for years and known for the best press photos shoot everyday. Better than most of us, maybe.

Except for the fact that the price of the old 24-70 2.8L went up when the new version was announced!!!

Unfortunately, it will depend on how Canon prices the next version. If they bring out a 135 f/2 IS for $ 1200, then I don't foresee the 135 f/2's price going up.

Any recent example to back this ? Comparison with 70-200 4L vs. 70-200 f/4L IS and 24-70 2.8 vs. 24-70 2.8L II says otherwise.

 

[vscd]

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

Except for the fact that the price of the old 24-70 2.8L went up when the new version was announced!!!

Where do all those rumours come from? This is not true, the truth is that you now can get the new 24-70 L 2.8 II for the same price as the old one was at that time. So you get a far better lense for the same price...

I admit the 2600$ Bucks were high at the beginning, but the price went down after a few months:

The graph shows 1000days back, datasource: http://geizhals.at/de/?phist=734241&age=1000.

P.S. It could be that the pricing was different from europe/germany, but I doubt that.

 

[tron]

These were not the street prices no matter what...

 

[tcmatthews]

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

I do not think that it is a L lens refresh. I think that it is a mid range refresh. Canons mid range lens were dinosaurs before the IS refreshes started. Back in the old FD days there was three 135mm lens it is very likely that they are dropping the soft focus and replacing it with a normal 135mm. The certain versions of the FD 85mm, 100mm, 135mm shared much of the same design. They were a lens family. It is likely they are just returning to that.

I expect a L refresh sometime later. I just cannot see a 135mm f2.8 L IS being a big seller unless it was a macro. Most looking at the 135L are in it the the bokeh.

I expect the L refresh when it happens to be exactly like you said 85,100 as a family and 135,200 as a family.

 

[zlatko]

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

I expect a L refresh sometime later. I just cannot see a 135mm f2.8 L IS being a big seller unless it was a macro. Most looking at the 135L are in it the the bokeh.

The current 100/2.8L IS Macro has amazingly good bokeh. I'm guessing that a 135/2.8 IS (L or non-L) would be just as good, if not better.

 

[tcmatthews]

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

I expect a L refresh sometime later. I just cannot see a 135mm f2.8 L IS being a big seller unless it was a macro. Most looking at the 135L are in it the the bokeh.

The current 100/2.8L IS Macro has amazingly good bokeh. I'm guessing that a 135/2.8 IS (L or non-L) would be just as good, if not better.

The 100L IS has good bokeh. But I would not say it is even in the same league as the current 135L. If they made a 135/2.8 IS it would likely have as good or better bokeh than the 100L. But it will not be in the same league as the 135L.

 

[pradeepgj]

Any idea on Canon's timeline for a parent to turn into a real product? I am really looking forward for the 85mm IS

 

[ahsanford]

Any idea on Canon's timeline for a parent to turn into a real product? I am really looking forward for the 85mm IS

Next two years, one would think.

The non-L IS refreshes are in pairs, like the originals from the '90s:

24 / 28 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
35 / 50 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
85 / 100 (the F/2 -- not the two macros) have similar size, filter diameter, etc.

So I see the 85mm and 100mm non-L IS refreshes to be released together.

The only mystery is why the 50 non-L IS is taking so long. One would have expected that one with the release of the 35mm.

- A

 

[tron]

Any idea on Canon's timeline for a parent to turn into a real product? I am really looking forward for the 85mm IS

Next two years, one would think.

The non-L IS refreshes are in pairs, like the originals from the '90s:

24 / 28 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
35 / 50 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
85 / 100 (the F/2 -- not the two macros) have similar size, filter diameter, etc.

So I see the 85mm and 100mm non-L IS refreshes to be released together.

The only mystery is why the 50 non-L IS is taking so long. One would have expected that one with the release of the 35mm.

- A

Or ... three or four
But rest assured that in five or six there will be a CR2 for all three missing lenses: 50 IS,85 IS,100 IS ;D

 

[ahsanford]

Any idea on Canon's timeline for a parent to turn into a real product? I am really looking forward for the 85mm IS

Next two years, one would think.

The non-L IS refreshes are in pairs, like the originals from the '90s:

24 / 28 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
35 / 50 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
85 / 100 (the F/2 -- not the two macros) have similar size, filter diameter, etc.

So I see the 85mm and 100mm non-L IS refreshes to be released together.

The only mystery is why the 50 non-L IS is taking so long. One would have expected that one with the release of the 35mm.

- A

Or ... three or four
But rest assured that in five or six there will be a CR2 for all three missing lenses: 50 IS,85 IS,100 IS ;D

I believe Canon must answer in the 50 segment soon or Sigma could legitimately scoop some bread and butter Canon pros.

Consider: the buzz for the Sigma 50 Art is deafening, and if it's as good as billed and priced correctly, it could scoop both the (a) often-shooting-wide-aperture-but-still-wanting-AF camp (using the 50L) and I-need-a-sharp-corner-to-corner-50 camp (stuck with the trusty old Canon 50 F/1.4).

The overdue Canon 50 F/wedontknow IS is a strong answer to the second group's needs and seems to be the only thing Canon has in the pipeline right now.

- A

 

[tron]

Any idea on Canon's timeline for a parent to turn into a real product? I am really looking forward for the 85mm IS

Next two years, one would think.

The non-L IS refreshes are in pairs, like the originals from the '90s:

24 / 28 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
35 / 50 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
85 / 100 (the F/2 -- not the two macros) have similar size, filter diameter, etc.

So I see the 85mm and 100mm non-L IS refreshes to be released together.

The only mystery is why the 50 non-L IS is taking so long. One would have expected that one with the release of the 35mm.

- A

Or ... three or four
But rest assured that in five or six there will be a CR2 for all three missing lenses: 50 IS,85 IS,100 IS ;D

I believe Canon must answer in the 50 segment soon or Sigma could legitimately scoop some bread and butter Canon pros.

Consider: the buzz for the Sigma 50 Art is deafening, and if it's as good as billed and priced correctly, it could scoop both the (a) often-shooting-wide-aperture-but-still-wanting-AF camp (using the 50L) and I-need-a-sharp-corner-to-corner-50 camp (stuck with the trusty old Canon 50 F/1.4).

The overdue Canon 50 F/wedontknow IS is a strong answer to the second group's needs and seems to be the only thing Canon has in the pipeline right now.

- A

I agree and I do not think it is difficult for Canon to do so.

Unless, they are busy working hard for 35mm 1.4L II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II, 400 5.6L IS .... ;D ;D

OK I stop ;D ;D ;D