# Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS Coming in 2017 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 9, 2017)

```
We’re told that a new Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS is planned for 2017, the new EF 135mm f/2L IS would be announced after the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-85mm-f1-4l-is-usm-on-the-way-cr3/">EF 85mm f/1.4L IS</a> has started shipping.</p>
<p>We still do not know the announcement date for that lens, just that it’s coming in 2017.</p>
<p>We’re going to try and get some confirmation so we can upgrade the rating.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## jebrady03 (Jan 9, 2017)

I want the rumors about both of these lenses to be true but I'm having a hard time believing either one.


----------



## FocalFury (Jan 9, 2017)

Wow, finally! Can't wait to see this one come to life.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 9, 2017)

BOTH of these lenses would wind up in my gear bag very quickly. As much as I love my current 135L, I may actually be more interested in the new 85 as it is a focal length I'm weak in (I just prefer the 135) and the IS would be HUGE for me when shooting portraits with my 5DSR. I hope they also put IS in the 135 and are able to keep it at f2 doing so. I may be hoping for too much though. It would be a big sucker for sure but I dont care.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jan 9, 2017)

I would love to see this lens and hope that it retains the look I love so much from my current 135L. Rounded blades and IS would make this lens a no brainier for me.


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2017)

I have never had a complaint about my 135L. I'll need to do some side by side tests to become a switcher/upgrader.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 9, 2017)

You just made my day - this is THE lens I most want from Canon ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2017)

Cue 'why it can't it be f/1.8' and 'the current 135L doesn't need to be replaced' comments in 3, 2, 1...

- A


----------



## Besisika (Jan 9, 2017)

Count me in. Mine needs IS badly. It will be the king of low light video, night portraiture and low light frame grab.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Cue 'why it can't it be f/1.8' and 'the current 135L doesn't need to be replaced' comments in 3, 2, 1...
> 
> - A


And the "it will cost twice as much", because, well, it probably will. The "IS tax" is steep


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2017)

mackguyver said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Cue 'why it can't it be f/1.8' and 'the current 135L doesn't need to be replaced' comments in 3, 2, 1...
> ...



But that new and improved engineering plastic!


----------



## KiagiJ (Jan 9, 2017)

Besisika said:


> Count me in. Mine needs IS badly. It will be the king of low light video, night portraiture and low light frame grab.



The king is already the 200mm f2 IS. I can get 1/8th of a second handheld shots


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2017)

KiagiJ said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > Count me in. Mine needs IS badly. It will be the king of low light video, night portraiture and low light frame grab.
> ...



The royalty tax is a bit high for most of us indentured servants.


----------



## TommyLee (Jan 9, 2017)

make these as good as the 35L ii...
and I am in... they are IN MY BAG


135 f2L I.S.
85 f1.4L I.S. 

to go with my ..... 35L ii and StraightLine 14L ii(this will need some treatment soon) 

all I want now is to live a little longer to use all these on things... and people....

////////////

canon has now exceeded escape velocity...for me anyway...


lovely


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 9, 2017)

Wouldn't mind this becoming a stunning reality. So, just bring it!


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 9, 2017)

Wow, this is going to be a great year already for canon. They're upgrading already an epic lens. I do have high expectations.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 9, 2017)

Makes sense, there's ample room for improvement. Have put my 135L in the ads today. Used to be one of my most used lenses, but has gotten less attention over the last years. IS is a key upgrade and alone worth the upgrade. Less purple fringing wide open will also be key. Plus rounded blades - at least nine thank you...

If there's both a new 85L and 135L this year I may even resurrect the "holy trinity" 35/85/135 that I used to possess and use with such joy.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 9, 2017)

KiagiJ said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > Count me in. Mine needs IS badly. It will be the king of low light video, night portraiture and low light frame grab.
> ...


Yes, but Canon will probably have to revisit the 200mm f/2 IS L if the 135 gets IS and any substantial optical upgrade.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 9, 2017)

Will also have to see how this squares with the rumour that a 135L with apodization lens could be in the making...


----------



## geekpower (Jan 9, 2017)

please be true. i have been waiting for this one.


----------



## Besisika (Jan 9, 2017)

KiagiJ said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > Count me in. Mine needs IS badly. It will be the king of low light video, night portraiture and low light frame grab.
> ...


The king is dead, long live the king.
That thing is too white, scares too much crows.


----------



## Crosswind (Jan 9, 2017)

The current EF 135L is so so good... in ALL aspects... how can it be better... 

I'm not sure about this apodization filters... but if it is really going to have IS onboard... now that would be the only real upgrade IMO. This will be something I'd consider for my camera bag (I'd sell my 100L IS macro for this)! The downside will be a high price I guess (somewhere around 1600 bucks probably). :-( So... We will have to see.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 9, 2017)

I have the 24-70 II, 70-200 II and now the 85 1.4 Art. Is there a need for a 135 f2 IS?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> The current EF 135L is so so good... in ALL aspects... how can it be better...



Short answer: The addition of IS and the implementation of _21 years_ worth of newer technology and lens design know-how from Canon will deliver a better instrument.

I hate referencing DXO, but as the only site that seems to catalog lenses across multiple sensors, consider:

135L on a 22 MP 5D3 sensor --> 20 out of 22 for sharpness (in their P-MPix metric)
135L on a 30 MP 5D4 sensor --> 24 out of 30 
135L on a 50 MP 5DS R sensor --> *30 out of 50*

Keep in mind, 30/50 is still a fine result (better than many recent L zooms measured on such a detailed canvas), but yes, it could get better. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> I have the 24-70 II, 70-200 II and now the 85 1.4 Art. Is there a need for a 135 f2 IS?



Fixed that for you.  The 135L has coexisted well with 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for 20 years now, so it would appear that people truly do value the sharpness and extra stop of the 135L.

But, _in the era of the super-resolving FF lenses_ (cough: Sigma Art), it's possible someone grabs the 85 Art or (in Nikon land) a 105mm f/1.4 and opts out of a new 135mm f/2 lens. So, of your original list, you may not see the upside of a 135 f/2 vs. your Art lens.

- A


----------



## suburbia (Jan 9, 2017)

I like the image perspective of my 135mm, use it for urban landscape, but I find something about the image rendering slightly disconcerting a bit like an overt noise reduction plus sharpening in post production. Perhaps struggling with resolution of modern sensors?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 24-70 II, 70-200 II and now the 85 1.4 Art. Is there a need for a 135 f2 IS?
> ...



I'm just trying to find a reason to spend sensibly. 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 II is very convenient for my wedding works. Adding a fast prime 85 1.4 Art is good for indoor shots/low light shots. I was hoping to add Tamron 115 1.4 (as my poor man 200 f2) but the 135 f2 is always one where so many gave it high praise but I can't find a place in my arsenal.


----------



## pokerz (Jan 9, 2017)

cellomaster27 said:


> Wow, this is going to be a great year already for canon. They're upgrading already an epic lens. I do have high expectations.


Together with the prize
I bet 1000 more for an IS.


----------



## ranplett (Jan 9, 2017)

See my thing, under my post. It's a no brainer. To me, the bigger question is 85 1.4 L IS or 135 2 L IS?? I think both could be a bit redundant and pricey.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 9, 2017)

suburbia said:


> I like the image perspective of my 135mm, use it for urban landscape, but I find something about the image rendering slightly disconcerting a bit like an overt noise reduction plus sharpening in post production. Perhaps struggling with resolution of modern sensors?


Wide open yes. Just stop it down if it suits you and the detail is there.


----------



## ranplett (Jan 9, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > bokehmon22 said:
> ...



I think the 135 2 has quite similar characteristics to the 70-200 2.8 L IS (@ 200mm / 2.8) in terms of IQ, at least to the point where newly weds wouldn't notice. The zooming is probably worth having more than a prime, unless you really need, and probably want, a low light portrait lens. I would look no further than the 84 1.4 IS L for weddings.

The reason I love the 135 2 L is because it replaces my 70-200 2.8 IS L when traveling. Having IS would be incredibly useful.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 9, 2017)

ranplett said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Thanks for the advice. I think so too. 70-200 II 2.8 is too versatile for wedding works. I added the 85 1.4 Art for vacations when I dont want to bring 70-200, indoor portraits, low light portrait lens. It gives me a different look than 70-200 II 2.8 @ 200mm. 

It looks like it's going to a great year for Canon with 2 refreshes of Canon's great lens. I hope Canon 6D II will good upgrade as well.


----------



## captainkanji (Jan 10, 2017)

Not sure how they can improve on perfection. This is my favorite lens. If they can keep it around $1000-1200, I might just have to start saving (the 6DII will have to wait). I hope that whatever they put inside the current one (magic gnomes?) ends up in the new one.


----------



## Jopa (Jan 10, 2017)

That's crazy. And that's all happening when I thought I will cut on my GAS spending this year. The new 85, and now this... And maybe the 70-200 III and the 600 DO? 
WHY CANON???


----------



## Jopa (Jan 10, 2017)

captainkanji said:


> Not sure how they can improve on perfection. This is my favorite lens. If they can keep it around $1000-1200, I might just have to start saving (the 6DII will have to wait). I hope that whatever they put inside the current one (magic gnomes?) ends up in the new one.



The Zeiss 135 APO / Milvus 135 is a perfection, but no AF... If Canon matches this one - it will be a super duper perfection with AF and IS


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 10, 2017)

Jopa said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure how they can improve on perfection. This is my favorite lens. If they can keep it around $1000-1200, I might just have to start saving (the 6DII will have to wait). I hope that whatever they put inside the current one (magic gnomes?) ends up in the new one.
> ...



+1 -- great example. I've not shot these 135 lenses, but as much as folks rave about the 135L, see Dustin's reviews of other 135mm options. The 135L can clearly be outresolved by some more modern offerings.

I see the 35L I vs. 35 Art --> 35L II as a good example. All Canon has to do marry up modern optics to their AF and this will be a win.

- A


----------



## KiagiJ (Jan 10, 2017)

I don't know why anyone would think it'll be less than $2k

If the 200 f2 IS is 6k, makes sense a 135 f2 IS would be more like 2k

I wish canon prioritized its lenses by necessity. I imagine 35 and 50mm lenses are the most common n popular. Canon needs a new 50 asap as theirs suck compared to the sigma and zeiss

I want a 50 1.2 or 1.4 IS!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 10, 2017)

ranplett said:


> The reason I love the 135 2 L is because it replaces my 70-200 2.8 IS L when traveling. Having IS would be incredibly useful.



That's actually why I pack the 100 f/2.8L IS Macro when I travel -- I would pack that instead of my large and heavy 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I recognize you don't get the same bokeh as either the 135L or 70-200 at the longer FLs, but you get a very serviceable longer prime for portraiture, you get the macro functionality, you get IS, etc. in a compact package.

- A


----------



## douglaurent (Jan 10, 2017)

What a brilliant idea to release such fast primes with stabilization... that Canon already could have had when they released their 100/2.8 IS macro 9 years ago, and people started to shoot video like crazy 8 years ago.

Now today with cameras like the Olympus E-M1II, in body stabilization is already much better than any lens stabilization quality. Since 2 years unstabilized Canon lenses already do have decent body stabiliation when using Sony cameras, and most likely will have Olympus/Pansonic kind of perfect stabilization once they release their new A7/A9 models, that also might keep up with most of the left 5D4/1DX2 advantages.

Canon is way too late on this, and even worse it might lead to the situation that Canon will be 10 years late to the body stabilization party as well because of a wrong strategy. The 85/1.4 IS and 135/2 IS both might cost 2500 USD/EUR. Makes more sense to invest that kind of money in other camera models, and keep the old unstabilized lenses.


----------



## TommyLee (Jan 10, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> KiagiJ said:
> 
> 
> > Besisika said:
> ...




the 135 f2 looks like the 200 f2 ...a lot....

i try to say on the 200 f2......"i.s. closer-focus and coatings and even body weight.... are due....."
saying..."i want the update... 
used the current model...lovely...but it is due...."
but people get upset..


its just that we have new standards.. and that lovely lens could get a new boost.

i want one..
plus...
the 135, 85...in this post

do it.... canon......now


----------



## Talley (Jan 10, 2017)

Why would I want this if I already have the 200 F2 IS?

Oh well... I guess this lens would work. I think they are just going to give new coatings and add IS and to make the build a bit different to lower production costs. This will be a huge seller for them and they want to maximize profits so this is about all they will do.

It'll be a good lens for sure... I may add it to my kid but between 85 1.4 Art and 200 F2 IS I'm covered....


----------



## Mr. Shakes (Jan 10, 2017)

mackguyver said:


> You just made my day - this is THE lens I most want from Canon ;D ;D ;D ;D



Me too, because then I might be able to afford a used 135mm f/2L!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 10, 2017)

Talley said:


> Why would I want this if I already have the 200 F2 IS?



Um, because physics, gravity and such actually exist?

Perhaps you'd like a lens that is a fraction of the size and weight? 

Or not to look too conspicuous? 

Or to shoot handheld for a long periods of time comfortably?

Or to fit more lenses in your bag?

Or to shoot indoors?

- A


----------



## mclaren777 (Jan 10, 2017)

I'm really excited about the 85mm IS so this rumor about is releasing before the 135mm IS gets announced has me on pins and needles!


----------



## Jopa (Jan 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> +1 -- great example. I've not shot these 135 lenses, but as much as folks rave about the 135L, see Dustin's reviews of other 135mm options. The 135L can clearly be outresolved by some more modern offerings.



Thank you Adam!

I also saw Dustin's review of the new Milvus 135 - that's what I expect from Canon now 



ahsanford said:


> All Canon has to do marry up modern optics to their AF and this will be a win.



Indeed!



Talley said:


> Why would I want this if I already have the 200 F2 IS?



I hope it will be smaller / more portable than the 200/2  Compression (distance / framing) should be very close: http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 10, 2017)

2017 seems to become a really interesting year for prime fans


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 10, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> 2017 seems to become a really interesting year for prime fans



to me only an EF-X 135/2 STM IS along with a highly capable mirrorless FF camera would be exciting ... unfortunately, all we are getting is ever larger, fatter and way more expensive mirrorslapper lenses. Boring.

while i am highly interested in a 135 prime with IS, i will not buy more DSLR stuff from Canon, but rather start divesting out of a system without future.


----------



## Pippan (Jan 10, 2017)

Good for you, AvTvM, you're the only one marching in step.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > 2017 seems to become a really interesting year for prime fans
> ...


As we - at least I - do not have any of your virtual EOS X bodies no virtual or real EF-X lens would fit to it. 

And on the other hand you funnily still seem to be able to ignore or bend the laws of optics in a way that all the developers and builders of this equipment (not only Canon) cannot do. : : :
Bigger apertures lead to bigger lenses. Add IS and it makes the optical formula even bigger.

Maybe you should do some crowd funding or even launch your own company if you really can do so.


----------



## Hflm (Jan 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > 2017 seems to become a really interesting year for prime fans
> ...


I am using the A7rii with Canon 5dIv's professionally (until recently I was using Nikon instead of Canon). I find dual pixel AF to be a game changer. It allows me to use the 5div like a mirrorless camera, which focuses faster than my A7rii, especially with longer focal lengths where OSPDAF usually gets into trouble, and in low light (sensitivity to -4ev). Focussing is even faster in my opinion than with OVF. For Canon it should be easy in my opinion to just use a 5div like body with DPAF alone and all the recent lenses without mirror (or providing smaller flange with adapter). So this aspect paired with market share is the reason, I have no doubt that Canon provides a system with future. I didn't think so about Nikon any more and Sony's SLT just has too small a market share with outdated lenses to become a future player (different with FE-mount).


----------



## Woody (Jan 10, 2017)

Hflm said:


> I find dual pixel AF to be a game changer. It allows me to use the 5div like a mirrorless camera, which focuses faster than my A7rii, especially with longer focal lengths where OSPDAF usually gets into trouble, and in low light (sensitivity to -4ev).



This is quite a surprise given the amount of hype over Sony MILC camera capabilities in recent years. Were you using the A7R II with Canon lens through an adapter, or were you using native Sony FE lenses?


----------



## Woody (Jan 10, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Now today with cameras like the Olympus E-M1II, in body stabilization is already much better than any lens stabilization quality. Since 2 years unstabilized Canon lenses already do have decent body stabiliation when using Sony cameras, and most likely will have Olympus/Pansonic kind of perfect stabilization once they release their new A7/A9 models, that also might keep up with most of the left 5D4/1DX2 advantages.
> 
> Canon is way too late on this, and even worse it might lead to the situation that Canon will be 10 years late to the body stabilization party as well because of a wrong strategy.



Really? If in-body stabilization is so terribly important and impressive, pray tell me why are the combined market shares of Panasonic, Olympus and Sony not catching up to the Canikon duopoly?


----------



## JoFT (Jan 10, 2017)

For me these IS lenses are part of the future. The 85 will come into my bag - and maybe the 135 too.. Today I use the Milvus 84/1.4 which is great... But the 35mm f1.4 has shown what Canon is able to do! This lens has no competitor!!! quality wise. If the 85mm and the 135mm both will follow the same track in performance: It will be great. I am bit concerned about the price tag going to come... And I hope it remains remarkably below 3k.


IS makes a lot of sense. for all who are discussing "mirrorless is the future"... I do not see this - with 7 years of mirrorless experience. (Panasonic). The best by fare is Dual IS: IBIS + OIS. We will see this will come from Canon, too. But they have the OIS glass..


And please keep in mind: an A7xII + 24-70 f2.8 + 70-200 f2.8 G-Master weights about the same like the 5D4 with similar glass from Canon....


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 10, 2017)

You're killing me Canon. Just when I thought I was completely satisfied, you pull me back in!

Not all is lost though. I already have the old 135mm f/2L so there isn't a rush there. Not yet, anyway.

An 85L would be great! I just wonder why f/1.4 instead of f/1.2 and whether the difference makes any difference anyway. DOF would be razor thin on both, but what would the difference in bokeh be? Still, no real rush.

But next on my list is the EF 35mm f/1.4L II (Must have 1st), a Trioplan 100mm (Must have 2nd), and Helios 44/2 (Cheaper than dirt so why not? This one happens this week).

The horror is knowing $3k+ is going to slip through my fingers one way or another this year, and it is still January :-[ 

Is anyone else feeling beleaguered?


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 10, 2017)

Jopa said:


> I hope it will be smaller / more portable than the 200/2  Compression (distance / framing) should be very close: http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/


This...


----------



## Hflm (Jan 10, 2017)

Woody said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > I find dual pixel AF to be a game changer. It allows me to use the 5div like a mirrorless camera, which focuses faster than my A7rii, especially with longer focal lengths where OSPDAF usually gets into trouble, and in low light (sensitivity to -4ev).
> ...


Generally, the AF is pretty good, unless you want to shoot sports. But brides usually aren't doing track & fields. The way OSPDAF is constructed, you get into two problems. First, when tracking a subject approaching or receding and focus is found, light rays from different sides from the lens are within the COC as the PD pixels are quite small and close, so no phase information is there anymore. Additionally, the pixels are half shielded and in low light data discrimination gets even worse. If you want to follow the subject, the AF system needs to let the subject get out of focus before phase information is available again. Fast motors, algorithms and removal of the final CDAF step for accurate focus speed things up a bit, though low light is still a problem. 
The second problem is if the lens is strongly OOF, as is the case with teles quite often. Phase information is often not there and the lens racks back and forth until enough information is available and focus is found. But, if you only have an EVF and focused on a subject at close distance and see something further away or vice versa, everything is shown OOF! You don't see the subject through the EVF. You need to focus and then adjust the focus point to the exact location and refocus again (unless you only use the center point). Takes time. For this an OVF or hybrid VF is great. Sometimes I switch exposure preview off, to avoid this. Nevertheless I found the dual pixel AF to work much better in bad light and even as fast as with OVF when attaching a 70-200 at 200mm, for example. Doesn't work that well with my A7rii. Touch screen makes changing focus point additionally extremely fast.


----------



## douglaurent (Jan 10, 2017)

Woody said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Now today with cameras like the Olympus E-M1II, in body stabilization is already much better than any lens stabilization quality. Since 2 years unstabilized Canon lenses already do have decent body stabiliation when using Sony cameras, and most likely will have Olympus/Pansonic kind of perfect stabilization once they release their new A7/A9 models, that also might keep up with most of the left 5D4/1DX2 advantages.
> ...



The market shares of Panasonic, Olympus and Sony mirrorless cameras seem to be much higher than those of Canon and Nikon. I am sure in total numbers a 5D4 doesn't sell more than a GH5 as well. Maybe Canon's turnover is higher because in comparison of the specs their cameras are overpriced.

Other than that, with your theory photographers around the world would still be stuck with Kodak film, because it had the largest market share in the last millennium.


----------



## Hflm (Jan 10, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...


According to data I have seen and to data gathered by Thom Hogan, who is a well known Nikon shooter with lots of contacts in the industry, Canon is around 47% in total, Nikon 27% and Sony 14-17% in market share. Canon last year is according to his data number 2 in market share in mirrorless, after Sony (clearly in lead). Canon is the only company gaining market share (together with Fuji, but their share is small).


----------



## Pippan (Jan 10, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...


I learn something every day. I had no idea Kodak had been making film for 1000 years.


----------



## TommyLee (Jan 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I want this if I already have the 200 F2 IS?
> ...




or to shoot closer.......[ I edited this wrong...to add my comment...now corrected ]
you nailed it ...also saying not to shun the new tech..
it is time to use all that experience...
we will remember how great the 135/f2 (and 200/f2)....WERE..
but we can embrace the new improvements.. 
the 135 takes most 1.4-TCs and with I.S. will be such a blessing...
giving a 135f2 I.S. and 190f2.8 I.S. .... so very useful

it will certainly be $1900


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 10, 2017)

I hope this is freaking true and that they both have Image Stabilizer. I will hold out for the 135mm before upgrading my 85mm. But it will coming soon as well.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> to me only an EF-X 135/2 STM IS along with a highly capable mirrorless FF camera would be exciting ... unfortunately, all we are getting is ever larger, fatter and way more expensive mirrorslapper lenses. Boring.
> 
> while i am highly interested in a 135 prime with IS, i will not buy more DSLR stuff from Canon, but rather start divesting out of a system without future.



Why STM and not Nano USM? STM is slow for focusing compared to USM. The Nano USM is a great combination of both. Also, I am confused about your comment about these lenses being only for DSLR. People put Canon EF lenses on their Sony A7 series all the time before well Sony lenses are crap. But with a simple adapter they can work perfectly. Jason Lanier does this all the time and gets excellent results. Besides if you make a lens for FF mirorrless, you still have to offset the distance from the sensor to the back of the lens. So if you remove the mirror, there still must be a distance gap. If you do not believe me, take a look at sony's FF mirrorless lenses. They have extra meat at the base of them to offset that distance. Also take a look at Sigma's SD Quattro cameras. Small bodies, but still have to have that space between the lens and sensor. No getting around it. 
Matter of fact is Canon makes a FF mirrorless body, they will very likely follow this path and will not create new lenses just for that new camera.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > 2017 seems to become a really interesting year for prime fans
> ...



Wow, stop the presses. We definitely didn't know that from your previous thousand posts :

Some people prefer improved quality/capability over small size. Clearly, that market is significant, judging by a lot of recent lens releases by a range of manufacturers.


----------



## heretikeen (Jan 10, 2017)

The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 10, 2017)

heretikeen said:


> The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
> Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
> Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
> Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.



I don't know why people always equate more expensive with more profit, but lets just say that is true. So what? Yup, there actually is a conspiracy to milk more money from people. That is the whole reason for the company to exist. Canon is not there to be an altruistic entity.

The because? Because offering what users want and improving a product is the way to more profit someday after R&D, retooling, training employees, etc. costs are recouped. It is also how to stay in business and keep market share. That assumes that the risk Canon takes investing the money pays off in the long run.

I guess I just don't understand the idea that design and marketing for profit is somehow evil. That concept seems to be taking more and more of a hold on people these days. Just don't buy.

That is just assuming you were implying what I think you were implying. If not, then sorry.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 10, 2017)

heretikeen said:


> The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
> Figures Canon wants to remake it, same as they want to "rebrand" the 6D, which is of course not to just make it more expensive, no, it'll be to ... well ... reassign the camera's image away from "budget full format" to ...
> Ah, they'll think of something that sounds somewhat plausible.
> Anyway, buy the new 135 2.0 L (at probably double the price). Because.



It'll be $1,499-ish, I would guess. We have a bad habit (myself included) of claiming 'the new one costs 2x' with the math of:

New lens price / current price _for a 20 year old lens in refurb / used / shady ebay markets_ = 2x

When, in truth -- using the US MSRP:

35L I at launch: $1374 (tough to confirm given its age -- can't find the official launch price)
35L I at day of 35L II announcement: $1149 
35L II at launch: $1799

Price markup over prior version's *launch* price = 30.9%
Price markup over prior version's *current* price at time of new lens announcement = 56.6%
____________________________________________________________________
24-70 f/2.8L I at launch: $2100 
24-70 f/2.8L I at day of Mk II announcement: $1100 
24-70 f/2.8L II at launch: $2299

Price markup over prior version's *launch* price = 9.5%
Price markup over prior version's *current* price at time of new lens announcement = *109.0%*
____________________________________________________________________
16-35 f/2.8L II at launch: $1699 (not sure: also seeing $1599) 
16-35 f/2.8L II at day of Mk III announcement: $1499 
16-35 f/2.8L III at launch: $2199

Price markup over prior version's *launch* price = 29.4%
Price markup over prior version's *current* price at time of new lens announcement = 46.7%


So, it's admittedly a mixed bag, but that 'super high' price of the new one is often (but not always) a resultant of the prior version's lowered MSRP over time. 

IS with a future 135L, however, makes it 'new' for Canon -- this would not be a II of the original 135L. To Canon, that's an added feature, so it _potentially_ might come in on the high end of the numbers above.

- A


----------



## JoFT (Jan 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> heretikeen said:
> 
> 
> > The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
> ...




just to compare German pricing:


35mm f1.4L II: 2.329 € now 1879
16-35mm f2.8L III: 2625 € now 2.299
24-70mm f2.8L II: 2.319 € now 1.789


----------



## funkboy (Jan 10, 2017)

Great news!

In the mean time, I bought myself a Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 VC for pagan winter festival, & it's amazing.


----------



## TommyLee (Jan 10, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> heretikeen said:
> 
> 
> > The 135 2.0 L is a great lens at a reasonable price.
> ...





having a thought ....dealing in longer waves/sound.

if I may add an analogy ... as a guitarist...
Taylor makes fine guitars.... mine is a bit old...
but, with the newer ones, BobTaylor fixed the 'attached neck issue'
(neck 'flatness' used to change with humidity...severely... where it attaches to the body)
that is an issue that so many various branded guitars still have....
now...people are still recording with the old ones... writing songs... making art..
some of that art - made with the older Taylor neck system - is possibly more beautiful than the art made with the new system....some.....

(Frankly BobTaylor's team likely just improved the system...because it needed fixing) 

extend that to WillyNelson's guitar with a fist-hole in it...
I wonder ....which songs did he write on that dog?...after the hole was there?
/////
back to the shorter waves... 
I know FOR SURE of someone using the 35mm f1.4L mark 1 lens and making wonderful photos..
and yet ... a newer, fantastically performing 35mmf1.4L mk 2 lens is available at 2x the price... 
so...?
that's this scenario - IMO

////
so
my point is ..... the old 135 f2 will STILL make some great art...if someone wants to try..
and likely at 1/2 the price of the new 135 f2 I.S. ....
a new LOWER entry for a FF person.
so...this is an opportunity for even tighter budget FF users...

the new tech/new version.. may ALSO allow some new art because of the new abilities.

no need to weep..... 

further...and..
I might be wrong 
the incremental profitability on the 135(old) is maximum.... right when it is replaced 
and the new 135 lens has a little while to go - to again - get to that level of profitability

if you want it ..can use it..............get it...
or ........get/keep the old one and get to shooting...

I want it ...for sure....the I.S. will really be synergistic.... beyond the old one (that I owned/loved)
a small ...stabilized...tele lens ..... keeps your kit small, but with world-class resulting photos...
some of which MIGHT BECOME great art. 

it is IMO .... some great news!


----------



## KiagiJ (Jan 11, 2017)

I don't know about any of y'all's experience with IS but I find small lenses don't have the claimed 4-5 stops. My 24mm 2.8 IS I even need to shoot at 1/30th! Yet I do get 5 stops on my 200 f2 to 1/8th of a second handheld! I feel the big lenses have better IS in my experience. Point is I'm not too optimistic about how good the IS would be in a smaller lens, a 135 IS, maybe 2-3 stops in reality


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 11, 2017)

KiagiJ said:


> I don't know about any of y'all's experience with IS but I find small lenses don't have the claimed 4-5 stops. My 24mm 2.8 IS I even need to shoot at 1/30th! Yet I do get 5 stops on my 200 f2 to 1/8th of a second handheld! I feel the big lenses have better IS in my experience. Point is I'm not too optimistic about how good the IS would be in a smaller lens, a 135 IS, maybe 2-3 stops in reality



TDP has mapped some of this out if you read each review -- Mr. Carnathan generally reports an honest keeper rate to peg an 'effective number of IS stops' in his hands. 

But it's not a question of size so much as FL, I believe. Wider lenses appear to have less benefit for IS.

Attached are shots from my trusty 28mm f/2.8 IS on my 5D3, which I roughly peg as having about 3 stops of IS. The dog and couple are 1/6 of second and the waterfall is a full second (note the rocks in the foreground are out of focus because I was a knucklehead with my AF, not because of camera shake / poor IS -- the rocks are just barely out of field).

- A


----------



## dank (Jan 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> KiagiJ said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about any of y'all's experience with IS but I find small lenses don't have the claimed 4-5 stops. My 24mm 2.8 IS I even need to shoot at 1/30th! Yet I do get 5 stops on my 200 f2 to 1/8th of a second handheld! I feel the big lenses have better IS in my experience. Point is I'm not too optimistic about how good the IS would be in a smaller lens, a 135 IS, maybe 2-3 stops in reality
> ...



I believe this to be true If I compare results with my 16-35mm f/4 and primes in similar range i don't see a tremendous effect. But if i think about what i saw when i had a 70-200 f/4 non-IS vs. other lenses in that range with IS (70-200mm f/2.8 is ii, 100-400mm IS II, 70-300mm L) it is dramatic. I could never use the 70-200mm f/4 hand held (i'm sure there are others that can), but i can with the others to various degrees. As always, individual results may be varied, but as I recall there had been discussions when the 16-35 came out that the conventional wisdom to that point had been that IS was not as useful in wider lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2017)

dank said:


> I believe this to be true If I compare results with my 16-35mm f/4 and primes in similar range i don't see a tremendous effect. But if i think about what i saw when i had a 70-200 f/4 non-IS vs. other lenses in that range with IS (70-200mm f/2.8 is ii, 100-400mm IS II, 70-300mm L) it is dramatic. I could never use the 70-200mm f/4 hand held (i'm sure there are others that can), but i can with the others to various degrees. As always, individual results may be varied, but as I recall there had been discussions when the 16-35 came out that the conventional wisdom to that point had been that IS was not as useful in wider lenses.



The 70-200 f/4 is 100% handholdable at 200mm, but you need the corresponding shutter speed _for your level of grip/stability_. For most, that tends to be 1 / FL, though some 5DS R folks would argue that rule needs to be amended for such a high res canvas. But I find that rule to be about right, and I don't have a vise-like grip or super stable holding technique. But if that doesn't work for you, speed up the shutter until it does I guess.

What bugs people with longer lenses without IS is that they need (say) ISO 6400 to _get_ that minimum shutter speed in some cases. They don't want the ISO to climb too high, so they see if they can pull off a 1/125 shutter at ISO 3200 and get a blurry shot. This is where IS saves the day, IMHO.

- A


----------



## photojoern.de (Jan 14, 2017)

In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 14, 2017)

photojoern.de said:


> In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.



Couldn't you make the same argument about the current 135L versus the 70-200 IS II, and even more so? Yet many people go for the prime because it's smaller, lighter, cheaper, and supposedly has a magical image quality for portraits (I can't comment on that but people say it regularly). I don't think adding IS need add too much weight, or cost, but that remains to be seen (even doubling the price will keep it well under the RRP for the 70-200 2.8 IS though, at least here in the UK).


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2017)

photojoern.de said:


> In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.



Keep in mind that when the original 135L came out, the now legendary 70-200 f/2.8L IS II that seemingly everyone owns did not exist. The 135L had more than 'just a stop' on the 70-200 zooms -- it absolutely mopped the floor with them optically.

Times have changed and that great 70-200 had made people question the value of the 100 f/2 USM, the 135L, the 200 f/2.8L, etc. because the 70-200 is so damn good. 

But if recent 135mm prime offerings from Zeiss and even RokiBowYang are any indication, Canon has considerable room to improve the 135L for a high megapixel future. I have little doubt that Canon could make a breathtakingly sharp 135mm lens that (once again) puts the zoom of its day in its place.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2017)

photojoern.de said:


> In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.



Also, the extra stop kind of matters. People don't pony up huge dollars for the 200mm f/2 IS just because it is sharp.

Consider the value that one stop actually gets you:

135mm f/2 portraiture: http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=bokeh&f=135&a=5

135mm f/2.8 portraiture: http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=bokeh&f=135&a=7

200mm f/2 portraiture: http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=bokeh&f=200&a=5

200mm f/2.8 portraiture: http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=bokeh&f=200&a=7

These may not be perfect examples (shutterdial isn't curated, it's a bit robotic) -- perhaps I should have linked the lens groups on Flickr, but the f/2 glass has that extra gear for bokeh / isolation / pop that some portraiture people really crave.

- A


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> photojoern.de said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion this lens will have a hard time, be a niche product. Why should one buy it when there is a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II? Just because of one f-stop f2.0 vs f2.8? On the other hand there is the flexibility with the zoom and you can go even closer / longer in focal length. Not sure about this one. The 85mm f1.4 L IS is much more interesting.
> ...


Agree. Shooting the 135L and 70-200 IS L II side-by-side the zoom cannot compete with the prime lens' isolation and bokeh quality wide open. This is even true if you shoot the zoom @200mm. No pixel peeping needed.

However, once you stop down, its a much closer call, among others due to the zoom having more rounded focus blades than the prime <f/16 (both need an upgrade here for sure to 9 fully rounded).


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 15, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > photojoern.de said:
> ...



Not convinced you're right there; in a genuinely blind test of different subjects I recon it is difficult to reliably pick out the 135 @ f2 against the zoom at 135 f2.8, or certainly 200 f2.8. 

I'm not a fan of ultra shallow depth of field close up, or rather ultra wide apertures close up. At a greater distance that is another story but then the performance of the lens wide open has to be in another league too.

To me the advantages of primes are the fact they are smaller, lighter, changing the handling of the camera, and also generally cheaper. I think many buy the current 135 because it is now attractively priced and is quite a bit smaller than the zoom. I can see the new 135 IS being considerably more expensive and larger to boot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 15, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I actually did that, posted pictures from both lenses wide open, and nobody could reliably identify which was from which even with the same subjects. In fact nobody came close to getting it right or even beating blind chance in guessing.

Ended up getting into a very heated thread with the main thrust being I have no right to air an opinion because I don't own the EF 135! Though I have owned its predecessor, the FD 135 f2 for a bajillion years.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 15, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Agree. Shooting the 135L and 70-200 IS L II side-by-side the zoom cannot compete with the prime lens' isolation and bokeh quality wide open. This is even true if you shoot the zoom @200mm. No pixel peeping needed.
> ...



If you shoot both the 135L and the zoom wide open - even with the zoom @200mm - there is zero doubt whatsoever which is which (if there is a meaningful background for evaluating the bokeh). 135L wins hands down. Not even close.

I did extensive side-by-side shoots with the two and the 70-200mm f/4 IS L to evaluate the bokeh at all settings and with a range of backgrounds.

And yes, I'm a bokeh freak. ;D


----------



## scyrene (Jan 15, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



That's a pretty bold claim. It's hard enough to judge precisely what FL/aperture was used in a given shot, let alone which lens made it (the MP-E is a notable exception, in ultra closeups that have hexagonal specular highlights, it's a dead giveaway).

But you've already modified it by saying 'meaningful background'. Can you give some side-by-side examples? I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 15, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Ended up getting into a very heated thread



So you mean like normal really ? ;D



privatebydesign said:


> I don't own the EF 135!



What ?! I thought ownership of the 135L was mandatory here on CR ?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 15, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Then if you get more pleasure and satisfaction in your photography none can argue with that ! 

It's just that I find if you strip away the emotion and sentiment from having produced those kinds of images with a particular favourite tool it's really surprising what is what when you don't know what was shot with what.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 15, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



It's funny how the same questions roll around 

http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/5109


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 15, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ended up getting into a very heated thread
> ...



It was even worse than 'normal' : RLPhoto took severe exception to my comments, oh well!

If it counts I do still own the FD version 

I used the FD 135 f2 for many years, when I went EOS in 2005 I got the 70-200 f2.8 IS and realized there was no point to having both so never bought the EF version.

Now if this rumored 85 f1.4 L with IS comes along I'd almost certainly get that, two stops in a smaller package is tough to say no to.


----------



## geekpower (Jan 16, 2017)

i recall looking at comparison shots from the 135/2 and 70-200/2.8 and thinking the latter was both sharper, and had smoother bokeh, but given the facts that the 70-200 is much newer, with better coatings and rounded aperture blades, that shouldn't actually shock anyone.

that being said, the current 135 still produces beautiful images and has serious weight and size advantage, so the prospect of something that improves on that base is pretty exciting.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 16, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, I'm a bokeh freak. ;D
> ...


Agree.

Our most valued pictures are the ones we are emotionally triggered by. Since they are likely to involve people we feel connected to, the importance of the technical quality of these pictures tend to converge towards zero.

However, as a photographer with a capital "P", I do get a little kick out of getting light, color, sharpness, background, bokeh etc. "right".


----------



## Eldar (Jan 16, 2017)

When my 135/2.0 fell to its death a couple of years back, I was certain I would miss it. But instead of getting a new one, I bought a Zeiss 135/2.0. However, that did not get much use. In most portrait situations I go for the Otus 85/1.4 and if I want something longer, I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II. A new EF 85/1.4L IS will be mighty tempting, but I doubt I will be getting the 135/2.0.


----------



## Jopa (Jan 17, 2017)

Eldar said:


> When my 135/2.0 fell to its death a couple of years back, I was certain I would miss it. But instead of getting a new one, I bought a Zeiss 135/2.0. However, that did not get much use. In most portrait situations I go for the Otus 85/1.4 and if I want something longer, I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II. A new EF 85/1.4L IS will be mighty tempting, but I doubt I will be getting the 135/2.0.



I found it's much easier to deal with the Otus compared to the 135 APO. I feel the APO's weight/design is slightly off balance, harder to get sharp photos handheld without bumping the shutter speed to 1/320. I don't have shaky hands and have no problem getting sharp shots with the Otus at 1/100. I'm not sure how it compares to the Milvus 135, it could be improved now. The 135 has it's own magic though. I had the Sony 135 1.8 ZA, that was also an exceptional lens, one of the best for the A-mount. 
I've already replaced the Otus (but not planning to sell) with the new Sigma Art, and if Canon makes a great 135mm lens - will have to lay off the 135mm Zeiss most likely


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Sep 19, 2017)

I re-up this topic.
Any more news about this lens? I'm really looking forward to it...


----------



## craiglove (Sep 24, 2017)

I preordered the new 85mm but immediately thought that the 135 would be the first one that needed IS. I shoot a lot of music in dark clubs and love both my 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2. My 85 is a great lens but would hold out for the 135 with the IS as it is much more needed at the longer focal length. I will be thrilled to see both although the 85 looks a bit hefty at two pounds...


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 24, 2017)

craiglove said:


> I preordered the new 85mm but immediately thought that the 135 would be the first one that needed IS. I shoot a lot of music in dark clubs and love both my 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2. My 85 is a great lens but would hold out for the 135 with the IS as it is much more needed at the longer focal length. I will be thrilled to see both although the 85 looks a bit hefty at two pounds...



It'll help in dark clubs _provided no one is moving_. In that environment, one would think true speed (f/1.4) is better than 'virtual' speed (i.e. f/2 IS) if moving subjects are involved, right?

- A


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 24, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> craiglove said:
> 
> 
> > I preordered the new 85mm but immediately thought that the 135 would be the first one that needed IS. I shoot a lot of music in dark clubs and love both my 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2. My 85 is a great lens but would hold out for the 135 with the IS as it is much more needed at the longer focal length. I will be thrilled to see both although the 85 looks a bit hefty at two pounds...
> ...



My own personal golden rule for wedding photography is that any shutter speed below 1/50th isn't going to work due to people moving. The just of the 85mm f1.2 is the bright aperture combined with a shooting speed of 1/80th. The problem of the current 135mm f2 L is the less bright aperture and the need to shoot at 1/125th make the lens far less versatile and usable in lower light levels. Effectively, you loose over a stop due to the aperture and you loose just under a stop due to the increased shutter speed (from 1/80th to 1/125th). But a good IS unit should allow the shutter speed to drop to (hopefully) 1/50th sec... that does help a lot. Just over a stop. So the new 135 LIS could potentially come lot closer to the working light levels of the 85IIL, which would be nice because it's a really nice focal length. It would also allow me the option of taking the 135 LIS or a 70-200 f2.8 LIS, giving me options on the day depending on weather and venue brightness. 

The issue I have with the 85mm f1.4 LIS is that the IS unit isn't going to offer me much until I get to my lowest usable shutter speed of 1/50th. So I loose 1/3 stop in aperture but gain 2/3 stop shutter speed. So i only really gain 1/3 stop over all...not a lot more. 

So I have to say that I'm more excited about the 135LIS than I am about th 85LIS


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 24, 2017)

At 135mm focal length, IS would really help shooting stage at 1/60s for example, camera shake would be more of an issue than your subject slowly moving 



ahsanford said:


> It'll help in dark clubs _provided no one is moving_. In that environment, one would think true speed (f/1.4) is better than 'virtual' speed (i.e. f/2 IS) if moving subjects are involved, right?
> 
> - A


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 24, 2017)

at 85mm and non-stabilised I cannot really shoot slower than 1/100s with 5D IV. reciprocal rule does not work as well as with 20Mp sensors for me any longer.



GMCPhotographics said:


> ... The issue I have with the 85mm f1.4 LIS is that the IS unit isn't going to offer me much until I get to my lowest usable shutter speed of 1/50th. So I lose 1/3 stop in aperture but gain 2/3 stop shutter speed. So i only really gain 1/3 stop over all...not a lot more.
> 
> So I have to say that I'm more excited about the 135LIS than I am about th 85LIS


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 4, 2017)

Wondering what the chances are that this lens will be announced this year.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> at 85mm and non-stabilised I cannot really shoot slower than 1/100s with 5D IV. reciprocal rule does not work as well as with 20Mp sensors for me any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hear what you are saying. 
For me, I have no particular use for a 50mp camera. For my wedding and portrait work, 25ish mp is more than plenty. For landscape work, I'm using a tripod and I'm extracting every nuance of sharpness and detail out of my images that just isn't possible without a tripod (even in half decent light levels). So while it would seem that a 50mp camera would be nice for that endeavour...I've found that a 25ish mp camera more than adequate for the max A1 prints I'm making. I have a pair of very nice A1 wall prints with plenty of detail and depth, one of which was shot using a lowly 5D classic. 
So while hand holding is good and convenient, to get the most out of the sensor and the scene then a good tripod is usually the way to go.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 5, 2017)

sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.



> .. The issue I have with the 85mm f1.4 LIS is that the IS unit isn't going to offer me much until I get to my lowest usable shutter speed of 1/50th. So I lose 1/3 stop in aperture but gain 2/3 stop shutter speed. So i only really gain 1/3 stop over all...not a lot more.





GMCPhotographics said:


> I hear what you are saying.
> For me, I have no particular use for a 50mp camera. For my wedding and portrait work, 25ish mp is more than plenty. For landscape work, I'm using a tripod and I'm extracting every nuance of sharpness and detail out of my images that just isn't possible without a tripod (even in half decent light levels). So while it would seem that a 50mp camera would be nice for that endeavour...I've found that a 25ish mp camera more than adequate for the max A1 prints I'm making. I have a pair of very nice A1 wall prints with plenty of detail and depth, one of which was shot using a lowly 5D classic.
> So while hand holding is good and convenient, to get the most out of the sensor and the scene then a good tripod is usually the way to go.


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
> You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.


If it worked for him with 20 MPIX camera it'll work just as well with a 30 MPIX, 50 MPIX and 500 MPIX camera. There not a iota more motion blur. On the contrary - shutter devices are improving with newer high-MPIX cameras effectively reducing shutter-induced blur.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 11, 2017)

I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm

"... Watch that shutter speed
And speaking of technique, the high-resolution sensor also changes the game regarding the long-standing 1/focal length shutter speed "rule" -- a.k.a. the Reciprocal Rule -- which states that the minimum shutter speed required to avoid camera shake when shooting handheld is 1/focal length (i.e. 1/50s for a 50mm lens). With the Canon 5DS R, the individual pixels are so small that a much smaller amount of movement poses a risk for per-pixel blurring, so you'll need to account for this with a faster shutter speed -- perhaps even 1/(2x focal length)..."




Maiaibing said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
> ...


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm
> 
> ...


I can concur with adapting that 1/FL rule.
I talked to a professional doing workshops on technique. He said to me, that this old 1/FL rule was valid in the times of 135 film. 
With FF DSLRs above 20 MP he today is teaching a 1/(2xFL) rule already and for those MP beasts above 40 MP he is recommending 1/(4xFL) especially if the subject is moving. He is doing a lot of wildlife, animal an zoo workshops and as he is cooperation with a local store he has access to almost any brand and equipment he likes. 
So I would put my money on this opinion, too.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm
> 
> ...



It all depends on your output for goodness sake.

If you compare a 50MP image to a 20MP image *at the same size* the shake is exactly the same. If you compare at pixel size the 50MP is enlarged more so the shake is more apparent.

This is a simple fact and it can be looked at two ways. 
1: The only 'fair comparison' is two images the same size.
2: There is no point in a higher MP sensor if you don't want pixel level sharpness.

Both are valid and it really depends on your uses.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 11, 2017)

PBD,

ok, I will make it really simple:

images shot on 5D IV with 70mm non stabilised lens at 1/50s are _evidently_ less sharp than the same but at 1/150 sec when evaluated at 1:1 ( pixel level) on decent size screen. True or not? I say true and I have a very strong evidence to support my claim. let alone shooting with 85mm lens at 1/50s...

p.s. what is the point of shooting huge 50 mp files if you will have to downsample them down to 20Mp size just to equalise image sharpness with an image natively shot on 20Mp camera? some kind of weird logic. don't you think?






privatebydesign said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..
> ...


----------



## Jopa (Oct 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> PBD,
> 
> ok, I will make it really simple:
> 
> ...



Indeed. That's why I still have a hope to see a 24-70 f/2.8L IS one day...

I remember when I first got the A7r after shooting a year with my A99 (IBIS) I was really surprised I can't get sharp shots with the 55mm f/1.8 even at 1/50s


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> PBD,
> 
> ok, I will make it really simple:
> 
> ...



Of course it's true, that is EXACTLY what I said in scenario 2:, above!

Now do you say that if you print a 14" x 21" print from a 20MP camera and a 50MP camera there is a difference in sharpness between the two assuming the shutter speed was the same?

If you look at both on pretty much any screen at full screen they are both identical. The 50MP image only looks shakier if you enlarge it more! Guess what? If you enlarge the 20MP image to the same size the shake is exactly the same..........

Stop talking across each other, I have covered the two possible scenarios, nobody is arguing the shake, they are arguing the *comparison*. Is 'same size' a fair comparison or is unequal size but 1:1 a fair comparison.

In truth 1:1 is a bulls!t comparison, it isn't a fair one, if you ever look at both at the same size the shake is the same. However, if you want to get pixel level sharpness for smaller pixels with the same focal length then you need ever faster shutter speeds, that is obvious and isn't related to pixel number per se, it is related to magnification.


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> PBD,
> 
> ok, I will make it really simple:
> 
> ...



As previously noted you are stuck in the false idea that people are "downsampling" their pictures. They are not. The concept of downsampling is meaningless for our photographic results - no matter how we view them, there is always just that one single resulting picture - on screen, print or whatever we look at, at whatever size we are viewing it - and whatever sensor size we used to take the picture. It's that simple. You can choose to call it upsampling - downsampling - rightsampling - leftsampling - upsidedownsampling or whatever. It means nothing. There's a print 10x30, 20x90, 6x55 - could be anything. We look at the print from various cameras and compare the quality of the results. Color, sharpness etc. We can do the same just looking at pictures on the internet. How do the pictures from each sensor look side-by-side?

This is where the advantage of 50 MPIX over 20 or 30 MPIX plays out in all its simplicity. The _same _picture taken at the different MPIX sensor sizes will _always _be sharper when shot at 50 MPIX - *always*. 

And you can in fact see the difference between 20/30 MPIX and 50 MPIX with the naked eye at fairly moderate print sizes (if the motive lends itself to sharpness scrutiny). There are many samples on the net to show this.

Since every photographic expression is an end result for the viewer - there is only that one size to compare with. Otherwise there is simply no true comparison, expect for viewing the same picture at different sizes - but that is exactly not comparing.

Let me suggest you rethink your conceptual approach before just restating what you have written so often before as it seems to lead to several misunderstandings including the one that having 50 MPIX may not be an advantage over 20 MPIX at certain viewing sizes - which is patently false if looking at like pictures that in fact can be compared meaningfully.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 12, 2017)

there is a massive misunderstanding of the issue on your side.
You are seems to be arguing the obvious and what is common knowledge:

in order to eliminate camera shake when shooting with 5DsR one need to shoot at shutter speed faster than 1/focal length. that simple. to a lesser degree on 5D IV, but the issue still evident.

For your information, when you review high resolution image on a smaller resolution screen, the image being automatically down-sampled to fit the screen pixel count by either your computer or TV in-built algorithm . just so that we both understand what really takes place.

I suggest for you to watch the following Dustin Abbott Youtube video:

https://youtu.be/rOpDkPWpMFw?t=10m57s

Dustin established that tripod mounted Canon 24-70 II L lens at 70mm is sharper than Tamron 24 70 G2. but question is: how hand-holding affects the situation. 

the take away home here is that if you shoot at 1/focal length with unstabilised lens on 5D IV your resulting image will take a beating from the camera shake. one have to shoot at a faster shutter speed or use stabilised lens instead.

just to refresh your memory: The point I am trying to argue here that I get camera shakes shooting with 5D IV and 85mm non-stabilised lens at 1/80s.1/125s shutter speed seems to work for me just fine.



Maiaibing said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > PBD,
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 12, 2017)

I'm not missing anything! You are completely ignoring the fact that observability of camera shake is simply a function of magnification not MP numbers. If you enlarge anything enough you will see it isn't 'sharp'. If you look at a 4MP image at 1:1 it is sharp at half the shutter speed/focal length 'rule', if you look at a 20MP image it aligns pretty closely at 1:1 with the 'rule' if you look at a 50MP image at 1:1 it might need twice the 'rule', but that is not because you have more megapixels or that the camera "is harder on lenses" it is simply because as you get more MP when viewed at 1:1 you are looking *at the same shake but enlarged more.* The 4MP image is 1/16 the size of the 50MP image! So any flaws in the bigger image are 16 times more visible.

You are completely failing to acknowledge that when you look at 1:1 on a higher megapixel image you are simply magnifying the shake more so it is more readily observable. The shake on a 20MP image and a 50MP image is exactly the same at the same magnification. That is true if you look at full screen, any same sized print, any crop of the same area and also if you upsample the smaller image to the pixel dimensions of the larger. 

There is nothing magical about higher MP numbers and no 'rules' change. 

What it does mean is if you want pixel level sharpness out of higher MP cameras you need better technique, but only because you are magnifying your technical flaws more not because they are more apparent at same sized output.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 18, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The New FD 135mm f/2 and the EF 135mm f/2 use two completely different optical formulae. There's no such thing as "the EF version of the New FD 135mm f/2." The EF 135mm f/2 is a totally different lens that just happens to share the same nominal focal length and maximum aperture.

The FD is 6 elements in 5 groups of traditional optical glass, the EF is 10 elements in 8 groups including two UD elements. The difference between the images these lenses produce is striking. 

There's also a difference between the look you get with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the EF 135mm f/2 L. I use both regularly. Which I choose for a particular shoot depends on what I need the most. But if all I need is 135mm and don't need IS there's absolutely no doubt which one is hanging on my camera, and it isn't the zoom!

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is a great zoom lens. I've probably shot more frames with it that any other lens I've ever used. It performs very well all the way from 70mm to 200mm at every aperture. But it has a flatter field of focus than the EF 135mm f/2. This can result in rather harsh bokeh with "busy" backgrounds. The EF 135mm f/2 has just enough field curvature that no matter how busy the background is, the bokeh is much smoother than what one can get at 135mm f/2.8 with the 70-200.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2018)

SecureGSM said:


> I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm
> 
> ...



*The 1/focal length rule-of-thumb was only ever valid for 8x10" or smaller prints.*

Even with 135 film, if one planned to print larger then one needed to either increase the Tv or stabilize the camera (i.e. put it on a tripod). As the magnification needed for a particular display size increases, the _acceptable_ amount of blur measured at the sensor decreases. That is why we use a CoC of 0.03mm when using a FF camera to enlarge to 8x10" and 0.020mm or 0.019mm when using an APS-C camera to enlarge to 8x10".


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2018)

yoms said:


> I re-up this topic.
> Any more news about this lens? I'm really looking forward to it...



It seems that the "new 135mm" is the TS-E 135mm f/4 L Macro, not an EF 135mm f/2 L IS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



My comparisons between the 135 and 70-200 f2.8 IS were with the MkI version of the zoom which has much smoother bokeh than the MkII. Indeed I didn’t move to the MkII because of that simple fact, I really dislike the look from the MkII and really like the bokeh from the MkI. When I compared my MkI to the 135 f2 I wasn’t sold on the differences so didn’t get it. I do use the 100 L macro more than the zoom for portraits though and do intend to get the new 85 f1.4 L IS at some point.


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2018)

tick tock, take my money Canon , I want a new 135 and not one decades old. (and not one as heavy as the Siggy)


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2018)

> My comparisons between the 135 and 70-200 f2.8 IS were with the MkI version of the zoom which has much smoother bokeh than the MkII. Indeed I didn’t move to the MkII because of that simple fact, I really dislike the look from the MkII and really like the bokeh from the MkI. When I compared my MkI to the 135 f2 I wasn’t sold on the differences so didn’t get it. I do use the 100 L macro more than the zoom for portraits though and do intend to get the new 85 f1.4 L IS at some point.



A lot of folks like the 100L Macro for portraits. I'm not one of them. The IS is nice. But it is optimized for flat field performance at MFD. I've never cared for the bokeh it renders at wider apertures. And I've seen way too many "45° shoulder" poses shot with it where the weave of the fabric of a shirt, blouse, or jacket at that one point on the leading shoulder that is the same distance as the subject's eyes is screaming, "LOOK AT ME!"

The EF 85mm f/1.2 and the EF 135mm f/2 both have just enough field curvature to pull the focus distance _just enough_ in front of the shoulder down in the left corner to avoid that distracting patch of fabric that's sharper than the rest of the garment.


----------



## sanj (Feb 19, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm not missing anything! You are completely ignoring the fact that observability of camera shake is simply a function of magnification not MP numbers. If you enlarge anything enough you will see it isn't 'sharp'. If you look at a 4MP image at 1:1 it is sharp at half the shutter speed/focal length 'rule', if you look at a 20MP image it aligns pretty closely at 1:1 with the 'rule' if you look at a 50MP image at 1:1 it might need twice the 'rule', but that is not because you have more megapixels or that the camera "is harder on lenses" it is simply because as you get more MP when viewed at 1:1 you are looking *at the same shake but enlarged more.* The 4MP image is 1/16 the size of the 50MP image! So any flaws in the bigger image are 16 times more visible.
> 
> You are completely failing to acknowledge that when you look at 1:1 on a higher megapixel image you are simply magnifying the shake more so it is more readily observable. The shake on a 20MP image and a 50MP image is exactly the same at the same magnification. That is true if you look at full screen, any same sized print, any crop of the same area and also if you upsample the smaller image to the pixel dimensions of the larger.
> 
> ...



I am no expert but this makes sense to me.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 25, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm not missing anything! You are completely ignoring the fact that observability of camera shake is simply a function of magnification not MP numbers. If you enlarge anything enough you will see it isn't 'sharp'. If you look at a 4MP image at 1:1 it is sharp at half the shutter speed/focal length 'rule', if you look at a 20MP image it aligns pretty closely at 1:1 with the 'rule' if you look at a 50MP image at 1:1 it might need twice the 'rule', but that is not because you have more megapixels or that the camera "is harder on lenses" it is simply because as you get more MP when viewed at 1:1 you are looking *at the same shake but enlarged more.* The 4MP image is 1/16 the size of the 50MP image! So any flaws in the bigger image are 16 times more visible.
> 
> You are completely failing to acknowledge that when you look at 1:1 on a higher megapixel image you are simply magnifying the shake more so it is more readily observable. The shake on a 20MP image and a 50MP image is exactly the same at the same magnification. That is true if you look at full screen, any same sized print, any crop of the same area and also if you upsample the smaller image to the pixel dimensions of the larger.
> 
> ...



& this is why I don't bother shooting above MRAW 1/2 resolution unless I know I'll really need the resolution.


----------



## slclick (Mar 14, 2018)

Being tired of waiting, I picked up another (my 3rd copy in 18 years) 135L. This copy seems to be the best I have had. Micro contrast, sharpness, color rendition are all tops. 


We should all take this as a sign that the new model will appear shortly.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 15, 2018)

slclick said:


> Being tired of waiting, I picked up another (my 3rd copy in 18 years) 135L. This copy seems to be the best I have had. Micro contrast, sharpness, color rendition are all tops.
> 
> 
> We should all take this as a sign that the new model will appear shortly.



I love mine. Do you think you'd get the new model when it comes? I think I might, but don't think I would ever sell my current copy. I sold 1 "L" lens: EF 400mm f/5.6L. I felt like I needed IS at this focal length and my 70-200 with the 2X III covered that. Don't think I'll ever sell another.


----------



## slclick (Mar 15, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Being tired of waiting, I picked up another (my 3rd copy in 18 years) 135L. This copy seems to be the best I have had. Micro contrast, sharpness, color rendition are all tops.
> ...



This is my nicest copy to date so it would be hard to part with.


----------



## degos (Mar 17, 2018)

Adaptions of the Reciprocal 'Rule' for modern sensors are all very nice, but in many cases have to be ignored. For example, panning with a propellor-powered aircraft needs a shutter down around 1/60 or 1/80 for a nice prop disk. On a 400mm+ lens that's well in 'violation' of the rule.

In those cases even on a tripod I appreciate Mode 2 IS to iron-out vertical wobbles and let me try to concentrate on holding the focus point on one feature.

I can't imagine buying any lens without IS!


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 17, 2018)

i can't imagine buying a lens >50mm FL without IS.


----------



## slclick (Mar 17, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> i can't imagine buying a lens >50mm FL without IS.



i can't imagine buying a lens >135mm FL without IS.


----------



## dolina (Mar 20, 2018)

It is 2018 already... so where is it?


----------



## slclick (Mar 20, 2018)

I just attach my 35L hood on the ol' 135L and make Canon freaks think I have a prototype.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 22, 2018)

slclick said:


> I just attach my 35L hood on the ol' 135L and make Canon freaks think I have a prototype.



hahahaha!


----------



## stevelee (Mar 22, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> A lot of folks like the 100L Macro for portraits. I'm not one of them.



Now that I've gone FF the 100mm (noël) macro and the upper end of the 24mm-105mm are my two lenses in the right range for individual portraits. I recently needed to submit a current photo of myself, so I set up the tripod and used the macro and shot with a wireless remote. I failed to notice that I had left the camera in Av mode, so the shots were all at f/7.1. I could have just as well used the zoom.

The picture turned out fairly decent, given the subject matter, and a nice neutral wall was my background, so I wasn't looking for buckets of blur, and I was in sharp focus all over. The result showed more blemishes than I can normally see in the mirror. Perhaps if I get another lens for portraits, I'll try for a used 85mm from some past decade that didn't get great reviews.


----------



## hne (Mar 23, 2018)

slclick said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > i can't imagine buying a lens >50mm FL without IS.
> ...



I have a hard time imagining buying any lens without IS, irrespective of FL


----------



## slclick (Mar 23, 2018)

hne said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Not once have I thought 'If only this 135L had IS' Not once. Maybe it's because I have shot longer without the feature than with. YMMV


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 24, 2018)

slclick said:


> hne said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



As long as I've had a drink I don't shake too bad.


----------

