# I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L



## Radiating (Jan 16, 2013)

Canon needs to make this lens, now.


----------



## dr croubie (Jan 16, 2013)

a99 + 135 f/1.8.
Full frame, 135mm f/1.8, Image Stabilised, 24 million lovely Exmor pixels, 14 bits of DR at ISO50, 10fps, beautiful Zeiss glass. What more could you want?


----------



## K-amps (Jan 16, 2013)

Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby


----------



## marinien (Jan 16, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby



Haha, when I saw the title of this thread, I really thought that it's RLPhoto who started it


----------



## Rat (Jan 16, 2013)

@f/2, it'd have an 67.5mm front element and could use 77mm filters easily. @f/1.8, the 75mm max aperture would mean 82mm (or bigger) filters. So personally, I'd rather have the f/2 version. Which exists. Could you explain why the 1.8 is so important? Btw, I totally agree on the IS. A [email protected]/1.8-sized - non-L - 135mm (with or without IS) would be great too, btw. Nicely inconspicuous.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 16, 2013)

dr croubie said:


> a99 + 135 f/1.8.
> Full frame, 135mm f/1.8, Image Stabilised, 24 million lovely Exmor pixels, 14 bits of DR at ISO50, 10fps, beautiful Zeiss glass. What more could you want?


Nice lens, but look at the price of that Sony lens: $1,798. That is twice the price of the current Canon 135/2L. And it doesn't actually have image stabilization (you have to buy a Sony camera for that). Imagine how people will complain if Canon introduces a new 135mm lens at the Sony's price. The forums would be abuzz with new accusations of "greed" and how Canon keeps "screwing" their customers.


----------



## marinien (Jan 16, 2013)

Rat said:


> @f/2, it'd have an 67.5mm front element and could use 77mm filters easily. @f/1.8, the 75mm max aperture would mean 82mm (or bigger) filters. So personally, I'd rather have the f/2 version. Which exists. Could you explain why the 1.8 is so important? Btw, I totally agree on the IS. A [email protected]/1.8-sized - non-L - 135mm (with or without IS) would be great too, btw. Nicely inconspicuous.



The Sony/Zeiss uses 77mm filter, just sayin'


----------



## Rat (Jan 16, 2013)

marinien said:


> The Sony/Zeiss uses 77mm filter, just sayin'


 :-[


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 16, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby



Damn straight. I'll pitch my 135L into the fire for this lens.

2000$? Don't care

3000$? Don't care

4000$? Get a 200mm F/2.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 16, 2013)

Sounds fantastic, but the 135mmL is not exactly a big seller, so don't expect it. I'm planning to use my 135L for 500 or more theatre photos tonight, its my most used lens, so I'm one of those who would be in line to buy one..


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Jan 16, 2013)

If only. I remember when this picture showed up the last time.


----------



## kbmelb (Jan 16, 2013)

I love my 135L but I'd pay $2k for that.


----------



## dr croubie (Jan 17, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > a99 + 135 f/1.8.
> ...



... as opposed to what happens now: Canon releases IS lenses at exactly the price of the 20 year-old lenses that they replace, and forums are full of praise for Canon's wonderful cheap lenses and how much they love foregoing profit to keep customers happy?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 17, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby



Naaaaaaaaaaah! He'd still rather get his hands on the classic 50 f/1.0! .


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 17, 2013)

dr croubie said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > dr croubie said:
> ...


What I meant to say is that I don't agree with the complaints about "outrageous" pricing. The new, improved lenses come with a higher price, which is to be expected. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't be surprised if a new 135/1.8L IS were offered at the same price as the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 17, 2013)

Going on a tangent - someone mentioned on the forums a 135mm(?) lens with an aperture made from liquid(?) that would darken under electric current creating a soft edged hole and excellent bokeh.

Could anyone remind the lens' manufacturer & model?


----------



## dr croubie (Jan 17, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Going on a tangent - someone mentioned on the forums a 135mm(?) lens with an aperture made from liquid(?) that would darken under electric current creating a soft edged hole and excellent bokeh.
> 
> Could anyone remind the lens' manufacturer & model?



That would be this one.
(although I'm not sure about the 'darkening under current', i'm not sure how the Sony works.
The 'darkening under current' thingy was actually a Canon Patent (that will probably never make it into a lens)


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 17, 2013)

dr croubie said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Going on a tangent - someone mentioned on the forums a 135mm(?) lens with an aperture made from liquid(?) that would darken under electric current creating a soft edged hole and excellent bokeh.
> ...



Thanks!



dr croubie said:


> (although I'm not sure about the 'darkening under current', i'm not sure how the Sony works.
> The 'darkening under current' thingy was actually a Canon Patent (that will probably never make it into a lens)



Seems I mixed a few details from the thread.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 17, 2013)

Radiating said:


> Canon needs to make this lens, now.



Yeah right ... they just delivered my 135 f/2L lens, now!!! 

Just opened the package. Look forward to shoot with it. 

Peace ... J.R.


----------



## Radiating (Jan 18, 2013)

Just as an asside Nikon has a patent on one possible design for this exact lens:

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/09/nikon-135mm-f1-8-lens-patent.aspx/

This is actually a very interesting design because it has very high distortion, 2%, yet it is extremely sharp and has no CA whatsoever both in the APO sense and otherwise.

As long as someone is listening at Canon it shouldn't be especially challenging to make this lens.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 18, 2013)

marinien said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby
> ...



+ 100


----------



## jeffabbyben (Jan 18, 2013)

I was waiting for the lens announcement this week just in case a new 135mm f1.8 was coming out. When no announcement was made I went ahead and ordered the 135mm f2. Can't wait to get it ;D


----------



## pwp (Jan 18, 2013)

Whether the eventual update on the 135L is f/2 or f/1.8 I don't really care. What would be handy is the standardization to the 77mm filter thread size plus IS. Maybe I'm not as steady as I used to be, but after using my most used lens, the 70-200 f/2.8IIis I really notice the subtle trembles with the 135 f/2 and need to be more conscious of shutter speed if I'm hand holding. Another useful option would be a tripod/monopod collar.

In any case, the current lens continues to astound me. I was late getting the 135 f/2, it was not until last year I made room in my bag for one. Out of the box it was a shocker, needing a constant +9 AFMA on all my bodies. Thank goodness for AFMA.

Another highly unethical, possibly unhealthy alternative to IS would be the use of beta-blockers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker as used by some athletes. Since they promote lower heart rates and reduce tremors, beta blockers have been used in professional sports where high accuracy is required, including archery, shooting, golf and snooker. Photographers too?

Beta blockers are banned by the International Olympic Committee. A recent, high-profile transgression took place in the 2008 Summer Olympics, where 50 metre pistol silver medallist and 10 metre air pistol bronze medallist Kim Jong-su tested positive for propranolol and was stripped of his medal. For similar reasons, beta blockers have also been used by stutterers and surgeons. How slow can you hand hold a 135 f/2?

-PW


----------

