# Canon EF 135mm f/2L II On the Way? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 17, 2016)

```
<p>Every so often we hear things about Canon’s longer prime lenses, but nothing ever comes to fruition. There is an expectation we’re going to see new 50mm and 85mm lenses in the next year or so, though we haven’t heard anything we’d consider definitive.</p>
<p>We’re told that an EF 135mm f/2L II prototype currently exists internally at Canon, but hasn’t yet been given to photographers for field testing.</p>
<p>Development of an “L” lens can take years and we don’t doubt that this lens is on the upgrade cycle. However, we’re not sure it’s coming in the <em>near</em> future.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Oct 17, 2016)

I would have to say owning this lens I cannot think of any way in which it needs improving as its damn good and does exactly what it should. Would expect there would be other things canon could better spend their time on !

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


----------



## vscd (Oct 17, 2016)

I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...

...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 17, 2016)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> I would have to say owning this lens I cannot think of any way in which it needs improving as its damn good and does exactly what it should.



I can think a few things they can improve: AF, image quality and add IS. I can remember people speaking about canon upgrading their 70-200mm/2.8L IS II, and that's at least on par with (stopped down to 2.8 ) the 135mmL!
Maybe it could be also made even smaller?

Tho I agree that there's other lenses that would require a replacement more than this... I'm looking at you, 50mm/1.4.


----------



## canonic (Oct 17, 2016)

Bring it on! I need to feed my Sony camera(s)


----------



## mclaren777 (Oct 17, 2016)

I hope every single L prime that Canon makes going forward will use its new BR optics technology.


----------



## Pookie (Oct 17, 2016)

vscd said:


> I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...
> 
> ...so this focallenght was never something considerable for me. Would use a 70-200L IS ii with a stop less light, but 4 stops of IS.



Where do you get your crack from because it must be some good stuff? Or have you moved on to bath salts...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2016)

Pookie said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...
> ...



What don't you understand about somebody not being interested in a 135 f2 if they have a 119 f1.7 and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS?


----------



## Pookie (Oct 17, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



You can put a 1.4 converter on a 85mm L? I'd like to see that...


----------



## rs (Oct 17, 2016)

Pookie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



last time I checked, that rear element was as in your face as the front element. I'd like to see a 1.4x TC which that lens can mount on.

Actually, on second thoughts I wouldn't.


----------



## Pookie (Oct 17, 2016)

rs said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yea... my point exactly. Maybe if you use a ball peen hammer and a anvil it might fit : 

But if you do have a* 119 f1.7 *and a 70-200 f2.8 with very good IS you surely must have a nice big bag of crack to go with those focal lengths.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2016)

Pookie said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



Just about every 1.4TC apart from the Canon ones fit and work fine. Indeed some have argued the Tamron 1.4 TC is every bit as good optically as the Canon one and works on a lot more lenses.

No hammer or drugs needed...........


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 17, 2016)

Shocked no one is angry that this (rumored) lens lacks IS and is not _faster_ than f/2. 

I personally am ambivalent, but some folks on this forum have been asking for a 135mm f/1.8 IS for some time.

Also: large aperture prime L lens --> will we get more of the BR gunk in this one like the 35 f/1.4L II?

- A


----------



## Xyxyll (Oct 17, 2016)

IQ of the original 135mm f/2L is superb. I can't imagine any ways to improve on that side. If they're not adding IS or opening it up to f/1.8, I don't know why they'd ever cycle out a new one. The original is sooo good; I don't expect I'll ever upgrade.


----------



## photojoern.de (Oct 17, 2016)

I would not consider this lens, because compared to the L 70-200 f2.8 IS II it is just on f-stop quicker, does not have the IS and the 70-200 is a masterpiece (both, f4 and f2.8) regarding sharpness and bokeh. It´s a very special lens for only a few studio portrait photographer, I would think.


----------



## Pookie (Oct 17, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



Nope, not going to happen with the 85L. You'll have to do better than say it will work, I'd need a picture. You'd still need a bag of drugs and a hammer...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Oct 17, 2016)

I've been holding out for a 135mm f/2 with IS. Those are my needs. I think it's safe to say Sigma or Tamron will probably be first to offer one.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 17, 2016)

Xyxyll said:


> IQ of the original 135mm f/2L is superb. I can't imagine any ways to improve on that side. If they're not adding IS or opening it up to f/1.8, I don't know why they'd ever cycle out a new one. The original is sooo good; I don't expect I'll ever upgrade.



I'm loathe to do this, but DX- [throw up in my mouth noise] excuse me DXO may actually have some insight to offer here:

Zeiss (Pre-Milvus) 135mm f/2 on 5D3: Sharpness = 22
Zeiss (Pre-Milvus) 135mm f/2 on 5DS R: Sharpness = 41

Canon 135mm f/2L on 5D3: Sharpness = 20
Canon 135mm f/2L on 5DS R: Sharpness = 30

No testing on the Samyang or Zeiss Milvus yet.

(I know it's just one copy, but) It might imply that the 135L improves with 50 MP but is starting to show its age on such a fine canvas. As excellent as it is, it could clearly be improved.

And our very own Dustin Abbott (regular poster here) backs up that notion. He has tested the bejeezus out of 135mm primes and has said the Samyang 135mm f/2 "beats the pants off [the 135L] optically" and the new Milvus is even better than that.

So the notion that the 135L is stellar is true, but if you can live without AF, there appear to be better instruments out there. Canon can absolutely improve their offering.

- A


----------



## helpful (Oct 17, 2016)

Canon, if you're reading this, this is my most-used lens according to my film archives and digital EXIF data, over 495K images across three copies of the lens. Other lenses come and go, but I always depend on the 135mm f/2. I would greatly appreciate it if you would update this lens with Otus-grade optics, and your fastest focusing technology. IS would be nice as well, but if it reduces even slightly the image quality then I would rather have the image quality. (Usage cases when I could use a slow enough shutter speed for IS to matter are far fewer than the 100% of the time where image quality matters.)


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 17, 2016)

helpful said:


> Canon, if you're reading this, this is my most-used lens according to my film archives and digital EXIF data, over 495K images across three copies of the lens. Other lenses come and go, but I always depend on the 135mm f/2. I would greatly appreciate it if you would update this lens with Otus-grade optics, and your fastest focusing technology. IS would be nice as well, but if it reduces even slightly the image quality then I would rather have the image quality. (Usage cases when I could use a slow enough shutter speed for IS to matter are far fewer than the 100% of the time where image quality matters.)



AF is their ace in the hole. They need to improve there as well as optically. I say that because Tamron and Sigma *surely* are making 135 primes someday, so Canon's monopoly on autofocusing 135 primes will end someday. 

- A


----------



## vlad (Oct 17, 2016)

Sign me up for one that's sharper at f2 and has IS! The AF is already pretty good, but I wouldn't be angry if they made it quieter and/or faster. The current version sharpens and edits very nicely, but the look is relatively flat wide open, which is where you probably want to be keeping it most of the time.


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2016)

It is a very nice portrait lens. Its sharpness is adequate but a stabilizer wouldn't hurt 8)


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 17, 2016)

Pookie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



I was laughing at the same thing and I don't even have an 85L. Okay, I only smiled real big and shook my head.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 17, 2016)

I would not jump to the conclusion that it would NOT have IS, simply because it's not specifically mentioned in a rumor.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Shocked no one is angry that this (rumored) lens lacks IS and is not _faster_ than f/2.
> 
> I personally am ambivalent, but some folks on this forum have been asking for a 135mm f/1.8 IS for some time.
> 
> ...



135mm f/1.8L would be a hoss! I'm wondering, though, if f/1.8 would offer much advantage at all over f/2.

IS and BR would be nice, but the current less is good enough for me.


----------



## helpful (Oct 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > Canon, if you're reading this, this is my most-used lens according to my film archives and digital EXIF data, over 495K images across three copies of the lens. Other lenses come and go, but I always depend on the 135mm f/2. I would greatly appreciate it if you would update this lens with Otus-grade optics, and your fastest focusing technology. IS would be nice as well, but if it reduces even slightly the image quality then I would rather have the image quality. (Usage cases when I could use a slow enough shutter speed for IS to matter are far fewer than the 100% of the time where image quality matters.)
> ...



Absolutely agreed. When I switch from my 400mm f/2.8 II back to this, I notice a huge difference in AF speed. The 135mm is very fast but incredibly slow compared to what it could be with the latest technology.

AF speed is everything when using the 135mm for action which is one of its biggest applications already.


----------



## LordofTackle (Oct 17, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



yeah, I would love to see how you put this







on that:






Hint: don't forget that hammer 

I'm pretty sure that those two lenses would scratch each other rather nicely^^


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 17, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



Wouldn't someone just throw an extension tube in the middle. Why wouldn't that work


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 17, 2016)

I cringe just looking at that 85L rear element. That's a scratch magnet from poor handling if I ever saw one.

- A


----------



## Tuke (Oct 17, 2016)

Canon vs Zeiss






Eldar said:


> This review by Dustin probably gives you what you are looking for:
> http://dustinabbott.net/2014/07/zeiss-apo-sonnar-t-2135mm-ze-review-2/
> 
> I had the 135/2L, but wrecked it. I then got the Zeiss and it is optically a better lens, but the lack of AF is an issue now and then. But with the Ec-S focusing screen in the 1DX, I get good keeper rates even wide open, provided things does´t move much.


There is room for improvement! Also there is that Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm f/1.4. And adding IS would't hurt!


----------



## j-nord (Oct 17, 2016)

The 135f2 is a fantastic lens, one of the best by many accounts. However, of course there is room to improve. 

- Sharper for high m-pix bodies
- Faster AF (it's not particularly fast compared to newer L lenses)
- Closer minimum focus distance
- IS
- lighter/smaller - maybe
- f1.8 - maybe


----------



## LordofTackle (Oct 17, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> Wouldn't someone just throw an extension tube in the middle. Why wouldn't that work



It would. But you would loose the ability to focus to infinity and I guess it would be even more detrimental to IQ (I think the 1.4x would be already a pretty big hit on IQ since the lens was never designed for TC use).


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 17, 2016)

This has been on my wish list for a long time - I would love to see it with IS and sharper with less LoCA wide open.

Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Zhongyi 135mm F1.4 Speedmaster. It weighs a mere 6.6lbs and costs $3k US...


----------



## vscd (Oct 17, 2016)

Pookie said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I think an 85L is way more flexible and special. The f1.2 is a good help for low light photography and if you put a 1.4x Teleconverter on it you have a 120mm f1.7 anyway...
> ...



I don't know what you like to smoke but in my world my 85L works very fine with a Kenko 1.7x and I don't think this would change with a smaller 1.4x. But hey, at least you dropped a funny speech and felt superiour for a moment. Indulge yourself something. Remember, there is more than the Canon TC 1.4, which is a big failure in design in my eyes... 

The Canon TCs were failures back in the old days, when they even failed to work with the Magic Drainpipe Workhorse 80-200L.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 17, 2016)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> I would have to say owning this lens I cannot think of any way in which it needs improving as its damn good and does exactly what it should. Would expect there would be other things canon could better spend their time on !
> 
> Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria



While it's a great lens for sure...the min focus distance is a little long, the coatings are very old. So never coatings for flare and the new blue element would be good too. The AF is very old and certainly could do with a tweak. While it's still fast, accurate and reliable, it's slow compared to a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II. It's casing is a little fragile and flexible compared to say the 100mm LIS macro. Also...it's optics could do with a tweak too, they could easily push the lens diameter to 77mm and push the aperture to f1.8 for another 1/3 stop. Then there's the better aperture diagram units. More blades give better sunstars and smoother out of focus areas when stopped down. 
So while the current lens is excellent...there is always tech and room for improvement. Just look at what Canon did with the legendary 35mm f1.4 L.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 17, 2016)

Tuke said:


> Canon vs Zeiss
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That photo on the left is questionably out of focus, not softer. My 135L is VERY sharp, but it's no macro lens and it's AF accuracy gets worse as it gets close to MFD. Wide open, shooting "head and shoulders" portraits (roughly 2.5m away) it's sharpness is breath taking, up there with the greats.


----------



## rs (Oct 17, 2016)

vscd said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



Any chance of a photo of the 85L mounted on the 17.x? I've had a look around online and can't see a single example of any 85L mounted on any TC...


----------



## slclick (Oct 17, 2016)

Fix not what is not broken


----------



## zim (Oct 17, 2016)

From Kenko site, seems they think it would fit. Wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer was optimistic about their products though! ;D


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 17, 2016)

50mm with IS and USM please...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 17, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> While it's still fast, accurate and reliable, it's slow compared to a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II.



Isn't _every_ lens's AF slow compared to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II?

That's a mighty high bar you are setting for this new 135!

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 17, 2016)

verysimplejason said:


> 50mm with IS and USM please...



+4 Billion


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Oct 17, 2016)

photojoern.de said:


> I would not consider this lens, because compared to the L 70-200 f2.8 IS II it is just on f-stop quicker, does not have the IS and the 70-200 is a masterpiece (both, f4 and f2.8) regarding sharpness and bokeh. It´s a very special lens for only a few studio portrait photographer, I would think.



I use mine almost exclusively for sports on a 7Dii. It was excellent when I went to an NFL game as a fan, it was just below the stadium lens size limit. I suspect it would be the same for many venues. With a 1.4x in a pocket, it gives a lot of reach and still only f2.8.

I'm looking forward to picking up a 6D sometime in the next year as the used price continues to drop, then it will get used more for portrait and concerts.

Not as versatile as a 50mm or zoom maybe, but I'd be willing to bet most parents would love to have one at the gym during their child's game if they new what it could do.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > Canon, if you're reading this, this is my most-used lens according to my film archives and digital EXIF data, over 495K images across three copies of the lens. Other lenses come and go, but I always depend on the 135mm f/2. I would greatly appreciate it if you would update this lens with Otus-grade optics, and your fastest focusing technology. IS would be nice as well, but if it reduces even slightly the image quality then I would rather have the image quality. (Usage cases when I could use a slow enough shutter speed for IS to matter are far fewer than the 100% of the time where image quality matters.)
> ...



Yep, but if Sigma's fictional 135 /f2 focuses as inconsistently bad as their 35 and 50 f1.4...I don't think Canon have much to worry about.


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 17, 2016)

I have been waiting for a good 85mm portrait lens, and waiting, and now that the Sigma 85mm Art has been released, I pushed the button and bought the new Tamron 85mm f1.8. The Sigma is just too big and heavy and no IS.

To me, anything longer than 50mm SHOULD have IS.
Even for portraits, it can be a godsend, and for video - it's an absolute necessity. 
The 135mm also interests me, but if it doesn't have IS, I wouldn't consider it.
However, if it does get IS and BR, then it will eventually go into my bag.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > While it's still fast, accurate and reliable, it's slow compared to a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II.
> ...



The 135mm is my most recent lens and according to LR, I only have about 500 shots (I've kept) with it so far this year, however I don't ever recall the AF lacking in speed or accuracy. While I haven't benchmarked, timed it etc. it has felt as fast to focus as say my 85mm f/1.8. Ai Servo has worked very well, errr as well as one can expect on a 6D. 

This lens was on my wish list for a long time. Hard to completely justify as there is some decent overlap with a 70-200 f/2.8, 100mm macro, fast 85mm, etc. But it's an awesome lens and takes superb portrait shots. 

Of course, I'll never complain when Canon releases a "newer, better" version of any of their lenses, this one included.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 18, 2016)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I've been holding out for a 135mm f/2 with IS. Those are my needs. I think it's safe to say Sigma or Tamron will probably be first to offer one.



I think Tamron might add one to their growing SP line-up and it will have VC. I'd love to see it go to f/1.8, but f/2 is fine if it's tack sharp.


GMCPhotographics said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I would have to say owning this lens I cannot think of any way in which it needs improving as its damn good and does exactly what it should. Would expect there would be other things canon could better spend their time on !
> ...



The so-called poor mfd is excellent with a max magnifcation that 85mm lenses can only dream of. Most 85mm can only focus around 80-85cm and this focuses at 90cm. Would I like it to improve further, of course but that's not a major concern even with current lens.

I agree with the rest of what you said, it's a 20 year old design and could be improved and IS would be a must for me.


----------



## ranplett (Oct 18, 2016)

Can't believe someone is arguing in favor of an 85 1.2 + 1.4x. That would be the most awkward shooting experience yet. It's so front heavy that it would probably snap the teleconverter right off. When we were kids we had these inflatable toys that had a weight at the bottom, and you could hit it and it would bounce back up. Not sure what those were called, but that lens combo reminds me of that.

These:






Not to mention that the 135 is a lot better wide open than an 85 + 1.4x, it's a lot cheaper, faster AF, and personally, I like the look of the 135mm to the point where I just sold the 85 about 5 years ago. The 135 is still one of my most used lenses in spite of it's notoriously inaccurate AF. At $1k, that lens should be in everyone's bag.

If they added IS and managed to improve IQ, I would preorder.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 18, 2016)

ranplett said:


> Can't believe someone is arguing in favor of an 85 1.2 + 1.4x. That would be the most awkward shooting experience yet. It's so front heavy that it would probably snap the teleconverter right off. When we were kids we had these inflatable toys that had a weight at the bottom, and you could hit it and it would bounce back up. Not sure what those were called, but that lens combo reminds me of that.
> 
> These:
> 
> ...



To be sure, I wasn't arguing that it should be done. I was questioning the opinion that it couldn't be done, turns out the manufacturer agrees with me.

As for a pissy little 85 snapping the TC right off, I don't think so. I have put my 300 f2.8 on the end of a TC and used the body mount on a tripod with no ill effects.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 18, 2016)

ranplett said:


> ...When we were kids we had these inflatable toys that had a weight at the bottom, and you could hit it and it would bounce back up.



I had Popeye, but that was way before Flipper and that big ape. It never really worked right, he usually only returned to about 60 degrees or so.


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 18, 2016)

Goo Blues
.................
G7
I cant sleep at night...
F7
oh ..baby....
C7
you have what I need....
I want what you have....
////////////

get it done ...please....


or .... something...added here...later....


----------



## Etienne (Oct 18, 2016)

verysimplejason said:


> 50mm with IS and USM please...



+1000 ... a good 50mm f/1.4 IS is much more useful than a 135 f/2. Although I'd take both if the 135 has IS.
I seem to be the odd ball. The 35 f/1.4 is just not quite enough, where the 50 f/1.4 makes the image pop like 3D. 35mm is not quite wide enough and not quite tight enough. 
My favorite focal lengths right now are 24, 50, 135, and 400 ... in that order


----------



## vscd (Oct 18, 2016)

rs said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



Of course. What do you need? The photo of the Kenko on it or an example from the combination? If I remember right, the Kenko even gives the correct focallength back in the EXIF-Data.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 18, 2016)

I use the 135 f2 since years, and do not have much to complain about. One important factor IMO is it's compact size and discretion compared to any (white) 70-200. It could be improved a bit optically (mainly at f2) and weather sealed. The minimum focus distance is already quite good for a 135mm. IS is of course a welcome addition, but I wouldn't like a 1.2 kilo monster for 1900€. Knowing Canon I have no doubt that by improving a bit everywhere, they can produce a spectacular lens, the question is at what cost ?

I am afraid if you put IS + 1.8, price, size and weight wil increase a lot. I prefer a compact, affordable f2 lens over an f1.8 overpriced and bulky one.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Oct 18, 2016)

I agree with symmar22. I have loved the original formula,-still shoot it regularly,-and never doubt its delivery (with high enough shutter speed and careful focusing technique).

I am just gonna go ahead and leave this image here again and I will quote some Oingo Boingo:
"My creation--Is it real?;
It's my creation...my creation;
It's my creation."

Happy shoong y'alls!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 18, 2016)

AE-1Burnham said:


> I agree with symmar22. I have loved the original formula,-still shoot it regularly,-and never doubt its delivery (with high enough shutter speed and careful focusing technique).
> 
> I am just gonna go ahead and leave this image here again and I will quote some Oingo Boingo:
> "My creation--Is it real?;
> ...



Have you seen the Sony 135mm f1.8? It doesn't look much different to the ef 135mm f2 L. I think your photoshop jpeg would be more accurate if it was a 135mm f1.4 L


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Oct 18, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Have you seen the Sony 135mm f1.8? It doesn't look much different to the ef 135mm f2 L. I think your photoshop jpeg would be more accurate if it was a 135mm f1.4 L



Thanks GMC for the comment. I had consulted the Sony (if you look at the lens diagram attached from BH of the Sony the external casing is likely a "form over function" decision). I would prefer the 135 designed my way (as I have PSed it above). I think Canon could manage..? Thoughts are welcome.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 18, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> As for a pissy little 85 snapping the TC right off, I don't think so. I have put my 300 f2.8 on the end of a TC and used the body mount on a tripod with no ill effects.



+1 

Was going to say the same thing for the EF 70-200 f/2.8 II...


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 18, 2016)

AE-1Burnham said:


> I agree with symmar22. I have loved the original formula,-still shoot it regularly,-and never doubt its delivery (with high enough shutter speed and careful focusing technique).
> 
> I am just gonna go ahead and leave this image here again and I will quote some Oingo Boingo:
> "My creation--Is it real?;
> ...



This reminded me of a NIKKOR 16-35mm - that's not good...


----------



## steliosk (Oct 18, 2016)

Canon lacks a descend 50mm lens.
After the stellar 35L II the 50L II should be their next upgrade!


----------



## Zv (Oct 18, 2016)

I do like the 135L very much but I've rarely used it as I find myself opting for my image stabilized 70-200 more. In low light I actually prefer the f/4 IS to the 135L. The 135L is great when there loads of light. Shoot at 1/250s or faster and you get nice crisp images. F/2 is actually usable but f/2.8 is where the magic is. 

So, unless I'm shooting f/2.8 and faster than 1/250s I'm probably gonna go with my f/4 IS. Might have to just accept that I have no business owning this lens and sell it! 

Things that could be improved include reduced CA (blue gunk?), weather sealing, IS, better coatings, lighter (made with that plastic stuff the new lenses are made of) and make it sharper at f/2. 

So yeah there's room for improvement!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2016)

Etienne said:


> +1000 ... a good 50mm f/1.4 IS is much more useful than a 135 f/2. Although I'd take both if the 135 has IS.
> I seem to be the odd ball. The 35 f/1.4 is just not quite enough, where the 50 f/1.4 makes the image pop like 3D. 35mm is not quite wide enough and not quite tight enough.
> My favorite focal lengths right now are 24, 50, 135, and 400 ... in that order



I think the 50 is an important inflection point (for large aperture work) too. I love love love a 28 or 35 on my 5D3 (those are my go-to FLs for walkaround, env portraiture, etc.), but the magic of slamming a lens wide open and getting that near 3D effect doesn't kick in until 50mm or so for me. You can do it with wider FLs of course, but you need to creep closer and obviously we avoid doing that for facial distortion reasons.

- A


----------



## vscd (Oct 18, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> As for a pissy little 85 snapping the TC right off, I don't think so. I have put my 300 f2.8 on the end of a TC and used the body mount on a tripod with no ill effects.



Correct. Don't know what he meant, but most 400 f2.8 users I know, carry them along with a TC2.0 or TC1.4 and nothing breaks off. That's BS.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Oct 18, 2016)

The current lens is on my to get list for this spring. So hopefully the new model will be out before then. If not then o well, this current model is amazing anyway. That said if they are updating it, it will likely come with IS, improved coatings and updated AF system. But honestly I would be surprised to see this lens next year, the 85mm L lenses is much older and need updating first IMHO, followed by the 50mm L lens which isnt very impressive considering the 50mm STM is actually little sharper. Also the NON L 85mm is old and dirt and really expect a nano USM version of it in the next year or about.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 18, 2016)

Canon 135L is my Go-To lens for the overwhelming majority of my portrait shots. Nothing else looks like it. A MarkII upgrade would be an instant pre-order for me. The compression and Bokeh you get off this monster is pretty much identical to the 85L 1.2 thanks to the longer focal length. Certainly you need more distance to target to get the same framing, but the results are unmatched when shooting wide open. For half the price of the 85L it's not even a contest for me. Only thing lacking is weather sealing, and I would prefer they build the new one with the seemingly more modernly-common 77mm filter ring. (Selfish reasons, I always forget my damn step-down rings lol)


All that said, Give us a new 50L. I'm tired of waiting! I've come close to just buying the 35L II, but just don't shoot that focal length all that much outside of landscape, and I use the 16-35 f4 for that. Don't you know this is all about ME, Canon?


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 18, 2016)

Having further read some commentary here...

Yes to New Lens Coatings, Blue Goo, IS (perhaps), weather sealing, new lens body design, etc...

Bigger aperture? How big we wanna make this thing? f2 at that focal length is already pretty razor thin DOF for portrait. 

And owning both the 70-200 IS II and the 135... The 135 just has such an amazing 3D characteristic the zoom just can't ever seem to achieve for me. I think that's due to the fact that the optical design of the 135 is is very simple and clean by comparison to the zoom. Don't get me wrong. I've shot portrait on 70-200 when it was more convenient or the 135 focal length just could not work. (Or I grab my 85 non-L and shoot at 2.8 ). It's a great portrait lens and I know a lot pros who use it for that. While it's certainly far more versatile and has excellent image sharpness and IS .... just doesn't look as magical as the 135.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 18, 2016)

Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :

- 20mm f2.8
- 28mm f1.8
- 45mm TS-E
- 50mm f1.4
- 50 f2.5 cm
- 85mm f1.8
- 100mm f2

They are all very old designs from the film era and should not be still listed any more in 2016.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2016)

symmar22 said:


> Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :
> 
> - 20mm f2.8
> - 28mm f1.8
> ...



I'm not convinced we'll ever see the 20mm f/2.8 or 28mm f/1.8 replaced. They are such odd ducks / exceptions to the non-L line. Attached is what I think we'll see before too long. The non-L USM 50 and 85 are #1 and #2 with a bullet for me.

- A


----------



## vscd (Oct 18, 2016)

Yep... a new 50L with Blue Element would be awesome and I would prefere a 50mm 1.4L* IS* over an 1.2L... 

Oh,and I really like my small 40mm pancake and would love to see a fullframe 28mm or 24mm pancake.

The 135mm f2 is of course a nice portraitlens, especially für head-portraits or longer distances but I already own a 135mm* f1.8*, so this specific Focallenght is already filled 8)


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2016)

vscd said:


> Yep... a new 50L with Blue Element would be awesome and I would prefere a 50mm 1.4L* IS* over an 1.2L...
> 
> Oh,and I really like my small 40mm pancake and would love to see a fullframe 28mm or 24mm pancake.
> 
> The 135mm f2 is of course a nice portraitlens, especially für head-portraits or longer distances but I already own a 135mm* f1.8*, so this specific Focallenght is already filled 8)



+1 on a wide pancake. Would love a 24-28mm-ish pancake on my 5D3.

- A


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > Yep... a new 50L with Blue Element would be awesome and I would prefere a 50mm 1.4L* IS* over an 1.2L...
> ...



Me too. Prefer 28, but 24 would be good too.


----------



## csista (Oct 19, 2016)

I'll always keep an open mind, but it would be tough to get me to part with my 135L. IS would obviously be nice, although less of an issue with high iso quality with each new body Canon produces. And minimal focus is a bit long at times. But even if I did upgrade, I'd keep my original copy. This the lens I always say "Just has a certain feel..." to the images it captures that can't be replaced. Something a chart could never quite explain. My favorite bokeh by far. It's the first lens I want to shoot with when a model is backlit because it produces my favorite flares. And maybe I just got a superb copy, but I still feel like this is my sharpest lens. But that could be because I only use it as a portrait lens and sometimes I don't want pores to be so clear. ;-)


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 19, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



Yes, would be nice, but I am shure this will never happen because you need a retrofocus design to ke ep the mirror box free.
The 40mm lens is the lower limit of using some double gaussian inspired compact lens design ...

Maybe it is possible to shave off 15mm from the existing 24 2.8 USM while making it f/4.0 and omit IS at nearly the same cost but I would prefer to live with 15mm more and the goodies of f/2.8 + IS. Don't misunderstand me: I myself are happy with the EF 40 2.8 because my 5D with that lens can sit neatly in a larger lens compartment which is important to store a second body in a compact back pack.

With full frame mirrorless even a very compact 24 2.0 should be possible ...


----------



## vscd (Oct 19, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> Yes, would be nice, but I am shure this will never happen because you need a retrofocus design to ke ep the mirror box free.
> The 40mm lens is the lower limit of using some double gaussian inspired compact lens design ...



May not be impossible. Just look at the size of a Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color Skopar and put in an STM which should not enlarge the design too much. I think 28mm are possible, indeed, That would be a streetphotography-killer


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 19, 2016)

vscd said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, would be nice, but I am shure this will never happen because you need a retrofocus design to ke ep the mirror box free.
> ...



O.k., you are right: I have forgotten these options (on 2nd hand market) and that it has been done. From what I have read about the Voigtlaender compact lenses they arent the best in terms of IQ (wide) open and have to be stopped down.
But sometimes size matters and a tiny lens which gets the shot is much better than a massive 1.4 24 which to visible for street photography. So I should correct my statement by adding "with similar IQ like the shorty fourty"


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 19, 2016)

symmar22 said:


> Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :
> 
> - 20mm f2.8 A pointless lens now that it's focal length and aperture are covered by many excellent zooms
> - 28mm f1.8 I can't see a big market for it
> ...


I think what the Canon line up really needs at the moment is some 50mm primes that are good wide open and some sub 24mm fast primes. An 11mm f2.8 would be amazing, so would a 17mm f1.4 and a 21mm f1.4.


----------



## tron (Oct 19, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :
> ...


17 1.4 would be a super astro lens (coma dependent of course...)


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, some some other lenses are more urgently needed than a new 135mm, some are really embarrassing, either for their optics, design, or mechanics :
> ...



Agreed, the 20mm f2.8 and 28mm f1.8 are unlikely to be replaced, a 20mm f2 with zero distortion and low coma could be nice though. Maybe is there some space for a high end 28mm f1.4-ish L lens. 

My point was that it's time to remove all the "gold ring" lenses from the catalogue and replace them with something modern. From a marketing point, only 3 lenses series would be easier to read as well : L, silver ring and STM.

Aside from the obvious 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8, there is a need for an updated "standard" macro, I would replace mine immediately if they would release a 50-60mm macro IS USM, preferably f2 with 1:2 ratio than f2.8 with 1:1 ratio.

My second most urgent wish would be the 45 TS-E, I use the 17, 24 and 90 all the time, but never bought the 45 because of the (very) average IQ. I rented it a few times and was always disappointed. Last time I did, I used it on an assignment on my 5DSr, it was just a plain disaster. This is the only TS-E focal length that is worse than its Nikon equivalent. It is likely the less common TS-E, because it's the worst, although the focal length / aperture ratio would make it the easiest to design.

The 90 TS-E was much better designed and holds up very well to modern standards, but I am sure there is a bit of margin to improve as well.

Please canon, release an updated 45 TS-E and you'll have my money the next day.


----------



## vscd (Oct 19, 2016)

> Aside from the obvious 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8, there is a need for an updated "standard" macro, I would replace mine immediately if they would release a 50-60mm macro IS USM, preferably f2 with 1:2 ratio than f2.8 with 1:1 ratio



That's an interesting opinion. I never would call something like 1:2 a makro at all (Zeiss often does). For what do you need a fast f2 lens in the makroworld? Just to use it as normal lens, too? Depth of field is not that likely


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 19, 2016)

vscd said:


> > Aside from the obvious 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8, there is a need for an updated "standard" macro, I would replace mine immediately if they would release a 50-60mm macro IS USM, preferably f2 with 1:2 ratio than f2.8 with 1:1 ratio
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting opinion. I never would call something like 1:2 a makro at all (Zeiss often does). For what do you need a fast f2 lens in the makroworld? Just to use it as normal lens, too? Depth of field is not that likely



I do not use the 50mm 2.5 CM as a real macro lens, for real macro, 100mm lenses or more are IMO much better suited for the distance they give to the subject. My use of the 50mm is as a reproduction lens (paintings or flat material samples are a good example), close-up of small to medium subjects (food photography) and architecture. In these fields of use, there is nothing better than a macro lens if you need a 50mm, since they offer :

- no field curvature (repro of flat subjects)
- zero distortion (architecture)
- better than normal lenses behaviour at small f-stops (11-16)
- often slightly sharper than a 100mm macro equivalent.

I've never used mine at more than 1:2 ratio (since the film days I've been using 100mm or more for super close up), so I am more talking about close-up capability than real macro, f2 would make it a bit closer to an all-rounder. I think that is the very reason Zeiss makes a 50 macro f2 1:2. 

I am still surprised by the IQ of the 50mm f2.5 CM when used between f5.6 and f16, it behaves very well on the 5DSr. The main problem is the prehistoric AF, and very nasty manual focusing.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2016)

tron said:


> 17 1.4 would be a super astro lens (coma dependent of course...)



Canon may just wait to deliver its killer astro lens in the form a 24 f/1.4L *III* with the BR gunk. The 35L II is fine from a coma perspective, but I'm sure astro folks want something wider.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2016)

symmar22 said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > That's an interesting opinion. I never would call something like 1:2 a makro at all (Zeiss often does). For what do you need a fast f2 lens in the makroworld? Just to use it as normal lens, too? Depth of field is not that likely
> ...



+1. I've always heard the 50 f/2.5 Macro described as an art reproduction lens. I often completely disregard it in my list of Canon 50s as it has a relatively slow max aperture and lacks a ton of creature comforts -- no internal focusing, no USM, etc. 

Oh, and it's a design from _1987_. This is not 'an oldie but a goodie' -- it's just old.

- A


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 19, 2016)

vscd said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, would be nice, but I am shure this will never happen because you need a retrofocus design to ke ep the mirror box free.
> ...



I agree a 28mm f/2.8 pancake would be awesome. I think it can be done as well. Speaking of the Voigtlander, I'm always impressed how compact/pancake their 20mm f/3.5 Color Skopar is. I know people like to beat it up for it's corner sharpness and it's overall ability to resolve test charts. But there is just something about the way that lens renders and how the colors come out that I really enjoy the pictures that come out from that lens.


----------



## carrboro (Oct 20, 2016)

symmar22 said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > Aside from the obvious 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8, there is a need for an updated "standard" macro, I would replace mine immediately if they would release a 50-60mm macro IS USM, preferably f2 with 1:2 ratio than f2.8 with 1:1 ratio
> ...



The AF and manual focusing made me end up selling mine. I didn't have your needs and the 100mm L became one of my most used lenses.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 20, 2016)

carrboro said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



Clearly, the AF and manual focus are the very bad part of this lens. The manual focus feels like there is some sand inside, it is a pain to use for live view critical focus. The AF is ... well micro motor from 1987; slow and noisy. That's a shame since the optical formula is excellent considering its age. USM and IS would be very welcome additions.


----------



## Sator (Oct 25, 2016)

tron said:


> ... a stabilizer wouldn't hurt



Image stabilisation would definitely hurt:

1. It would hurt your wallet
2. It would hurt the sharpness of your images
3. It would hurt your arms due to the extra length and weight it adds

Ouch!


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 25, 2016)

Sator said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ... a stabilizer wouldn't hurt
> ...



The 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII is the sharpest 70-200 Canon have ever made, clearly IS does not impact sharpness to any visible degree.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 25, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Sator said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Also, I haven't heard many people complain about the weight of the 70-200ii for portrait or wedding sessions. 135 IS would be smaller and lighter than this... pick up a weight occasionally?


----------



## Zv (Oct 25, 2016)

Sator said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ... a stabilizer wouldn't hurt
> ...



The 16-35 f/4L IS is a very good example of a reasonably priced and comfortable to handle image stabilized lens that's sharp out to the corners. It didn't add much weight to it's closest sibling the 17-40 and we even got an extra mm at the wide end for our trouble! (Sshh wide is where it matters!)

I think it would be safe to assume Canon could do the same for the 135L if they wanted to. They've had years to think about it!


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 25, 2016)

tron said:


> It is a very nice portrait lens. Its sharpness is adequate but a stabilizer wouldn't hurt 8)



such courage to say this.. as mortar rounds fall....around you....
I completely agree...being now spoiled by recent releases from Canon....
35L ii, 100-400L ii.......

I owned this 135 f2 lens ...and loved it.. and even a while back when I owned it... I saw a bit of CA and slight softness wideopen.... but pretty much ahead of the others in the stable...
and focus was pretty fast ... but not a drooling fast click as sometimes described...

now......I consider it moderately sharp wideopen... not stellar...
and good focus speed....that's it!!


stellar is the 35L ii i m o

I believe Canon should get the new version out ... NOW..
with 4 or 5 stop I.S. .... and industry changing sharpness ...wideopen...
....
basically a mate to 35L ii ... and good to go...on 5Dsr

.......
glad you spoke out on this.....
the lens has had a good...comfy.... ride over the past decade or so....
.... and is still a good value.. @ ~ $900 new / $700 used...

as a canon stockholder...I want the new version... 
right now...
to be shown at the next executive committee meeting....

with some socks-rolling examples

and a $1900 price tag....

gimmee!!



....incoming!!!...........


----------



## Etienne (Oct 26, 2016)

TommyLee said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > It is a very nice portrait lens. Its sharpness is adequate but a stabilizer wouldn't hurt 8)
> ...



You should probably check this out: http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fwalters/para.html


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 27, 2016)

from... Etienne
You should probably check this out: http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fwalters/para.html:

your important source says: _"This is an indentation. All paragraphs in English *MUST *begin with an indentation.
_


haha....... 
a while ago it was a sin to play a tritone.....
using it...NOW......gives us so much more
in colors and substitution... 
thank God... we broke free.... of compliance
/////

naw...I have had...structure....
an interesting journey... once...
but............................................................
I like free form...better...

..... you can follow that if it pleases you....


----------

