# 135 F1.8L IS



## Loren E (Oct 28, 2013)

Who else would be all over this if they could keep it to around 25% larger than the current 135L and 50% more expensive ($1,700 range I'm thinking). The current 135L is really nice but lacking IS and weather sealing are bummers, and the extra 1/3 of a stop with F1.8 would be appreciated for really low light work like concerts. I know it has been patented and the current L lens is a pretty old design - would be sweet if Canon brought this patent to market in 2014. Yes yes I know it will be a good bit more expensive and also larger than the current lens but I think the upgrades would be well worth it. I'm curious how many other folks feel the same way. What a sweet pairing it would make with the 70-200 F4 IS or 70-300L to cover the normal telephoto range.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 28, 2013)

Same size
Same weight
IS
f2 or f1.8
Sharp wide open to f5.6

COUNT ME IN :


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 28, 2013)

Cue RL photo


----------



## Loren E (Oct 28, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Same size
> Same weight
> IS
> f2 or f1.8
> ...



would certainly expect an increase in size and weight if getting F1.8 and IS, but hopefully not too much.


----------



## Menace (Oct 28, 2013)

Loren E said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Same size
> ...



Weight and size would not be a prob for me - very keen to see it happen though.


----------



## pwp (Oct 28, 2013)

I'm perfectly fine with f/2, but IS would clinch it for me. Some people can hand-hold their 135 at crazy low shutter speeds and I envy them! Do they use beta-blockers? For this mere mortal with a good eye but not the world's steadiest hands, IS is my best friend.

-pw


----------



## eml58 (Oct 28, 2013)

Loren E said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Same size
> ...



It's made at the moment, unfortunately by Zeiss for Sony Alpha Cameras.

Zeiss 135 f/1.8, 985g/77mm Filter Size/USD$1,799.00
Canon 135 f/2, 750g/72mm Filter Size/USD$1,089.00

No IS, weather sealing, But, Works for me though, if only.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 28, 2013)

To me, the current version is very good, but I normally go for the 85mm 1.2L II or the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. But if a 135mm f1.8L IS came along, with fast AF and at least optical quality like the existing one, it would change everything.


----------



## retina (Oct 28, 2013)

i wouldn't mind if it gets bigger and heavier as long as AF speed doesn't get a hit from bigger/heavier glass.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 28, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Loren E said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



In body stabilizers


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 28, 2013)

I use my copy (135mm f2 L) quite a lot. maybe not as much as my 16-35IIL, 35mm f1.4L or my 85mm f1.2 IIL. But it is used quite often. It works really well with extenders too, adding to it's versatility. 
There's certainly room for improvement, my copy is looking a bit bashed up. It could do with weather sealing, although I've not had any issues with my copy and mine's got quite wet at times. 
Mine's lost a screw on the front ring. I think there's certainly a capacity to push the design to f1.8, while pushing the filter size to 77mm. There's the option of adding an IS unit to the lens, as long as it doen't degrade the stunning Image Quality which the current version offers.
One of the joys of the current 135L is that it's a convenient size and weight. It's not too obtrusive and it's quite light and easy to handle.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 28, 2013)

Loren E said:


> Who else would be all over this if they could keep it to around 25% larger than the current 135L and 50% more expensive ($1,700 range I'm thinking). The current 135L is really nice but lacking IS and weather sealing are bummers, and the extra 1/3 of a stop with F1.8 would be appreciated for really low light work like concerts. I know it has been patented and the current L lens is a pretty old design - would be sweet if Canon brought this patent to market in 2014. Yes yes I know it will be a good bit more expensive and also larger than the current lens but I think the upgrades would be well worth it. I'm curious how many other folks feel the same way. What a sweet pairing it would make with the 70-200 F4 IS or 70-300L to cover the normal telephoto range.



i'd be all over it for sure i'm keen to see how the proposed sigma 135 with os stacks up against my 135L, to be honest its gonna take a lot to beat this lens IMO even though its an old design it still delivers IQ in spades
but a new canon 135L with IS f 1.8 or f2 i don't mind it would have to be killer, probably with a killer price tag and your 1700 is wishful thinking too maybe more like 2700 and it might be there


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 28, 2013)

Loren E said:


> I know it has been patented and the current L lens is a pretty old design - would be sweet if Canon brought this patent to market in 2014.



I'm not aware of Canon having published a patent for a 135mm f/1.8 IS. Perhaps I missed it but I'd be interested to see it if you can point me to it.

Nikon has certainly published a patent for a 135mm f/1.8 VR, and Sigma is widely expected to release a 135mm f/1.8 OS Art series, possibly next year.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 28, 2013)

Wouldn't be interested. Love my 135L as is. IS counts as a negative for me. I don't see much value in it and don't want to pay extra, have the size increase and/or the risk of yet another component that'll break eventually.


----------



## nWmR12 (Oct 28, 2013)

I would love to see IS on this even if it is the same f/2 with updated IQ. I am not sure I would get it right out though in less it was crazy good with both IS and IQ, otherwise the current one is fantastic for the price. I can deal with weight with no problem. I can hand hold my 100-400 @400 at 1/30 and get sharp images and that is with the old IS, I can only image what a new IS would allow me to get. On the 135 or 100-400.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2013)

You do know it would cost about $5,000 (Same as 200mm f/2 IS)? 

I wouldn't even be interested at that price.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 28, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You do know it would cost about $5,000 (Same as 200mm f/2 IS)?
> 
> I wouldn't even be interested at that price.



If it gave me the same IQ as the 200, but much smaller and lighter I would trade, but as for a
Replacement of the current 135 it would absolutely kill it for 90% to make it 4500 dollar lens. We all love the current 135 because it's superb value, small and anonymous with great IQ.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Oct 28, 2013)

A 135 f/2 IS for some reasonable sum would be a blessing for indoor sports under the typically awful lights they have; I was at an event recently where 200 was too long and even wide open I was at 1/60 - 1/80 (manual) at 10k+ ISO (auto). Of course that sum could be spent on supplemental light enough to get more reasonable numbers with a 70-200... Anyway a man can dream.

Jim


----------



## Pi (Oct 28, 2013)

Loren E said:


> [...] the current L lens is a pretty old design [...]



The 17 year "pretty old design" is the reason why this lens is so good. With the current trend, I am afraid that the new one will be made for chart shooters and will screw the bokeh. 

Not that there is no room for improvement - better coating and IS would be welcome but I am afraid that the IS may pose design restrictions which would change the character of this lens.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Oct 28, 2013)

Could any of you guys comment on the image quality of Canon 135 f2 vs. Zeiss 138 1.8 T and Zeiss 135 f2 ZE? I've had Canon 135 f2 and I really loved it for outdoor portraits. I've just heard that Zeiss 135 f1.8 T has more pleasant color rendition than Canon, is that true? Sorry for off top. Thank you, guys. 



Viggo said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Loren E said:
> ...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> Loren E said:
> 
> 
> > [...] the current L lens is a pretty old design [...]
> ...



What a bizarre thing to say. I can't think of any of the newer mkII lenses which have worse out of focus rendering than the mk I versions. 24mm f1.4L mkII comes to mind. All of the big white tele zooms. The 70-200 f2.8 II LIS is another example, in fact it's only slightly better than the mk I. 

The 135mm f2.0 L's bokeh is pretty bad when stopped down due to uneven or non-rounded aperture blades. Drop to f2.8 or f4 and see the Bokeh shape....pretty mis-shapen


----------



## Viggo (Oct 29, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Loren E said:
> ...



Actually the 70-200 mkII has less smooth bokeh than the mk1, but to me it was a non issue compared to all the things that are way better with the mk2.

And it's why the 50 L is soft, because of fantastic bokeh. The Zeiss 135 is less smooth than the 135 L because it is sharper wide open.


----------



## Pi (Oct 29, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> What a bizarre thing to say. I can't think of any of the newer mkII lenses which have worse out of focus rendering than the mk I versions. 24mm f1.4L mkII comes to mind. All of the big white tele zooms. The 70-200 f2.8 II LIS is another example, in fact it's only slightly better than the mk I.
> 
> The 135mm f2.0 L's bokeh is pretty bad when stopped down due to uneven or non-rounded aperture blades. Drop to f2.8 or f4 and see the Bokeh shape....pretty mis-shapen



I was not talking about Canon only, I had Sigma (35) in mind, as well. Oh, and Zeiss, I agree with the poster above. And the 70-200 II has worse bokeh than the I, and they both seem to have worse bokeh than the non IS. 

Who in their right mind would stop the 135 down?  I have to try it some day... Anyway, this is not a question of lack of optical modern design, which was the point of my remark.


----------



## Vern (Nov 2, 2013)

I love the 135 f2 for indoor volleyball - IQ, focal length and AF performance are 'just right'. For sports, the IS isn't really needed, but I certainly agree that for theater and live performance, this would be great - as well as any other low light portrait opportunities. I would pay a few $K for such a lens. Still, the current 135 is very nice - attached photo = 1Dx, ISO 8000, f2, 1/1000.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 2, 2013)

Vern said:


> I love the 135 f2 for indoor volleyball - IQ, focal length and AF performance are 'just right'. For sports, the IS isn't really needed, but I certainly agree that for theater and live performance, this would be great - as well as any other low light portrait opportunities. I would pay a few $K for such a lens. Still, the current 135 is very nice - attached photo = 1Dx, ISO 8000, f2, 1/1000.



Great shot, lovely girl !


----------



## sdsr (Nov 2, 2013)

Viggo said:


> In body stabilizers



Yes, please - not that I expect it to happen, but if Panasonic can start doing it after years of doing it in-lens only.... Meanwhile, I'm hoping that Sony will have abandoned it's STM technology and provide better high ISO in its next Alphas; several old Minolta lenses look rather appealing, especially coupled Sony's IBIS; and if Pentax ever made a FF camera that would liven things up too.


----------



## monopodman (Nov 7, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> Could any of you guys comment on the image quality of Canon 135 f2 vs. Zeiss 138 1.8 T and Zeiss 135 f2 ZE? I've had Canon 135 f2 and I really loved it for outdoor portraits. I've just heard that Zeiss 135 f1.8 T has more pleasant color rendition than Canon, is that true? Sorry for off top. Thank you, guys.



Without being too scientific, 135/1.8 ZA is more or less equal to the stellar 70-200/2.8L IS II (i.e. slightly better than classic 135L), while Zeiss 135/2 ZE easily destroys both and performes on par with super telephoto lenses (200/2L IS)


----------

