# Canon 135mm f2 mk2?



## razbo (Feb 15, 2012)

Hi guys,

I'm looking in purchasing a canon 135mm f2, what i need to know, if there is a possibility of a version 2 about to be releases this year

Thanks

Raz


----------



## DanoPhoto (Feb 15, 2012)

Here is a Roadmap that was previously shared:

*********************
I received what appears to be some kind of lens roadmap. I only ever remember seeing a communication like this one once in the past. There are definitely some interesting concepts listed. Take all of this with the grain of salt.

EF 50 1.8 IS, status “prototype”, has tag “spring 2013″
EF 50 2.5 macro was tagged with “to be replaced”
EF 200 2.8 L IS macro is tagged with “testing”, “patents pending”, and “autumn 2013″
EF 24-70 2.8 L II tagged “final”, “winter 2011″
EF 100-400 4-5.6 L IS tagged “final”, “autumn 2012″
EF 35 1.4 L II tagged “prototype”, “winter 2012″
EF 60 L IS lens tagged “prototype”
 *Some odd duck EF-S zooms*

EF-S 20-65 IS
EF-S 45-105 IS status “development”
EF-S 55-70 IS “testing”
EF-S 70-400 IS “prototype”
 The one that seems the most interesting above is the EF 50 f/1.8 IS. That could become a replacement to the 50 f/1.4 and put some separation between it and the 50 f/1.2L. ***************** Dan


----------



## RedEye (Feb 15, 2012)

I picked up the current version. Even if there is a second version coming out, I doubt many will be dissapointed by the current model. Plus, you can probably sell it for little loss if it dosen't do the trick.


----------



## JR (Feb 15, 2012)

You should pick-up the current version. It is amazing and is fairly cheap for what it is. It will also retain its value. In a recent lens rumor post, Graig mentioned something about a 135 1.8L IS which would be the replacement of the current version but this was not a 2012 possibility. 2013 at best and you could expect the price to be at least double of the current version.

That's why I say pick-it up now and start shooting buddy!

Jacques


----------



## Seanlucky (Feb 15, 2012)

This lens is one of Canon's sharpest. It's also known for having amazing contrast and color. Personally one of my favourites, and a steal at the price. I say go for it.


----------



## Crapking (Feb 15, 2012)

Ditto - if you have ANY doubts, just look at the lens gallery here and you'll see how versatile / sharp this can be. For the current price, maybe the best 'value' in the L series.


----------



## Cosk (Feb 18, 2012)

The only way I see they could improve that lens is by adding IS and weather sealing, which would likely double the cost.

I LOVE mine... and it's a very, very high value right now. I doubt I'd upgrade, even given the choice. 

My recommendation: Buy now.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 18, 2012)

Dude just go for it and buy the damn thing, it's an awesome lens and you can always resell it if a new one comes out. And it's very cheap for an L lens, so all the more reason to go for it. If you keep waiting on new equipment you'll never get anything, as there is always something new in the works.


----------



## dirtcastle (Feb 18, 2012)

The 135mm really shines at f/2.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6805450549/#in/photostream


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Feb 19, 2012)

Great composition!

I keep saying that I got mine for $850, and it was a fairly new (2006 or 2008) copy; complete and in great shape. No regrets whatsoever.

If Canon were to release a new model, I'd probably not bother picking it up unless it was demonstrated to have some useful improvement, like an even shorter minimum focus distance, markedly better microcontrast at f/2 (as noted, this is already one of the best lenses, so that would be really something) and IS. As it stands, you get a lot of value from the lens, and it is about as wide aperture as a lens can be while still being useful for low-light applications on the current crop of DSLRs.

Out of Canon's entire lineup of older designs, this is one that stands out as being worthy of a purchase without any thought to possible future improvements.


----------



## dirtcastle (Feb 19, 2012)

Plus, there are rumors of a 200mm f/2.8 L. So the opportunity cost might be getting a little higher this year!


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 20, 2012)

The 135mm is already one of the best lenses Canon makes, so personally I think you'd be better off getting it now. You won't regret it - unless you find you don't need that focal length, at which point you wouldn't have considered it anyway.


----------



## fsu_dan17 (Feb 20, 2012)

I was also looking at this lens but I already have the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I was debating on this lens or the 200mm f/2.8 L. I think I would be better served by the 200mm but I see on the latest roadmap that a newer version is to be released. Does anyone recommend purchasing the 200mm? I have seen prices for around $500-$600.


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Feb 20, 2012)

@ Anyone and everyone debating the purchase of this lens:

TAKE THE PLUNGE. It really is one of the best bangs-for-your-buck in regards to Canon glass. IQ and build quality really shine on this lens. If a version ll were to come out, it would not be soon considering how recent the rumor is. For the price and all around quality, the current version is superb. Don't waste your time waiting for a lens not currently in existence, start shooting!


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 20, 2012)

fsu_dan17 said:


> I was also looking at this lens but I already have the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I was debating on this lens or the 200mm f/2.8 L. I think I would be better served by the 200mm but I see on the latest roadmap that a newer version is to be released. Does anyone recommend purchasing the 200mm? I have seen prices for around $500-$600.



I'd rather go for the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II instead of the 200 f/2.8, but thats just me.

135mm over the 200 2.8 too


----------



## dirtcastle (Feb 20, 2012)

What I think makes the 135mm f/2 L so useful and rewarding is that it's really solid at its widest aperture (unlike the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 ). Plus, the 135mm f/2 L has a great price and it's faster, smaller, lower-profile, and waaay less expensive than a 70-200mm f/2.8 L II.

I'm in the inverse situation of "fsu_dan17"... I've got the 135mm L, and thus I'm reluctant to get the 100mm L. And I doubt I'll have the $$$$ necessary for a 200mm f/2.8 L macro if/when it comes out.

Bottom line: the 135mm f/2 L is a reasonably sized $1000 lens with IQ and bokeh to match almost any lens out there. It's probably the best deal on a no-compromises lens. Admittedly, the 100mm L macro also sounds like an incredibly good value. But since I already have the decent 85mm f/1.8, the 135mm is a better complement to extend my range its current outer limit of 135mm.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 20, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> I'm in the inverse situation of "fsu_dan17"... I've got the 135mm L, and thus I'm reluctant to get the 100mm L. And I doubt I'll have the $$$$ necessary for a 200mm f/2.8 L macro if/when it comes out.



You won't need to worry there, the 180mm f/3.5 L macro is the current long gun macro, and i doubt there will be something longer with a wider aperture in that arena. ;D


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 20, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> The 135mm really shines at f/2.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6805450549/#in/photostream



Awsome shot!!!

I am throwing in one of mine too, taken with the 135 (my favorite lens if I might add).


----------



## LACityPhotoCom (Feb 21, 2012)

The current model is as good as a lens can GET. Razor sharp corner to corner wide open. Ever so slightly sharper at f/2.8 and stopped down beyond it stays the same (excellent)

Other than a weather seal, there's really no incentive to update this lens. It's absolute perfection. I will never ever sell mine (and I usually find ANY reason to get rid of a lens!) 

Some of my favorite pictures were shot on the 135.


----------



## Arkarch (Feb 21, 2012)

I rented a 135 f/2.0 to handle some evening holiday events - just awesome, the bokeh, the focus, the low light performance.

A couple notes tho - The narrow DOF and prime, especially on a crop (effectively 216mm), makes it a bit of a challenge to learn. Easier to use on a Full Frame no doubt. And I noticed it gets a bit ghosted when you aim near the sun or other strong light source - not a flare but just generally 'frosted over'. I don't know the technical term - sorry. 

So my shopping list ranking - I was having fits this winter about buying that or going for the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 for the versatility - and trying to stay within a rough budget. Then I finally opened my wallet up and got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on rebate -- wow! The 135 f/2.0 remains on my shopping list but now its behind my 2.8 mm upgrades in the wide (16-35) and medium range (new 24-70); and probably the 100 macro. Still, quite memorable and definitely will be in my bag when I need to do low light event work - even as a rental.


----------



## jwong (Feb 21, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> I'd rather go for the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II instead of the 200 f/2.8, but thats just me.
> 
> 135mm over the 200 2.8 too



Agreed. Just curious, but does anyone know how the 135 f/2 does with the 1.4x III compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 II?


----------



## Crapking (Feb 22, 2012)

I've used it on both and feel the images were similarly handled, though I was at max focal length on the 70--200. I will do a comparison specifically at 135 this weekend, but I am pleased with the results at 200 + 1.4 and don't really have a need to do 135 + 1.4, except to have 135*1.4 at f2.8 instead of 135*1.4 af f4 (using the 70-200).


----------



## jwong (Feb 22, 2012)

Crapking said:


> I've used it on both and feel the images were similarly handled, though I was at max focal length on the 70--200. I will do a comparison specifically at 135 this weekend, but I am pleased with the results at 200 + 1.4 and don't really have a need to do 135 + 1.4, except to have 135*1.4 at f2.8 instead of 135*1.4 af f4 (using the 70-200).



Thanks. I was just curious because sometimes it's easier to sneak in the 135 into an event rather than the 70-200.


----------



## drfl (Feb 22, 2012)

jwong,

I did a post on my blog a while ago about using the 135mm as a 189mm (With a 1.4tc). I love this lens and it performs so well with a tc as well. It is probably my second favorite lens, I wish I could use it in every instance. Anyway, for more info feel free to check out the post:

http://blog.journeyoflight.com/2010/04/13/using-the-canon-135mm-f2l-as-a-189-f28-samples/


----------



## funkboy (Feb 22, 2012)

jwong said:


> Just curious, but does anyone know how the 135 f/2 does with the 1.4x III compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 II?



Well, I had a 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) & sold it because it was redundant next to my 135L + 1.4x II (I'd never carry both the zoom AND the 135/tc, and the zoom usually lost the draw). The 135/tc package is extremely portable, esp. if you're in an environment where you can carry the TC in your pocket & only use it when you need it (i.e. someplace not very dusty). Basically the TC induces a very slight loss of contrast that can be easily compensated for in post. Well worth the investment. I'd love another reasonably priced fast prime that works with the TC.


----------



## jeremymerriam (Feb 22, 2012)

razbo said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm looking in purchasing a canon 135mm f2, what i need to know, if there is a possibility of a version 2 about to be releases this year
> 
> ...



I personally think people put way too much emphasis on newest lenses when it is not needed. My thoughts on how the new pieces of glass are for the newer higher resolution cameras is a load of crap. And anyone defending this and showing examples of minute improvements is spending too much time with the technicals aspects when they should be focusing on taking photos. the current 135L is an amazing lens IF you need it for a specific purpose. I love it but rarely find use for it in my market.

Buy it second hand if you can.


----------



## jwong (Feb 22, 2012)

Thanks funkboy andf drfl (thanks for the link to the photos). I got a 1.4x TC for my 70-200 because I'm planning to move to FF soon, and I didn't want to lose the range I currently enjoy with the crop body. Unfortunately, I didn't know it at the time, but the 1.4x TC does not work with the 100mm macros. I'd like to use the 135 with and without the TC at indoor shows where the they might stop larger, more conspicuous lenses from getting in. It's now on the list to get. I'm hoping that the 5DIII and lenses will have sale at the end of 2012. If not, the FF camera may have to wait but the 135 is not a bad consolation prize. ;D


----------



## te4o (Feb 22, 2012)

I use the CZeiss ZE 100/2 very often and love the results, ie I have a lot of usage at that focal length. Would you, guys, consider getting the 135/2 as well in this case? I have been circling around it for the last half year - my argument been that the new FF will have a better AF and shooting candid or street at 100 with MF is not really easy, I can't get 100% sharp and my wife can't use it either. So, the rumored AF, the usability with a TC, and the high microcontrast and sharpness pull me towards the 135 as an addition to the 100/2 macro from CZ. The price as well...
On the other side, the FL is similar, CZ has slightly better IQ and is already in my bag. 
I think I will sell my 70-200/4 IS and get the 135 now. The former doesn't get used at all.
Thanks for joining my circles of thought !


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 22, 2012)

razbo said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm looking in purchasing a canon 135mm f2, what i need to know, if there is a possibility of a version 2 about to be releases this year
> 
> ...



Whatever they'd do with a version II won't take a away from the fact this is one of the best lenses. Period. I don't think I'd ever trade it for anything.


----------



## drummstikk (Feb 22, 2012)

This is my blanket reply to anyone considering "buy now or wait" with any lens.

There is no money upside to waiting for the new version of a lens. Canon seems to have fully embraced the notion of jacking the price of a lens way up when it gets updated, so your older version will most likely hold it's value or maybe even increase should you decide to sell.

Furthermore, having owned or rented pretty much all the "L" telephotos at one time or another, there is not a single one that is anything short of "awesome." There's only an infinitesimal amount of additional awesome that could possibly be packed in to these lenses, so it's not as if you will be left driving a Yugo while others are getting Ferraris.

I'd say only hold out for the refresh if you have that kind of "lens asperger's" that causes you to **freak out** if you're not *always* using the latest thing (and have the bank account to support that habit).

The 135mm 2.0 is right at the top of my list of "jump on it if a good used one shows up at the local emporium." The last few to come through were all beat up and near to death, which tells you three things: 1) People use this lens. 2) People love this lens. 3) People don't let this lens go until it's used up. (Good copies do show up on eBay, but I like to get my hands directly on a lens before I buy.)


----------



## BobSanderson (Feb 22, 2012)

I just went through the same thinking and decided to buy the lens now. This lens is amazing (as many here have written) and I believe it will retain its value because of the quality of the images it renders. I bought it last week and took it on business trip to New York. Here are four images that show the range of what it can do with a Canon 40D.






General Sherman and Nike at Grand Army Plaza




George M. Cohan ("Give my regards to Broadway") statue at Times Square




First Cardinal of the season




Diamond District NYC


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 22, 2012)

BobSanderson said:


> I just went through the same thinking and decided to buy the lens now. This lens is amazing (as many here have written) and I believe it will retain its value because of the quality of the images it renders. I bought it last week and took it on business trip to New York. Here are four images that show the range of what it can do with a Canon 40D.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Brilliant shots! Especially the last two (Cardinal and Portrait/street). Did you go max at F2.0 on those?


----------



## BobSanderson (Feb 22, 2012)

The Cardinal was shot at f3.5 1/200 ISO 100
The street portrait was shot, as you thought, at f2.0 1/320 ISO 200
Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## pduna (Mar 3, 2013)

Arkarch said:


> I rented a 135 f/2.0 to handle some evening holiday events - just awesome, the bokeh, the focus, the low light performance.
> 
> A couple notes tho - The narrow DOF and prime, especially on a crop (effectively 216mm), makes it a bit of a challenge to learn. Easier to use on a Full Frame no doubt. And I noticed it gets a bit ghosted when you aim near the sun or other strong light source - not a flare but just generally 'frosted over'. I don't know the technical term - sorry.
> 
> So my shopping list ranking - I was having fits this winter about buying that or going for the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 for the versatility - and trying to stay within a rough budget. Then I finally opened my wallet up and got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on rebate -- wow! The 135 f/2.0 remains on my shopping list but now its behind my 2.8 mm upgrades in the wide (16-35) and medium range (new 24-70); and probably the 100 macro. Still, quite memorable and definitely will be in my bag when I need to do low light event work - even as a rental.




In regards to the "ghosting" or general "frosting" over - I do believe that's referred to as "halation." As far as I know. Cheers.


----------



## Tetra84 (Mar 5, 2015)

This thread is a little old, so I thought I'd bring it back to life now that there are new bodies on the horizon. 
I'm thinking of buying the 135 f2 lens for a 6D, is there any reason that I should hold off (any talk of newer version on the horizon?) since it's getting a little long in the tooth as a nearly 2 decade old lens? How future-proof do you think this lens will be - ex, Do you think it'll maintain its renowned sharpness on the newer high res bodies (5DS, 5DSR?)


----------

