# EF 28-135 f/4L IS? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 17, 2010)

```
<p><strong>From Photo.net

<span style="font-weight: normal;">Apparently Canon is testing a new 28-135 Lens. This is a direct quote I received via email.</span></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Canon is currently performing research, prototyping & testing new 28-135mm F4 L IS; less wide angle and more telephoto. Engineering says it would require 2 extra LD glass elements; shifting price to an additional $800 CAD of the original 28-135mm MSRP.  such a lens would cost and estimated $1549 MSRP. It is also Canons next generation Image Stabilization will be released;  called “IS2″, where the two additional long magnets are present, where larger float distance of separation between groups; yielding up to now 5 stops of effective stabilization; both in longitudinal and lateral vibrations will be dampened.  IS2 will consume approximately 20% battery power.</p></blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Mount: EF</li>
<li>Focal length 28 – 135 mm IS2 II</li>
<li>Maximum aperture  F4.0 w/ IS</li>
<li>Minimum aperture  F22</li>
<li>Lens construction 21 elements in 14 groups</li>
<li>Diaphragm blades  8</li>
<li>Image stabilizer  4-stops tested</li>
<li>AF actuator  Ring USM (full-time manual focus built-in)</li>
<li>Filter diameter 82 mm</li>
<li>Dimensions (dia x len)  88.5 x 112 mm</li>
<li>Weight 730g EST.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: </strong><a href="http://photo.net/equipment/canon/24-105/"><strong>http://photo.net/equipment/canon/24-105/</strong></a></p>
<p><em>thanks kwannon</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## guilford (Sep 17, 2010)

I could be missing something here, but why in the world would the filter diameter need to be 82mm? The 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 are only 77mm (covering more than the same focal length range with a stop more light). The 135 f/2 prime is only 72 mm. I don't see any need for that size front element on an f/4 lens like this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2010)

Agreed - I don't get the 82mm filter size. Also, what the heck is, "both in longitudinal and lateral vibrations will be dampened." IS damps angular vibrations. Lateral vibrations are currently damped only by the new Hybrid IS. Longitudinal vibrations would mean forward-back motion of the camera; AI Servo AF helps correct for that, but for IS to perform a similar correction it would actually have to move the focusing groups - something that seems unlikely. And why does the rumor state that this new 'IS2' provides 5 stops of stabilization, then list the specs as, "Image stabilizer 4-stops tested"? Finally, given that the vast majority of Canon bodies sold are 1.6x crop, I don't see them taking anything from the wide end of a walkaround zoom.

I declare shenanigans. :

Of course, the original post on photo.net beat me to the declaration - look at the last line, "**all of the above statements are mearly merely speculation and rumors."


----------



## Justin (Sep 17, 2010)

I'd much prefer to have the Nikon spec 24-120. 4 mm on the wide end is much more useful than a measly 15 mm on the long.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 17, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> I declare shenanigans. :



but we love shenanigans! don't we? no, maybe not. 

I'm also going to go with a no on this one. too close to being an ugly sister to the 24-105 f/4 L IS ... those extra 4 mm on the wide end matter a heck of a lot more than the 30 mm on the long end, whether its for walkaround photography or nature photography (which to my knowledge are the primary purpose of this type of lens).


----------



## kubelik (Sep 18, 2010)

dilbert said:


> I can't help but wonder if the engineering behind this is more of a result of comparing the 24-105 to Nikon's 24-120 than an analysis of what people want. The kind of thing that someone would make up...



I think we're all thinking that it's made up. beyond that, even if I were to make up a fantasy lens, it wouldn't be this one.


----------



## baronfizzy (Sep 18, 2010)

The large amount of spelling and grammatical errors in this "quote" suggest that it does not come from any official or legitimate source. Is Canadian English not the same as it is in other English speaking countries? The only explanation is that it is badly translated from an Asian or European source, but that's doubtful.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2010)

dilbert said:


> Aren't some of these other methods of stabilization meant to kick in when you're using the lens vertically for macro shooting?



Not that I know of. The standard IS has a gyroscopic sensor that detects angular motion around two axes (pitch and yaw, in flight terns). Hybrid IS includes the angular sensor, and adds an accelerometer that detects translational motion (XY axes in the plane of the sensor). Whatever IS system a lens has (or camera, since the newest PowerShots also include Hybrid IS), all the sensors and compensations are operating whenever the IS system is active.


----------

