# Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS USM Coming First Half of 2018 [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 11, 2017)

```
Every so often we get a mention of a new 135mm lens. The latest 135mm lens announced turned out be the TS-E 135mm f/4L, and I think there may have been some incorrect assumptions as to what the “135mm” lens was going to be, and we were probably guilty of that. I think most people expected an update to the EF 135mm f/2L.</p>

<p>We’re now being told by an anonymous source that another 135mm portrait lens is scheduled to be announced in the first half of 2018 and that it will have IS.</p>
<p>We’re still <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-unreleased-canon-gear-has-appeared-for-certification/">trying to confirm what two new lenses Canon will be announcing</a> in the first quarter of 2018.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## JoSto (Nov 11, 2017)

It will have a very tough stand against the 70-200 f2.8 mkII, especially if they are priced similarly. 

It has to be lightweight, feeling like a feather attached to the body.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 11, 2017)

JoSto said:


> It will have a very tough stand against the 70-200 f2.8 mkII, especially if they are priced similarly.
> 
> It has to be lightweight, feeling like a feather attached to the body.


Maybe. Usually primes have better characteristics (sharpness, CA, Bokeh, etc) than zooms, although zooms can get close to prime country. If this is in the league of the Sigma Art 135mm, with Canon AF, there will be quite a few who will covet this lens.


----------



## ethanz (Nov 11, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> JoSto said:
> 
> 
> > It will have a very tough stand against the 70-200 f2.8 mkII, especially if they are priced similarly.
> ...



I've heard the 135 is already a superb lens, so they would have to do more than just give it IS to make it a new seller.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 11, 2017)

Maybe the new 135 will bring back soft focus.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

Cue people complaining it's not f/1.8 in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## kiwiengr (Nov 11, 2017)

ethanz said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > JoSto said:
> ...



Too late... the Sigma 135 Art is superb....


----------



## infared (Nov 11, 2017)

kiwiengr said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



Yes...I own one....and I own the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS , too. Two separate uses in my world. Both lenses are great....but the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART is amazing piece of glass. Just incredible. ....but its a good time to be a photographer...the original Canon 135mm f/2 is amazingly priced and a great performer, too. Price/performance is perfect there. Now Canon could best them all with a state-of-the-art modern lens AND IS, which the Sigma does not have. The Sigma is a tank....but it focuses super fast and really delivers...so it is worth the haul when I use it. Really love that lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

ethanz said:


> I've heard the 135 is already a superb lens, so they would have to do more than just give it IS to make it a new seller.



For a high resolution shooter, it should be significantly sharper. Consider the Sigma 135 f/1.8 Art for what is possible on that front in this day and age. 

That lens (to my eyes) at TDP shot wide open at f/1.8 looks as sharp as the 135L stopped down to f/4. That's a staggering accomplishment.

LensTip goes even further. The least sharp measurements anywhere in the frame of the 135 Art from f/1.8 to f/5.6 were sharper than the most sharp measurement anywhere in the frame at any aperture of the 135L. (They compared a 21 MP 1Ds3 (135L) to a 22 MP 5D3 (135 Art), but it's the closest resolving sensor test I could find.)

And this is just at 21-22 MP. Imagine the 5DS users out there. DXO [throw up in my mouth sound] would have us believe the 135L is terrific at 22 MP but it is leaving money on the table on the 5DS:

5D3: 20 out maximum 22 in their pix mpix mp pixie stix whatevers 
5DS: 30 out of 50

Now, of course, sharpness isn't everything. But if Canon could get near Sigma's stratospheric resolving power _and couple it with the 135L's dreamy bokeh and a 'take it to the bank' top shelf AF setup_, that lens would be something folks would pay good money for.

- A


----------



## dolina (Nov 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Cue people complaining it's not f/1.8 in 3, 2, 1...



Yes! I would complain!

Sigma & Sony have a f/1.8 with image stabilized equivalent.

Nikon has the NIKKOR 105mm with a f/1.4!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

dolina said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Cue people complaining it's not f/1.8 in 3, 2, 1...
> ...



The Sigma is not stabilized. And it is still 80% the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom!

IMHO, a 135 prime needs to be sharper/creamier/shorter/lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom that so many folks already own or it will be relegated to niche use status. ... which is kind of where the 135L has sat since the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II came out. 

- A


----------



## kiwiengr (Nov 11, 2017)

infared said:


> kiwiengr said:
> 
> 
> > Too late... the Sigma 135 Art is superb....
> ...



One used to have the 70~200 F2.8L IS. Traded in when getting the 135 Art. Also have the Canon 300 F2.8L II. Shooting with a 5D IV, both lens excel.

An acquaintance of mine who was a press photographer using Canon gear when seeing a full res photo of mine with the 135 said "Holy shit, that's sharp". So is the Canon 300 (and 400 which I have rented once).


----------



## michi (Nov 11, 2017)

dolina said:


> Nikon has the NIKKOR 105mm with a f/1.4!



Back in the film days I had a Nikon FE with a Series E 105 2.8 lens. I loved that lens. I wish Canon had a modern 105 or thereabouts. I'm racking my brain right now whether I should go with any of the new 85's or 135's for portraits.


----------



## ethanz (Nov 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> IMHO, a 135 prime needs to be sharper/creamier/shorter/lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom that so many folks already own or it will be relegated to niche use status. ... which is kind of where the 135L has sat since the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II came out.
> 
> - A



Exactly


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 11, 2017)

dolina said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Cue people complaining it's not f/1.8 in 3, 2, 1...
> ...


I'd prefer the more compact size of a f/2.0 at this FL.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

Honestly, in a sequel to the 135L, a few things come to mind:


After this new one drops, tip your cap to a legendary run for the 135L. I liken it to a hall of fame player with a very long career at an underappreciated position on the field -- like an offensive lineman in football, catcher in baseball, a holding midfielder in soccer: they are never on the highlight reel, but you could not imagine your team without them. 


This lens was always deemed so sharp that it didn't need an update for so long. But I think the jump from 22 to 50 MP with the 5DS is a really big deal, and this conversation we're having about sharpness being an improvement area in a lens where _sharpness was its hallmark_ is going to happen again with other lenses we love soon -- the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II comes to mind.


I always thought of the 200mm f/2.8L II as the 'brother' of this lens. They came out about the same time, and the 200 f/2.8L II looks almost like it was made from strapping an extender to a 135L (see pic). Yet while the 135L had that extra stop and sharpness (at the time) vs. earlier 70-200L lenses, the 200 f/2.8L II was all but eclipsed by the 70-200 zooms because it was only a shade sharper, not any quicker and lacked IS. So I wonder if it will just be the 135L being replaced or if we get a 200 f/2.8L III as well (my money is on the former). 


Any chance Canon keeps the original 135L in production alonside a pricier newer IS version rather than discontinue it? Stranger things have happened.

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

- A


----------



## dolina (Nov 11, 2017)

Fair enough neither the Sony or Sigma has in-lens image stabalization.

But wouldnt it be awesome if it were a 1.8 with IS?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

michi said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon has the NIKKOR 105mm with a f/1.4!
> ...



Umm... _we already have one? _ The 100L is great for portraits, IMHO.

If you're a bokeh junkie, that may not be the answer you want. But I think the 100L is a perfectly fine instrument for portraiture.

Full disclosure, please don't blame the rendering/color on the redhead photo _on the lens_. That's 100% on this natural light shooter capturing a moment with wretched harsh sunlight unevenly breaking through the leaves above -- that shot had to be massaged heavily in post.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

dolina said:


> Fair enough neither the Sony or Sigma has in-lens image stabalization.
> 
> But wouldnt it be awesome if it were a 1.8 with IS?



Sure, I guess, but considering the Sigma Art is a nearly a pound heavier than the 135L, you'd really have to be a bokeh fanatic, videographer (or dark indoor wedding shooter?) to accept that tradeoff.

f/2 IS is totally fine by me, but I admit I am not the market. Others might love an f/1.8 IS.

- A


----------



## Berowne (Nov 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Honestly, in a sequel to the 135L, a few things come to mind:
> 
> 
> After this new one drops, tip your cap to a legendary run for the 135L. I liken it to a hall of fame player with a very long career at an underappreciated position on the field -- like an offensive lineman in football, catcher in baseball, a holding midfielder in soccer: they are never on the highlight reel, but you could not imagine your team without them.
> ...



The 200/2.8L is a good lens.


----------



## Besisika (Nov 11, 2017)

Just put an IS on it and take my money.
Night portraiture and indoor 4K will be very happy on my 1DX II.


----------



## DaviSto (Nov 11, 2017)

ethanz said:


> I've heard the 135 is already a superb lens, so they would have to do more than just give it IS to make it a new seller.


The 135L f/2 is a great lens. For some reason, however, I find that I am quite prone to camera shake when I use it. I've lost a lot of shots because I set the SS at 1/125 or 1/160 and ended up with soft images despite perfect focus.

An 135L f/2 with IS would be brilliant.


----------



## mjg79 (Nov 11, 2017)

The 135L is one of my favourites and it's one of those lenses that adds a bit of magic to photographs. I hope it stays at f/2 to keep size and weight down. I would be happy to have modern element coatings and perhaps make the minimum focus distance smaller to make it easier to use indoors. The autofocus is already perfect. If they add IS that would be great.

I'm totally uninterested in how sharp it is; instead they must pay attention to the rendering. I have tried (borrowed never owned) the Zeiss 135/2 as well as the Sigma 135. I prefer the rendering of the Canon over the other two and I know that's a completely subjective and rather controversial to say here but I just think it renders in a pleasing way, especially the background. I use it on a 5DS and it is plenty sharp wide open. Is the Zeiss sharper? Yes. Will anybody in the real world ever notice the difference? No. The 135L has such a beautiful bokeh, such lovely colours, I really would just love to see it slightly improved wherever they can, especially if we can have IS and leave it at that. If the bokeh gets compromised then I am not interested, however sharp they make it.

I fear the constant demand for "more sharpness" can sometimes lead lens designers astray. Sigma's 50mm Art for example is an amazingly sharp 50mm lens but the old 50mm DG EX (the Sigmalux as it was called) had a nicer rendering and bokeh and produces photos eerily similar to Nikon's legendary Noct 58/1.2.

So for once, I rather hope they don't change too much!

The 135L is probably the best value lens Canon sells so I wouldn't be surprised if they keep selling it for many years because they won't want their only portrait lens over 100mm to be super expensive as the new lens might be.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> The 135L is probably the best value lens Canon sells so I wouldn't be surprised if they keep selling it for many years because they won't want their only portrait lens over 100mm to be super expensive as the new lens might be.



+1. The same value argument goes for the 17-40L, 200 f/2.8L II, the two 70-200 f/4Ls, 400 f/5.6L, etc. Really well built and a wonderful 'welcome to your first really well made lens' for those who have only shot inexpensive third party or EF-S before.

- A


----------



## michi (Nov 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Umm... _we already have one? _ The 100L is great for portraits, IMHO.
> 
> If you're a bokeh junkie, that may not be the answer you want. But I think the 100L is a perfectly fine instrument for portraiture.
> 
> ...



Interesting. Never really thought of the 100 Macro as a portrait lens. I had the Series E 2.8 back in the days because I was poor. I would really love a 1.4 or 1.8, I could afford that these days. So my dream would be a 100 1.8 IS I suppose. And yes, I would really like some beautiful bokeh. Anyway, thanks for your input and I will go and look around the internet now for some more samples and opinions on that lens!


----------



## danfaz (Nov 11, 2017)

Besisika said:


> Just put an IS on it and take my money.
> Night portraiture and indoor 4K will be very happy on my 1DX II.



Yup! Weather-sealing would be a welcomed addition, too.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

michi said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Umm... _we already have one? _ The 100L is great for portraits, IMHO.
> ...



If bokeh is your thing, one of the 85Ls or the 135L would likely be the move. If cost constrained, look at the non-L 85 f/1.8 (a common first portrait lens for FF-ers) and 100 f/2 (the lens no one talks about).

- A


----------



## slclick (Nov 11, 2017)

Lighter than the Sigma and 1.8 or f/2. IS be damned. I'd like to use the 135L Mk2 on my M5 and from now on I might make most if not all future lens purchases based upon how well they work adapted and with the 5D3. The 100L works very well, narrow barrel, light weight. Keep it that size/weight and it would be the next magical unicorn from Canon.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 11, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> The 135L is one of my favourites and it's one of those lenses that adds a bit of magic to photographs. I hope it stays at f/2 to keep size and weight down. I would be happy to have modern element coatings and perhaps make the minimum focus distance smaller to make it easier to use indoors. The autofocus is already perfect. If they add IS that would be great.
> 
> I'm totally uninterested in how sharp it is; instead they must pay attention to the rendering. I have tried (borrowed never owned) the Zeiss 135/2 as well as the Sigma 135. I prefer the rendering of the Canon over the other two and I know that's a completely subjective and rather controversial to say here but I just think it renders in a pleasing way, especially the background. I use it on a 5DS and it is plenty sharp wide open. Is the Zeiss sharper? Yes. Will anybody in the real world ever notice the difference? No. The 135L has such a beautiful bokeh, such lovely colours, I really would just love to see it slightly improved wherever they can, especially if we can have IS and leave it at that. If the bokeh gets compromised then I am not interested, however sharp they make it.
> 
> ...



+1. I rarely use my 135L. The focal length doesn’t suit my kind of shooting very well, but whenever I use it, I find it to be sharp enough on my 5Ds, even at f2. For critical sharpness I will often shoot at f2.8, and then it performs great. 

On another note, the lens tip sharpness chart from the 135L seems way off, compared to my experience. I am shure the 135ART is better, but the difference is nothing like those charts seems to indicate.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Nov 11, 2017)

I sure hope this rumor is true and it's this close on the horizon! 

For what I do (weddings) the 70-200 2.8 and fast 135 prime don't compete with one another. They complement one other and I already carry both to every event. The zoom gets used during ceremonies and the f/2 at receptions. The biggest shortcoming is the lack of IS on the prime. A f/1.8 with IS would be amazing, a true dream. But, if that makes it close in size/weight to the 70-200, I would prefer Canon keep it a f/2. There's only so much room in my bag, and there's a point where flexibility gets outweighed, literally.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> On another note, the lens tip sharpness chart from the 135L seems way off, compared to my experience. I am shure the 135ART is better, but the difference is nothing like those charts seems to indicate.



Agree, and it may have something to do with how the files are generated on the 1Ds3 vs. the 5D3 in that comparison.

For another source that goes with images instead of numbers, both on a 5DS R:

Wide open: it is not close

Canon at f/2.8 vs. Sigma wide open: Getting closer, but I still take the Sigma there. (Don't let the 135L's lowered vignetting at that aperture mask the sharpness differences.)

Canon at f/4 vs. Sigma wide open: Almost the same to me, but the Sigma's better in the corners to my eyes.

Canon at f/5.6 vs. Sigma wide open: Just about identical (other than vignetting of course).

I would take no solace in the 135L stopping down brilliantly unless you're shooting landscapes with it (which I'm sure some do). But if you are ponying up the money / trouble to be one stop faster than a 70-200 f/2.8, presumably for portraiture, one imagines you probably want to use this lens towards that wide open end.

Again, sharpness isn't everything, but you have to tip your cap to Sigma on this front.

- A


----------



## captainkanji (Nov 11, 2017)

I hope they don’t sacrifice micro contrast for sharpness. The Sigma is great for taking crime scene photos. I love the 135 L’s look.


----------



## michi (Nov 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> If bokeh is your thing, one of the 85Ls or the 135L would likely be the move. If cost constrained, look at the non-L 85 f/1.8 (a common first portrait lens for FF-ers) and 100 f/2 (the lens no one talks about).
> 
> - A



I have had the EF 85mm 1.8 since the 90's. I have a love hate relationship with it. AF is completely unreliable although the 5DIV seems to do much better with it than all my prior cameras. I'm leaning more towards 85mm, so it will have to be either the old L or the new one. I'll wait and watch to see some more reviews about the new one.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 12, 2017)

kiwiengr said:


> Too late... the Sigma 135 Art is superb....



It's so late. Anyone who might have bought a 135mm prime in the next decade already bought the Sigma Art. Actually, Sigma has put the production line in Naphthalene, knowing demand is satisfied for years to come.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 12, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Yes, but the difference between f/2 & f/1.8 IS huge. Frankly, I don't know how I have survived at f/2. Maybe we should start a petition? 100 signatures should be enough to get Canon to make this an f/1.8 lens. Stupid Canon. Canon is *******.  :


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Honestly, in a sequel to the 135L, a few things come to mind:
> 
> 
> After this new one drops, tip your cap to a legendary run for the 135L. I liken it to a hall of fame player with a very long career at an underappreciated position on the field -- like an offensive lineman in football, catcher in baseball, a holding midfielder in soccer: they are never on the highlight reel, but you could not imagine your team without them.
> ...



Looking at charts and reading reviews is nice, but you've already indicated that you don't own and have not rented the 135 f/2L. Your posts are good, but you should at least rent and try the lens instead of regurgitating the work of others.  That's a lot of authoritative sounding posts about the older lens from someone who's never used it. I've read a recent post of yours where you ask whether the quality of the old lens is as good as people say. So, have you ever used it?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Looking at charts and reading reviews is nice, but you've already indicated that you don't own and have not rented the 135 f/2L. Your posts are good, but you should at least rent and try the lens instead of regurgitating the work of others.  That's a lot of authoritative sounding posts about the older lens from someone who's never used it. I've read a recent post of yours where you ask whether the quality of the old lens is as good as people say. So, have you ever used it?



Never, actually. I've been intrigued about it but between my 100L and 70-200 2.8 I haven't been able to convince myself that I need it. I've had a price watch up on CPW for some time for a refurb and just haven't felt the need to pull the trigger. But the lens is interesting to me and I may try/buy one someday... which is kind of why I'm on this thread.

You can call my offerings to this thread authoritative all you want, but I just call it participating in a discussion -- _care to join us?_ Or were there other troubling parts of my photography CV that warrant another charming post like that one above?

- A


----------



## Maiaibing (Nov 12, 2017)

One word for success "Apodization".

This feature alone could make a new Canon 135L portrait lens a sales success as it would introduce a unique lens to Canon's line-up which cannot be manipulated digitally in any way (like soft focus can). Fuji has achieved this feat (AF and apodization together), so we know it can be done.

IS makes perfect sense with an apodization lens. It would also fit the rumour that Canon is planning a new 135L as a portrait lens.


----------



## Berowne (Nov 12, 2017)

michi said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > If bokeh is your thing, one of the 85Ls or the 135L would likely be the move. If cost constrained, look at the non-L 85 f/1.8 (a common first portrait lens for FF-ers) and 100 f/2 (the lens no one talks about).
> ...



Re unreliable AF of the EF 85/1.8 - I made the same experience. Nevertheless, _if_ AF hits, it is pin sharp even wide open.


----------



## snoke (Nov 12, 2017)

Need this lens.

Tripod not possible, 1/15, ISO 3200, f/2.2 but cannot hold camera still.
4 stop IS big help.


----------



## michi (Nov 12, 2017)

Berowne said:


> Re unreliable AF of the EF 85/1.8 - I made the same experience. Nevertheless, _if_ AF hits, it is pin sharp even wide open.



Yes, the few shots where the AF nails it, this lens produces amazing shots. It really is a shame they didn't make a version II with a better AF module or whatever it takes to make AF work better. I would gladly pay $600 for a II lens if I knew AF would nail it every time.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> The Sigma is not stabilized. And it is still 80% the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom!
> 
> IMHO, a 135 prime needs to be sharper/creamier/shorter/lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom that so many folks already own or it will be relegated to niche use status. ... which is kind of where the 135L has sat since the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II came out.
> 
> - A



I agree with this.

I shoot the 70-200 when I'm not sure of what I'm exactly shooting and want the zoom versatility. If I'm stepping out to shoot a portrait shot I reach for the 135 every time as it is (arguably) the ultimate portrait lens.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 12, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> I'm totally uninterested in how sharp it is; instead they must pay attention to the rendering. I have tried (borrowed never owned) the Zeiss 135/2 as well as the Sigma 135. I prefer the rendering of the Canon over the other two and I know that's a completely subjective and rather controversial to say here but I just think it renders in a pleasing way, especially the background. I use it on a 5DS and it is plenty sharp wide open. Is the Zeiss sharper? Yes. Will anybody in the real world ever notice the difference? No. The 135L has such a beautiful bokeh, such lovely colours, I really would just love to see it slightly improved wherever they can, especially if we can have IS and leave it at that. If the bokeh gets compromised then I am not interested, however sharp they make it.
> 
> I fear the constant demand for "more sharpness" can sometimes lead lens designers astray. Sigma's 50mm Art for example is an amazingly sharp 50mm lens but the old 50mm DG EX (the Sigmalux as it was called) had a nicer rendering and bokeh and produces photos eerily similar to Nikon's legendary Noct 58/1.2.
> 
> So for once, I rather hope they don't change too much!



Count me in on the 135L being "sharp enough". It is actually quite sharp and like any other lens in this category the DOF is quite narrow shooting wide open. While the AF on this lens is incredibly accurate (my copy anyway) it just takes a slight subject movement/shift to throw off focus and lead to softer image. I enjoy the rendering, out of focus highlights etc with this lens. It does have a little bit of "magic" to the images it produces.

As a once owner of the old Sigma 50mm EX I completely agree on the images produced, rendering of that lens as well. The AF was just too slow for run and gun shooting that I wanted to use the FL with. And while the centerpoint was consistent, outer AF points never seemed to work quite right. With that said I never replaced the 50mm focal length (still waiting on Canon here I guess for a consumer level, affordable prime) and do miss this lens from time to time.

Total thread hi-jacking (sorry) but a couple shots of the old EX 50, memory lane time.



20150610-IMG_1913-M by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr



It&#x27;s my birthday and I can cry if I want to by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr


----------



## Dholai (Nov 12, 2017)

I have compared the following 4 lenses in identical settings in one session.
1) Canon 135 F2
2) sigma Art 135 F1.8
3) Canon 70-200 F 2.8L MK II
4) Zeiss Milvus 135 F2

In my opinion-

Zeiss is first and far ahead. Nothing comes closer.
Sigma and Canon are close second. Sigma may be a tad better
Canon 70-200 is a distant last.

This is JUST the image quality(IQ) viewed on a 30 inches 4K color calibrated monitor- because to me, only IQ matters!


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 12, 2017)

Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions. 

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses : 

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 12, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> +1. I rarely use my 135L. The focal length doesn’t suit my kind of shooting very well, but whenever I use it, I find it to be sharp enough on my 5Ds, even at f2. For critical sharpness I will often shoot at f2.8, and then it performs great.



I've never seen much point in 135mm for my own shots. I think I may have owned one back in my film days, and hardly ever used it. I didn't use zooms back then. If I was traveling, and therefore limiting what lenses I took with me, I packed a 28mm, an 85mm, and a 200mm. I don't recall ever missing having something in between. So I'm unlikely to consider getting a 135mm prime.

For a telephoto with my Rebels, I have a less-than-stellar 75-300mm zoom. I don't think I used it much on the low end, approximating a 120mm equivalent. Now that I have a 6D2, I use that lens only when I want a lot more reach than the kit 24-105mm. When I can afford and get around to buying a decent telephoto lens, I guess I'll get a zoom that would incorporate that length. My two current primes are the 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I used the former as my portrait lens for the Rebels, and I guess I'll use the latter with my 6D2, at least until I get an 85mm, if I do.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 13, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...
> 
> Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.
> 
> ...



As a successful matchmaker, I hereby declare ahsanford has a soulmate! (Now go out and make some images together, both of you!) ;D


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 13, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...
> ...



Haha, I had already noticed the potential for a strong lens based relationship . 

On a more serious note, regarding some of the comments in this thread : it's just wrong to assert that mid range primes aren't selling well and that there is no market for them. 

Amazon rankings are just a poor snapshot of reality but some valid data can still be extracted from them. Guess which of the two cheaper Nikon 50s is selling the most ? Nope, it isn't the f1.8G one. It's the f1.4G. 

And more telling : Fuji actually stopped developing faster aperture lenses, at least temporarily, and put a strong priority on delivering their f2 line when they noticed how well it was selling. 

The fact that Canon hasn't continued developing the 24/28/35mm lineup doesn't mean that there is no potential for mid range 50s, 85s, etc., particularly given how Canon makes some decisions regarding which lens they'll produce. In this rather astonishing interview of a number of Canon managers by Focus Numérique, here's what Canon said : 

"nous avions en quelque sorte le choix entre un 11-24 mm f/4 et un 12-24 mm f/2,8. Les deux objectifs auraient eu à peu près les mêmes dimensions et les coûts de production auraient été les mêmes. L'objectif de base étant d'être les premiers à produire les meilleurs objectifs du monde, nous avons opté pour le 11-24 mm f/4"

"In a way we had the choice between a 11-24mm f4 and a 12-24mm f2.8. The two lenses would have had roughly the same size and production costs would have been similar. Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4."

https://www.focus-numerique.com/news/entretien-avec-mm-okada-hayakawa-et-izuki-de-canon-19731.html

So there you go : the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest. I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs ? Are we actually developing a lens that's relevant to the art of photography ?

That mindset is quite sad because it means that some lenses which are WAY more relevant to the practice of actually taking pictures, are falling by the wayside just because their specifications wouldn't exactly be seen as exciting.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 14, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > MayaTlab said:
> ...



1. I don't understand what you are saying here. Canon has not stopped developing the 24 and 35mm L prime lenses. The outstanding EF 35mm f/1.4L USM was released October of 2015 (I own this lens). The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, introduced December 2008. I don't own the 24mm F/1.4L II so have no personal experience with it. However, the reviews I've read are very positive. EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, announced February 2012, available since June 2012.
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM, announced September 2014. (Source is Wikipedia)

2. "...the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest." : Canon said: "Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4." It sounds to me like Canon is saying the f/4 was chosen because it will be better than the f/2.8. There are people on this forum who own the 11-24 who say they are very happy with it. I've read one member saying the 11-24 is a "masterpiece" because of it's ability to not have barreling. F/2.8? Maybe people who actually own the lens can speak to whether that makes a difference to them. I've never read anyone complaining about this lens being an f/4. Some may, but are they even in the market to spend that kind of money? I don't know and neither do you. You know for you and you only, regardless of what you hear others say or write. There are people here that say they know numerous professionals using this or that product working for this magazine or that. They almost never name the numerous photographers even though they are anonymous on this website.

3. "I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs?" What? Canon is so successful because they meet their customer's needs better than the competition for a large number of people.. That Canon fails to meet your personal needs is irrelevant when it comes to Canon's lens development philosophy. You are not Canon's only customer. There is nothing astonishing about that.

I personally don't believe the interview you quote is astonishing at all. I think your take away from the interview is quite astonishing.


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 14, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



They have stopped developing the mid-range 24/28 f2.8 and 35mm f2 IS USM lineup. No mid range 50 or 85, despite the latter being crucially needed (and one of the best sellers in all camera manufacturers' lineups).

There are no doubts that the 11-24 is a superb lens, and that a very small number of people make excellent use of it. But you can't deny that a mid range 50mm will be far more useful to many times more people than the 11-24. The number of use cases for that lens is vanishingly small in comparison.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 14, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > MayaTlab said:
> ...



The 35 f/2 IS was released December of 2012. Current price: $549 (list $599)
The EF-s 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS was released April 2017 Current price: $349
The EF-s 24mm f/2.8 STM was released September 2014 Current price: $149
The EF 28mm f/1.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $509
The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $549 ($599 list price)

So what are you defining as mid-range? Were there ever lenses in what you call the "mid-range" price point? The 500 euros you talk about having for each lens on the wishlist you mention only equals $589 today. So what is mid-range?

Back to the 11-24 vs 12-24: Canon said the two would be roughly the same size. How is that a quest for the biggest?

Also, why would you even compare the usefulness of the 11-24 to a mid-range 50mm? The 11-24 is an L lens that has a much higher pricepoint and a completely different market. Do the current 50mm lenses have a larger market? Of course they do, but you are comparing a $3,000 lens to a $550 lens. The rumor is that Canon is developing a new 50mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The EF-s 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS was released April 2017 Current price: $3490



Damn, that's an expensive crop lens!


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 14, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



I don't understand your mid-range point. The 24, 28, 35mm IS USM are all around €500 these days. A mid-range 50 and 85mm would fall in that gap as far as I see things.

The 11-24mm is a d...ck contest because the usefulness of the 11mm focal range is so niche that's it's nearly non-existent (any way the main interest of that lens is in the 14-20mm range where distortion is very well controlled). A 12-24mm f2.8 may sound less exciting but I'm fairly certain that in a poll a majority of people would have picked the latter if they had been asked which one they'd like (all else being equal).

The point of comparing these lenses is to ask about Canon's priority. Is it to show off or to actually make work tools ? I think that Canon's current 50mm range is far more lacking than 1mm at the wide end.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 14, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > The EF 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS was released April 2017 Current price: $349
> ...



Ooops! ;D


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 14, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > MayaTlab said:
> ...



The mid-range point? You said Canon has stopped developing mid-range 24/28/35mm lenses. It just ain't true. That's the point.

Canon's priority? Profit. That's the priority.

Saying that Canon is showing off is an opinion. It is not fact. That is just you making things up. Just like you saying has Canon stopped development of mid-range primes. You just made it up without even looking at release dates. 

Once again: What are you defining as mid-range?

You also say the 24/28/and 35 are critically needed. They've recently been released. So the question is what is your source for saying Canon has stopped development of the 24/28/35? Your imagination.


----------



## geekpower (Nov 14, 2017)

a thread about a telephoto L derailing into an argument about wide angle mid-range lenses? seems legit.


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 14, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



OK, where is the 50mm EF mount lens around 500 euros that's desperately needed ? It isn't there. Last FF EF prime, as you rightly pointed out, is from 2012. The excellent trio of the 24, 28, 35 IS USM has not been mirrored by a 50mm prime in the same price range or a replacement for the 85mm f1.8 (the latter is less of an urgency though). That 50mm, which is a major seller for all camera manufacturers, isn't there. Let's hope when it comes that it won't disappoint. 

If a lens' specifications is only chosen because they want to be the first to reach them and not because they're relevant to the practice of photography, that's showing off. Canon's answer in that interview makes it perfectly clear that they just wanted to be the first to reach these specifications.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 14, 2017)

geekpower said:


> a thread about a telephoto L derailing into an argument about wide angle mid-range lenses? seems legit.



Glad you like it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> OK, where is the 50mm EF mount lens around 500 euros that's desperately needed ? It isn't there. Last FF EF prime, as you rightly pointed out, is from 2012. The excellent trio of the 24, 28, 35 IS USM has not been mirrored by a 50mm prime in the same price range or a replacement for the 85mm f1.8 (the latter is less of an urgency though). That 50mm, which is a major seller for all camera manufacturers, isn't there. Let's hope when it comes that it won't disappoint.



Why is a new 50mm lens 'desperately needed'? The current 50/1.4 remains a best seller, meaning demand for it is strong. Now, if you had stated, "A new 50mm for around 500€ is desperately _wanted by some people_," I'd agree. By one person, in particular (you know who you are, *ahsanford*!)




MayaTlab said:


> If a lens' specifications is only chosen because they want to be the first to reach them and not because they're relevant to the practice of photography, that's showing off. Canon's answer in that interview makes it perfectly clear that they just wanted to be the first to reach these specifications.



As an aside, I'd say that for some people, an 11mm rectilinear lens is highly relevant to the practice of photography. Just ask someone who shoots real estate for a living. 

Here's the Google Translate rendering of the interview answer to which you refer:

_For example we had some sort of choice between 11-24mm f / 4 and 12-24mm f / 2.8. Both objectives would have had about the same dimensions and the production costs would have been the same. The basic goal being to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we opted for the 11-24 mm f / 4 (NB: there is already a 14-24 mm at Nikon)._

You are interpreting that to mean they wanted to be the first to have a rectilinear zoom starting at 11mm, and that is just 'showing off'. But that's hardly 'perfectly clear'. What is descibed is a choice between an 11-24mm *f/4* and a 12-24mm *f/2.8*. Given the optical constraints, it is highly likely that an 11-24/4 would be optically superior to a 12-24/2.8 – the aberrations introduced by a 1mm wider focal length are far less than those introduced adding a full stop wider aperture. So, it is quite possible – and I'd say, more likely – that what the answer actually means is that Canon chose to produce the _best_ lens from those two options, the 11-24/4. It was quality, not 'being first', that drove the decision as described.


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 14, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > OK, where is the 50mm EF mount lens around 500 euros that's desperately needed ? It isn't there. Last FF EF prime, as you rightly pointed out, is from 2012. The excellent trio of the 24, 28, 35 IS USM has not been mirrored by a 50mm prime in the same price range or a replacement for the 85mm f1.8 (the latter is less of an urgency though). That 50mm, which is a major seller for all camera manufacturers, isn't there. Let's hope when it comes that it won't disappoint.
> ...



Fair point for the 50. That being said, it isn't exactly like it's got tremendous competition in its price / size range. 

I wad kind of expecting the "real estate" moment to happen. Do you shoot real estate ? I'm not sure you'd make the comment then that 11mm is that relevant. A 12-24mm would have been just fine. In fact a lens wider than 16mm still remains quite niche for real estate. Just so you know, if you were to shoot for AirBnB in Paris, they tend to refuse shots wider than 20-24mm, even in tiny Parisian apartments . 

BTW, why not make it a 12-24mm f4 and improve even more so other aspects of the design (or lower the price) ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> Fair point for the 50. That being said, it isn't exactly like it's got tremendous competition in its price / size range.



True... But from Canon's perspective (popular, strong-selling lens, old design with development costs long since recovered, therefore likely good profit), there's little impetus to update it. Still, I'm sure they will at some point.




MayaTlab said:


> I wad kind of expecting the "real estate" moment to happen. Do you shoot real estate ? I'm not sure you'd make the comment then that 11mm is that relevant. A 12-24mm would have been just fine. In fact a lens wider than 16mm still remains quite niche for real estate. Just so you know, if you were to shoot for AirBnB in Paris, they tend to refuse shots wider than 20-24mm, even in tiny Parisian apartments .



The only real estate I've shot is my own house earlier this year, and most of the interior was shot at 11mm. It's estimated that photo quality for the online listing drives 60% of views, and has a significant impact on speed and price of sale. Did 11mm make a difference? Well, we had seven offers within a couple of days of listing the house, and the lowest of them was above asking price. But yeah, 12mm would have worked. 




MayaTlab said:


> BTW, why not make it a 12-24mm f4 and improve even more so other aspects of the design (or lower the price) ?



Fair point, but why do that? The IQ is excellent, the Sigma 12-24/4 Art is essentialy the same size (so the extra 1mm on the wide end probably didn't make it bigger). I'm sure that *going to 11** was a factor in the decision, there had been a Sigma 12-24 for quite some time. They clearly felt they needed something wider than the 16-35 range, looked at Nikon's 14-24/2.8 offering, and decided wider and slower was better. I guess my point in regards to the interview quote was that 'best' was the main driver, but 'first' is still important. 

*Spinal Tap reference


----------



## slclick (Nov 14, 2017)

I'd rather have an 11-X at f/4 than anything at 2.8 near that focal distance since the majority of this len's uses fall within using it stopped down as a general rule of thumb. Do what you want with any glass but for RE/Architecture, Geometric abstraction, you stop down. So as Neuro already stated, the focus needs to be on distortion & vignetting as opposed to light stops. Not a niche lens if you ask me but a strong performer in the lineup.

Niche lenses? TS-E 135 and the MP-E 65, both I'd love to have but are more of a want than a need for many. The 50 issue is a head scratcher for sure but there aren't many other focal lengths where this situation exists for Canon. No one gets close to their lens arsenal, maybe some companies have 1 or 2 particular items but overall it's not even close. It's why many of us stay.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 15, 2017)

As further confirmation that this baby is coming soon.. 

here's the 135mm 2.0 IS patent application.

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-135mm-20l-is-usm-and-others-patent-application


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2017)

But why wait for this rumored lens when you could have _this _monster right now?

https://photorumors.com/2017/11/14/mitakon-speedmaster-135mm-f1-4-lens-now-available-in-7-different-months/

;D

AF is neither standard nor optional, but back pain is included with purchase.

- A


----------



## Ryananthony (Nov 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> But why wait for this rumored lens when you could have _this _monster right now?
> 
> https://photorumors.com/2017/11/14/mitakon-speedmaster-135mm-f1-4-lens-now-available-in-7-different-months/
> 
> ...



Comes in Fuji mount for the GFX?! That would be a very interesting lens combination.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 17, 2017)

Speaking of lovely deals on the existing one, my alert on refurbs from Canon just popped:

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/306913?WT.mc_id=C126149

FYI

- A


----------



## Pixel (Dec 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Cue people complaining it's not f/1.8 in 3, 2, 1...



‍


----------

