# Another Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS USM Mention [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 5, 2017)

```
We’ve received another mention of a Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS USM coming in the first half of 2018, we see the CP+ show in Japan as a good time to announce the lens.</p>
<p>We’re told production of the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS will have to meet global demand before the announcement.</p>
<p>We’re also told that the original non-IS version will remain current for some time after the new lens appears.</p>
```


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 5, 2017)

Exciting times! So thankful for the information this website brings. Image stabilization and better chromatic aberration control will make this one very fine lens. I wonder whether BR will appear here.


----------



## Talys (Dec 5, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told production of the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS will have to meet global demand before the announcement.



Having demand exceed supply is pretty awesome, with both being high end primes.

A refreshed 135/2 will be a no-brainer for me.


----------



## Pixel (Dec 5, 2017)

f2.0?


----------



## brianleighty (Dec 5, 2017)

Pixel said:


> f2.0?


I think I'd rather have 2.0 and IS vs 1.8 and no IS like the ART.


----------



## infared (Dec 5, 2017)

brianleighty said:


> Pixel said:
> 
> 
> > f2.0?
> ...



Yes...that makes sense...but I have the ART and LOVE it...so....I am going to love/hate the comparisons when they appear!!


----------



## tron (Dec 5, 2017)

brianleighty said:


> Pixel said:
> 
> 
> > f2.0?
> ...


+1000000000000000


----------



## slclick (Dec 5, 2017)

take.my.money


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 5, 2017)

But will it work with extenders?

For me that's the biggest plus about the 135 2.0L


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Dec 5, 2017)

When I look at Canon (high-end) lens lineup, it's really 8)
Now, I'm wondering what's left to be updated a part from 50mm and 70-200 (and this latest only deserves an update because other brands did, but is not in need of an update)
Nice job Canon! I'm more skeptical as regards their bodies, but lenses are waouh.


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Dec 5, 2017)

Please update the 50L with 1.4 and IS before you touch the 135


----------



## midluk (Dec 5, 2017)

LeeBabySimms said:


> Please update the 50L with 1.4 and IS before you touch the 135


No, this will not happen. Canon will release an update of every other lens with added IS before a new 50mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2017)

midluk said:


> LeeBabySimms said:
> 
> 
> > Please update the 50L with 1.4 and IS before you touch the 135
> ...



I bet if ahsanford just stopped asking, they'd make the new 50/1.4 IS USM.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 5, 2017)

midluk said:


> LeeBabySimms said:
> 
> 
> > Please update the 50L with 1.4 and IS before you touch the 135
> ...


+1 just because they want to drive one single customer mad


----------



## geekpower (Dec 5, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I wonder whether BR will appear here.



As everybody tells you every time you ask this about every new lens, no, BR is only useful for wide angle lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 5, 2017)

brianleighty said:


> Pixel said:
> 
> 
> > f2.0?
> ...



The difference between f/1.8 and f/2 is essentially negligable anyway. Everybody raves about the current 135L, I don't recall seeing people complain about the aperture.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 5, 2017)

scyrene said:


> brianleighty said:
> 
> 
> > Pixel said:
> ...



Agree. f/1.8 is bragging rights, while 2.0 with IS is a real world benefit. I'm going to start the bidding at $1600, same intro price as the 85.


----------



## Karlbug (Dec 5, 2017)

Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or _shitty_ APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere. But are there really only _two_ categories? People who buy Rebels and then pros with no price/weight limits?

I always thought the Canon's strategy of not-offering better EF-S glass is to lure people into fullframe. But how many people really jump into fullframe with such a huge money leap? Because it's mostly targetted on pros, the bodies are expensive and so are L lenses (and heavy because f/1.4 etc). The non-L primes are mostly really old. Sure, people could buy older versions of L glass, but that usually means no IS, serious IQ pitfalls and big weight. I would expect Canon to offer more tiers of fullframe bodies and lenses (f/2 or f/2.8, STM, no weather sealing), especially with the potential release of a mirrorless EF fullframe and DSLR sales falling. Canon seems like a split personality, they are luring people in and keeping it an exclusive club at the same time.

Sure, Canon still sells a _lot_ (but mostly Rebels right?), and Canon knows the market _best_, but it's inevitable that in a couple of years even _more_ people would be happy with cameras in their phones. Which would mean even less people would care for entry-level APS-C cameras. Isn't this the best time to move more people into fullframe, where the prices will inevitably be higher?

Sorry for the rant, I guess I'll just have to get used to the fact I am not _the_ market. ;D


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Dec 6, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> But will it work with extenders?
> 
> For me that's the biggest plus about the 135 2.0L



+1 I would actually prefer the new 85L IS and sell my 135 for it because the focal length would be better for me in a lot of cases. The thing stopping me for now is the ability to travel with the 135 and 1.4x and leave the 100-400 home when I'm needing to get through airports with my gear plus assist 4 kids with their stuff.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2017)

geekpower said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder whether BR will appear here.
> ...



Well, then why don't you explain to me why that is and what makes you say that... other than forum speculation. Show me the facts / data or where Canon says this. Then I'll stop asking. So far only the 35mm f/1.4 II has it. Personally, I think you are wrong. BTW, everybody does not tell me this. Just a few who have no facts to back it up. None.

Geek out over this:
http://lenses.reviewed.com/features/canon-quietly-shows-new-600mm-f4l-do-with-br-optics


----------



## dolina (Dec 6, 2017)

135/1.8 IS!!!!!!


----------



## MayaTlab (Dec 6, 2017)

angrykarl said:


> Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or _shitty_ APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere.



Actually, there's plenty of evidence that at least in terms of volume, the sales are happening exactly right where Canon's current prime lineup is failing the most : mid-range 50 and 85mm lenses (around €500). Heck, on Amazon, the Nikon 50mm f1.4G outsells the f1.8G, despite most reviews stating that the latter is a better buy. Also, Fuji delayed the development of faster lenses in favour of their smaller f2 lineup when they saw how well it was selling. 



> Canon knows the market _best_



Relative to other manufacturers ? Most likely. In absolute terms ? They make plenty of mistakes. For example they got the 5DS/5DSR production ratio completely wrong at launch despite the fact that there were very strong indications that the 5DSR would be the most popular of the two.


----------



## BillB (Dec 6, 2017)

angrykarl said:


> Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or _shitty_ APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere. But are there really only _two_ categories? People who buy Rebels and then pros with no price/weight limits?
> 
> I always thought the Canon's strategy of not-offering better EF-S glass is to lure people into fullframe. But how many people really jump into fullframe with such a huge money leap? Because it's mostly targetted on pros, the bodies are expensive and so are L lenses (and heavy because f/1.4 etc). The non-L primes are mostly really old. Sure, people could buy older versions of L glass, but that usually means no IS, serious IQ pitfalls and big weight. I would expect Canon to offer more tiers of fullframe bodies and lenses (f/2 or f/2.8, STM, no weather sealing), especially with the potential release of a mirrorless EF fullframe and DSLR sales falling. Canon seems like a split personality, they are luring people in and keeping it an exclusive club at the same time.
> 
> ...



Inexpensive APS-C zooms, yes, but not all of them are poor quality. Also, the core EF lens market would seem to be zooms, not primes, and that is what Canon has been concentrating on for quite a while now. They have kept the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 on the market for less than $350, and they seem to sell pretty well. From the reviews, a lot of the sales seem to be to APS-C owners buying their first lenses. Not sure how well they would sell if they were upgraded with IS and priced over $500, or what Canon's margins would look like.


----------



## Canoneer (Dec 6, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> But will it work with extenders?
> 
> For me that's the biggest plus about the 135 2.0L



I'm not sure if optical stabilization works with extenders since it's inherently designed to work with a specific focal length. I'd like to know this as well. Maybe Canon has IS teleconverters?


----------



## midluk (Dec 6, 2017)

Canoneer said:


> I'm not sure if optical stabilization works with extenders since it's inherently designed to work with a specific focal length. I'd like to know this as well. Maybe Canon has IS teleconverters?


It works for the 100-400 and 70-200 with IS. It does not really matter for the IS if you put a sensor behind the lens or first a TC and then a sensor. The image leaving the lens is already stabilized, you can do with it whatever you want.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I bet if ahsanford just stopped asking, they'd make the new 50/1.4 IS USM.



I bet if everyone stopped buying the current 50mm f/1.4 USM they'd make a new one.

That won't happen though!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 6, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> angrykarl said:
> 
> 
> > Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or _shitty_ APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere.
> ...


Not so sure I agree with your logic. Firstly they aimed the 5DS/Sr at studio photographers mainly focused on fashion and certain materials give a moire effect without an AA filter even a weak one like they have in the 5DS. Secondly its even more of an issue in shooting video that's why ALL high end camera manufacturers (Red, Arri, Sony, Panasonic) have them fitted in their TV and motion picture cameras. 
Granted the 5DS/Sr is not really a high end video camera but it is used for high end fashion and I for one didn't buy the 5DSr because of moire concerns.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2017)

Canoneer said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > But will it work with extenders?
> ...



I can use the same 1.4xIII or 2xIII with my 70-200/2.8L IS II and my 600/4L IS. The only reason a new 135/2L IS would not work with extenders is of the extra elements for IS alter the optical design such that the rear element is too close to the mount for the lens to accept a TC.

IIRC, Canon did file at least one patent on a TC with IS.


----------



## slclick (Dec 6, 2017)

If I want a high quality ~200mm lens I'll get one. If I want a 135 I'd prefer small optical improvements over the current model, not if it can be expanded to a different focal length.


----------



## rbr (Dec 6, 2017)

I agree with everything you say. Not everyone needs, can afford, or wants to carry a slow zoom or a sack of heavy and expensive fast L primes no matter what your level of experience is. When the 24/28/35 IS trio came out I thought they were just the first in a new series of nice practical lenses to come out, but that was the end of it. They need to expand that line with a few more. 




angrykarl said:


> Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or _shitty_ APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere. But are there really only _two_ categories? People who buy Rebels and then pros with no price/weight limits?
> 
> I always thought the Canon's strategy of not-offering better EF-S glass is to lure people into fullframe. But how many people really jump into fullframe with such a huge money leap? Because it's mostly targetted on pros, the bodies are expensive and so are L lenses (and heavy because f/1.4 etc). The non-L primes are mostly really old. Sure, people could buy older versions of L glass, but that usually means no IS, serious IQ pitfalls and big weight. I would expect Canon to offer more tiers of fullframe bodies and lenses (f/2 or f/2.8, STM, no weather sealing), especially with the potential release of a mirrorless EF fullframe and DSLR sales falling. Canon seems like a split personality, they are luring people in and keeping it an exclusive club at the same time.
> 
> ...


----------



## MayaTlab (Dec 6, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > angrykarl said:
> ...



I wasn't arguing whether the 5DS is worth it or not.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2017)

angrykarl said:


> Sorry for the rant, I guess I'll just have to get used to the fact I am not _the_ market. ;D



Depends on what you want. If you want small + fast + prime + crop lenses, leave Canon APS-C and move to Fuji now. Canon will never make these. I agree that Canon seems to have abandoned mid-to-high-end EF-S glass.

But if you can give a little on your requirements, you're better off than you think. Canon offers a wonderful list of not pricey mid-level EF primes to complement the EF-S offerings already out there:

Standard prime --> get the EF-S 35 f/2.8 IS Macro STM or EF 35 f/2 IS USM for a FF 50-ish lens
Indoor Portraiture --> get either the 50 f/1.8 STM or 50 f/1.4 USM for an FF 85-ish lens
Outdoor Portraiture --> get the EF 85 f/1.8 USM for an FF 135-ish lens
Macro with some working distance --> get the EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro USM for a FF 100-ish macro lens

The only area you are SOL on crop is a wide prime or if you insist on lenses being no bigger than they need to be for a crop sensor, in which case, again, Fuji is 100% the move.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I can use the same 1.4xIII or 2xIII with my 70-200/2.8L IS II and my 600/4L IS. *The only reason a new 135/2L IS would not work with extenders is of the extra elements for IS alter the optical design such that the rear element is too close to the mount for the lens to accept a TC.*
> 
> IIRC, Canon did file at least one patent on a TC with IS.



Yep, but this would be a takeaway compared to the current 135L. They can take away our FTM mechanically focusing USM from mid-range EF primes, but I don't see them taking away this (second-tier but still nice) feature from the 135L II, which will surely be marketed as a top-end tool. Just a hunch.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I can use the same 1.4xIII or 2xIII with my 70-200/2.8L IS II and my 600/4L IS. *The only reason a new 135/2L IS would not work with extenders is of the extra elements for IS alter the optical design such that the rear element is too close to the mount for the lens to accept a TC.*
> ...



Agreed. Looking at the current 135/2L design, there's plenty of space for the IS group.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 6, 2017)

angrykarl said:


> People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. ... But are there really only _two_ categories? People who buy Rebels and then pros with no price/weight limits?



As far as those two lenses go, I think there are only two categories.

An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.


----------



## slclick (Dec 6, 2017)

Another thing to keep in mind is that this wouldn't be just another pricey lens. This would be a hotly anticipated followup to many Canon shooters favorite piece of glass. Magical is thrown around for a few lenses, this being one of them. It's prized, coveted and in the right hands deservingly so.


----------



## ethanz (Dec 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> angrykarl said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for the rant, I guess I'll just have to get used to the fact I am not _the_ market. ;D
> ...



The EF-S 10-18 is a great wide angle lens for the price, though not prime, its still good.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 6, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Not so sure I agree with your logic. Firstly they aimed the 5DS/Sr at studio photographers mainly focused on fashion and certain materials give a moire effect without an AA filter even a weak one like they have in the 5DS. Secondly its even more of an issue in shooting video that's why ALL high end camera manufacturers (Red, Arri, Sony, Panasonic) have them fitted in their TV and motion picture cameras.
> Granted the 5DS/Sr is not really a high end video camera but it is used for high end fashion and I for one didn't buy the 5DSr because of moire concerns.



https://petapixel.com/2017/03/23/comic-thats-moire-photography/


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 6, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.


Plus it'd also immediately face competition from the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC. At the moment those two lenses avoid each other as there is just enough of a price and size difference for them to co-exist, but a Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS would _at least_ be the size and price of the Tamron.


The Canon 100mm f/2 has a better chance of being updated to have IS because there aren't any third-party lenses hitting that spec, and there's enough room 'under' the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro for the f/2 to be updated without cannibalising Canon's own lenses. The 85mm has loads of competition and _needs_ to stay as simple and cheap as possible to remain viable ('cheap and simple' being its main selling point), but the 100mm has fewer competitors despite being practically the same lens.


As far as the 135mm goes, I think giving it IS and more robust build quality was inevitable, especially now that several other companies make optically-better equivalents, including the very cheap Samyang. (While optic quality isn't the be-all end-all of a short telephoto lens, it's the main selling point of the 135mm; if you want a soft look you typically go for the 85mm f/1.2 instead.) I would expect every single one of Canon's 'core' L lenses to be updated with IS and more robust sealing over the next ten years. There's going to come a time when there's no such thing as a non-IS lens, and it makes sense to start on that inevitable journey with the biggest-selling L lenses.

Personally, I'm waiting for an IS update of the 180mm, but in the meantime, sure, I'll take the 135mm with IS.


----------



## geekpower (Dec 6, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Let me google that for you...

This is from Canon themselves:

http://www.canon-asia.com/cplus/en/br-lens-elements/

"As conventional glass lens combinations are unable to correct chromatic aberration, this is usually done using special lenses with different refractive indices, such as fluorite or UD lenses. However, there are some residual chromatic aberrations even these lenses may not be able to fully correct, which we refer to as “secondary spectrum”. *Large, wide-angle lenses tend to be particularly prone to them*."

So while BR certainly wouldn't hurt on a telephoto, the phenomenon that BR is meant to combat is much more severe in wide-angle lenses, and it's very reasonable to assume that from a bang for the buck perspective, that's where you will tend to see it applied.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 7, 2017)

geekpower said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...



Ahhh... but that is not what you wrote. You wrote: "BR is only useful for wide angle lenses." That's what you wrote. Now you admit, I see, that it can also be useful in telephoto lenses. The 135 f/2L (current lens) suffers from CA. So it is reasonable to ask if the new lens will have it. Especially since Canon has a 600 DO prototype with BR. Canon does not say in your googled link what you want Canon to say. So, I guess I'll keep wondering whether BR will be included with each new L lens that gets released.

Bang for the buck? For who? I'd be happy to pay for it on my end, especially since I see how well it performs on my 35 II. You know what happens when we assume. People paying $10k for a great white would be happy not to have CA problems too. That's real bang for the buck.


----------



## Pippan (Dec 7, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I bet if everyone stopped buying the current 50mm f/1.4 USM they'd make a new one.
> 
> That won't happen though!


I've stopped buying it. In fact I've never bought it!


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.



Because the 85 f/1.8 USM ruined the 85 f/1.2L USM II sales, and _no one_ owns the 50 f/1.2L due to the powerhouse value that is the 50 f/1.4 USM. :

Lenses' value are so much more than their max aperture and if they have IS.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.
> ...



Perfect.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 7, 2017)

Pippan said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I bet if everyone stopped buying the current 50mm f/1.4 USM they'd make a new one.
> ...



We need a petition and a boycott.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 7, 2017)

Pippan said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I bet if everyone stopped buying the current 50mm f/1.4 USM they'd make a new one.
> ...



I bought just one 50mm f/1.4 several years ago, and then I quit buying them. I got it mainly to be a portrait lens for my T3i. I've never had occasion to try it on my 6D2. I haven't shot a real portrait in the short time I've had it, and would probably use the 100mm f/2.8 macro for that purpose on the 6D2 if the situation comes up. So far the kit zoom covers that range just fine, and I haven't needed to use a faster lens. In theory I think I should have an 85mm lens, and I certainly loved the 85mm lens I used with my film Canon decades ago. But since I haven't missed having one, my priorities will be toward lenses outside the 24-105mm range. My old 75-300mm lens is not that great, and I don't have anything in the super-wide range. For now, if that latter need came along, I'd still use the T3i with the 10-22mm lens that won't work on the 6D2. 

So the odds of my ever buying a 50mm lens again are closer to none than to slim.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Pippan said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...


I did and do boycott Canon on 50 mm lenses since I was born 

In my family my father was the last one to buy a 50 mm lens, I suppose shortly after I was born. 
It was a Canon FD 50mm F/1.2 (non L) and was stolen several years ago.

And I will keep boycotting that until I see a (non L) 50 mm lens similar to ahsanfords specification. 


Edit: but I am really interested in that 135 mm refresh as well


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > An 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would perform almost like the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM for a much lower price, and would therefore steal sales from it. If it's max aperture is smaller, it would lose sales to zoom lenses.
> ...



If you have to use a straw man argument, and refer to the 85mm f/1.2 rather than the f/1.4, then you know you don't have an argument.

The f/1.2 lenses are specialty portraiture lenses, which is what makes it "so much more than their max aperture and ... IS", compared to the 85mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.4

Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?


----------



## midluk (Dec 7, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?


Build quality, weather sealing, red ring, likely some slight differences in optical quality (e.g. vignetting), CPS eligibility, mirror box clipping, price.
But there is no use speculating about 50mm IS, those will not happen any time soon (if at all).


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 7, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > LeeBabySimms said:
> ...



Dear ahsanford, please stop asking immediately !


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 7, 2017)

Canoneer said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > But will it work with extenders?
> ...



From what I understand:
(1) In lens IS trys to produce a stable image on the (non-stabilized) sensor plane.
(2) A tele converter is a lens / lens arrangement that blows up the image projected by the primary lens.
(3) maybe there are minor imperfections due to variations of the incident angle of the light by the image
stabilizer group.

If the image generated by the lens is stable, the tele converter should leave this stabilization unchanged.
But: effective shake (amplitude e.g. in pixels) is increased by the factor of the teleconverter - same goes
for lens imperfections.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 8, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Antonio, I would rather know from you: In what way will the "85 f/1.8 IS USM perform almost like the 85 f/1.4L IS USM"? IQ? Bokeh? CA? Distortion? Build quality? Weather sealing? I ask because if what you say is true then I might save $$$$ buying the 1.8 if the performance is nearly the same as you claim. Maybe Mr. Stanford's comparison to the 1.2L was a typographical error. Straw man or not, I don't think your claim is valid.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 8, 2017)

In the film era I believe my 85mm FL lens was f/1.8, and I never felt a need for it to be faster or have shallower DOF.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 8, 2017)

angrykarl said:


> Another pricy L glass... Seems to me that Canon now cares only for high-end L glass or _shitty_ APS-C zooms. People who don't need L glass, but who want a better camera/lens (potentially a fullframe) and who would buy lenses like 50mm f/1.4 IS USM or 85mm f/1.8 IS USM are a non-attractive category. I get it, the sales are happening elsewhere. But are there really only _two_ categories? People who buy Rebels and then pros with no price/weight limits?
> 
> I always thought the Canon's strategy of not-offering better EF-S glass is to lure people into fullframe. But how many people really jump into fullframe with such a huge money leap? Because it's mostly targetted on pros, the bodies are expensive and so are L lenses (and heavy because f/1.4 etc). The non-L primes are mostly really old. Sure, people could buy older versions of L glass, but that usually means no IS, serious IQ pitfalls and big weight. I would expect Canon to offer more tiers of fullframe bodies and lenses (f/2 or f/2.8, STM, no weather sealing), especially with the potential release of a mirrorless EF fullframe and DSLR sales falling. Canon seems like a split personality, they are luring people in and keeping it an exclusive club at the same time.
> 
> ...


You are forgetting about prehistoric 50mm Compact Macro(which was recently discontinued) which in even more dire need of replacement compared to 50mm 1.4. There are rumours of Nikon replacing their AF-S 60mm macro soon which was already an updated version of AF-D 60mm lens. Feels really sad that Canon is concentrating on high end and cheap lenses rather than the ones people can afford to replace their cheap kit lenses.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 8, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



As this is a medium telephoto lens, I'll bet IQ, bokeh, CA, and distortion

Photographers who care enough about build quality & weather sealing to pay a premium are a minority. 



CanonFanBoy said:


> Maybe Mr. Stanford's comparison to the 1.2L was a typographical error. Straw man or not, I don't think your claim is valid.



Don't make excuses for him. It doesn't help any.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 8, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Here's the problem I am having with what you wrote: "EF 85 f/1.8 IS USM". As far as I can tell there is no such lens. In fact, the EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM is the only Canon EF 85 with Image Stabilization. Is that a typo from you? Will you now accept the possibility that Mr. Sanford might have done the same?

So does the pseudo IS in your mythical lens perform as well as the genuine IS in the EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM?

Many professional photographers and enthusiasts care about IS a great deal.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 8, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



If you read what ahsanford wrote, I think it's clear he didn't make any error when he referred to the 85 1.2L, and no one needs to make any excuses for him. His point was that there is a lot more to a lens than just maximum aperture and whether or not it has IS, and that that is illustrated by the fact that Canon has for a long time happily sold an 85 1.8 USM alongside a much higher priced 85 1.2L (original and mk II), and sold a 50 1.4 USM alongside a much higher priced 50 1.2L (not to mention a much cheaper 50 1.8 micro USM and more recently STM). 

It is hard to see why anyone should expect if Canon produces a cheaper 85 1.8 IS USM (which you'd think is likely to happen at some point or other), it would perform "almost like the 85 1.4L IS USM" (taking into account all facets of lens performance), it is hard to see why Canon wouldn't be happy to sell an 85 1.8 IS USM alongside an 85 1.4L IS, and it is hard to imagine the cheaper lens stealing too many genuine sales from the L lens. (Many of us may want the L lens but settle for the cheaper lens, but that is not the same as saying we would have paid up for the L lens if the cheaper lens was not available.)


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 8, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Here's the problem I am having with what you wrote: "EF 85 f/1.8 IS USM". As far as I can tell there is no such lens.



My argument is about why there would or wouldn't be one, so of course there isn't one. If there was, there would be no point in having the discussion, would there?



CanonFanBoy said:


> In fact, the EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM is the only Canon EF 85 with Image Stabilization. Is that a typo from you? Will you now accept the possibility that Mr. Sanford might have done the same?



Now you're joining him in putting words in my mouth. Great work!


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 8, 2017)

jd7 said:


> His point was that there is a lot more to a lens than just maximum aperture and whether or not it has IS, and that that is illustrated by the fact that Canon has for a long time happily sold an 85 1.8 USM alongside a much higher priced 85 1.2L (original and mk II), and sold a 50 1.4 USM alongside a much higher priced 50 1.2L (not to mention a much cheaper 50 1.8 micro USM and more recently STM).



And I explained why, IMHO, that's a different case.



jd7 said:


> ...it is hard to imagine the cheaper lens stealing too many genuine sales from the L lens. (Many of us may want the L lens but settle for the cheaper lens, but that is not the same as saying we would have paid up for the L lens if the cheaper lens was not available.)



No, it isn't.

The 85mm f/1.8 is very good as it is. If Canon just added IS, plenty of people who can afford the L would settle on buying the non-L to save the money.

[Why? Because some people, say those who shoot in a studio, don't need weather sealing. Same for CPS, etc.]


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 8, 2017)

Hi to Antono and all other discussing the Canon 85 mm lens strategy on a 135 mm Lens thread! 

I don't want to add more fuel to the fire but I'd like to give my 5 cents to this discussion because it's a lot of "if's" and "when's" and "how's" of new lenses that might be released and might have some higher or lower quality.

So what do we have right now?

an old light beast, 85/1.2 L, that will be continued at least for some time
a new great performer, 85/1.4 IS L, that seems to be able to compete well with the new competition, e.g. S Art 
a very old but also cheap 85/1.8

Personally I am sure, that we will see a successor of the 85/1.8 in less than 10 years. But I don't expect it within the next 1 or 2 years. If so, Canon would really surprise me.
If that successor comes the aimed market will stay similar to its predecessor and Canon surely will not make it good enough to steal sales from the two L lenses. 
I don't see an IS in that lens or if so, they won't keep the f/1.8. But that's just IMO.

And to this 


Antono Refa said:


> The 85mm f/1.8 is very good as it is. If Canon just added IS, plenty of people who can afford the L would settle on buying the non-L to save the money.
> 
> [Why? Because some people, say those who shoot in a studio, don't need weather sealing. Same for CPS, etc.]


I say:
No I don't see that, in several ways:
[list type=decimal]
[*]the old 85/1.8 has a very good price performance, but I wouldn't call it good
[*]also the optical performance is okay but not compareable to the 24/28/35 IS lenses
[*]a studio photograph would rather prefer f/1.4 and more possibilities of DOF control over IS, as they either use tripods or can produce enough light
[*]so that studio maket is not the focus market of an 85/1.8 (IS) 
[/list]

But ... if Canon makes the 85/1.8

slightly better in IQ (CA, color control and contrast) but keep almost the same form factor
put in a faster AF
could rise the price just to the level of the 24/28/35 IS lenses
maybe - just maybe - add an IS as icing
Then this would be a really great allround (portrait) lens for all hobbyists, available light photographers and so on. 
And if they keep the IQ noticeably below the L lenses I see markets for all of them.

But as I've said, I don't expect such a lens soon.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 8, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > His point was that there is a lot more to a lens than just maximum aperture and whether or not it has IS, and that that is illustrated by the fact that Canon has for a long time happily sold an 85 1.8 USM alongside a much higher priced 85 1.2L (original and mk II), and sold a 50 1.4 USM alongside a much higher priced 50 1.2L (not to mention a much cheaper 50 1.8 micro USM and more recently STM).
> ...



I think I understand your point, but I am not so sure about the idea the 1.2Ls are specialist portrait lenses in a way so far different from what a 1.4L IS lens is or would be.

And anyway, think about a different case: Canon sells a 35 1.4L II which doesn't have IS, and yet sells a much cheaper 35 2 IS.



Antono Refa said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > ...it is hard to imagine the cheaper lens stealing too many genuine sales from the L lens. (Many of us may want the L lens but settle for the cheaper lens, but that is not the same as saying we would have paid up for the L lens if the cheaper lens was not available.)
> ...



While weather sealing may well be an important drawcard for some buyers, there are other possible reasons to want an L lens too. There are lots of other qualities to attract buyers - optical qualities like flair resistance, etc), performance factors such as AF speed and accuracy, and build quality factors such as reliability and longevity.

I'm sure there are some who might settle for the cheaper lens even though they would have bought the more expensive L lens if the cheaper one didn't exist, but:

1. just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they will buy it - sometimes people just don't feel comfortable spending more than a certain amount on a particular thing, especially if it's a hobby (probably much less relevant to someone shooting professionally)

2. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, Canon still gets revenue and presumably some profit when it sells the less expensive lens

3. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, the question is how many extra sales does Canon make by having the cheaper lens on the market compared with just having the more expensive lens on the market? This links back to the two points above - if Canon makes enough sales of the cheaper lens, and many of those sales are sales it would not have made if it only had the more expensive lens on the market, it should be able to make more money overall than if it just had the more expensive lens on the market.

I think there is a good chance Canon will make an 85 1.8 IS USM one of these days, but I don't think it's any surprise the more expensive lens has come out first - to try to maximise the number of people who need a lens now / are impatient to break down and pay for the more expensive lens. (I'm not saying it always has to be done that way, and yes I know Canon released the 35 2 IS before the 35 1.4L II. All I'm saying is it doesn't seem particularly surprising for the more expensive version to come out first.)


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?



I do not assume those lenses will be released. Non-L primes no longer get ring USM these days (they haven't in a good 5 years or so). So right there the L vs. Non-L would be a marked difference.

But if they did, the pricier L lenses would likely be sharper, better built, have weather sealing, possibly have larger designs to combat vignetting, aberrations, etc. They also could have larger focus rings with a longer throw, reel in better color and/or bokeh, focus more quickly, etc.

Again, pegging a prime lens's value on how fast it is and and if it has IS drives around a boatload of features, how it performs, etc.

- A


----------



## MayaTlab (Dec 8, 2017)

jd7 said:


> 1. just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they will buy it - sometimes people just don't feel comfortable spending more than a certain amount on a particular thing, especially if it's a hobby (probably much less relevant to someone shooting professionally)
> 
> 2. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, Canon still gets revenue and presumably some profit when it sells the less expensive lens
> 
> 3. even if Canon loses a few sales of the more expensive lens to the less expensive lens, the question is how many extra sales does Canon make by having the cheaper lens on the market compared with just having the more expensive lens on the market? This links back to the two points above - if Canon makes enough sales of the cheaper lens, and many of those sales are sales it would not have made if it only had the more expensive lens on the market, it should be able to make more money overall than if it just had the more expensive lens on the market.



Count me in that category. I can afford the 85mm f1.4 IS USM. But I'll never, ever buy it. I don't give a rat's bottom about a 85mm lens that's faster than f2. I just don't need it, at all. To me it's unneeded extra weight, cost, and size. But I do need a good 85mm f2/f2.4 lens. And that's where the 85mm f1.8, albeit undoubtedly a great design given its age, falls short in various ways. That's even more so with Canon's 50mm lineup. 

Canon not delivering a proper midrange prime lineup above 35mm is one less reason for me to stick with the system.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming those lenses will be released, what do you expect will make the difference between the 85mm f/1.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.4 IS USM? Or the 50mm f/whatever IS USM and the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM?
> ...



First, you make some assumptions here I could throw in your face just like you & your body just did.

Then some people might look very differently on this list. E.g. smaller lens might be a positive, vignetting can be corrected (the current f/1.8 has <2 stops wide open, reasonable), etc.


----------



## symmar22 (Dec 9, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they will buy it - sometimes people just don't feel comfortable spending more than a certain amount on a particular thing, especially if it's a hobby (probably much less relevant to someone shooting professionally)
> ...



+1 for some non-L IS primes, I work with about 12 lenses, a few are non L (15mm Fisheye, 35mm IS, 40mm, 45 TS-E , 90TS-E) and I never see them as cheaper lenses to my L ones, they do their job, no client ever complained. None of them ever had to be serviced, weather sealing is nice but not a must for me and I very seldom need extreme apertures. The 35mm IS and 40 mm pancake are among my sharpest lenses, I never looked into the 35mm 1.4L, too big and heavy, wouldn't bring anything to my work. My Pelican case full of lenses is too heavy already, and bigger an brighter is not a must in my case.

I too would love to see an 85mm f1.8 or even f2 with IS the same range as the 24,28 and 35mm, I'd buy it the day it's available. The 1.4 seems nice, but it's not a lens I want. I am perfectly happy (and my clients too) with the 35mm IS and cheap 40mm pancake. I even tried to replace my 15mm fisheye with the L zoom, and couln't see a difference except more weight size an price, so I kept the 15mm.

I was a Nikon shooter in film days and started too invest in the brightest series of the AI-S lenses (24 f2, 35f1.4, 851.4 and 135 f2) to realize a few years later that their smaller apertures brothers all did a better job for my work. Fact is that making lenses less bright simplifies the optical formula and allows to make lenses as good if not better than their super bright equivalents. What was true 30 years ago is still true, even more since the digital age where ISO is not a problem anymore. Not everything requires to be shot at 1.4, and for those smaller f-stops, less bright lenses do the same job. If they weight half and cost one third, it's all bonus.

As for the 135mm I vote for a 135mm f2 IS instead of 1.8, but I don't think I'll upgrade mine anyway.

It's a bit of a trick of the marketing to make one believe he always need the biggest and most expensive; some do, most of us don't, but it's not to put aside the social status that a camera and a big lens seem to deliver.


----------



## MayaTlab (Dec 9, 2017)

symmar22 said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



When I was a kid in the 90s I was able to borrow my grandfather's rangefinders to play Tintin. So for me large lenses have always been the exception, not the rule, and I've never really loved using them. 

To put things in very concrete terms : Canon hasn't received any lens money from me since 2012 other than the €125 50mm STM. There's at least €1500, even 2000 euros in my wallet for Canon if the mid-range prime lineup is developed above the 35mm IS USM's focal range and in that spirit.


----------



## BillB (Dec 9, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> When I was a kid in the 90s I was able to borrow my grandfather's rangefinders to play Tintin. So for me large lenses have always been the exception, not the rule, and I've never really loved using them.
> 
> To put things in very concrete terms : Canon hasn't received any lens money from me since 2012 other than the €125 50mm STM. There's at least €1500, even 2000 euros in my wallet for Canon if the mid-range prime lineup is developed above the 35mm IS USM's focal range and in that spirit.



At least in the US, the Canon Store is now selling the 100mm f2.8 IS macro for $750, usual price $1000. If I were looking to upgrade my 85mm f1.8 I would grab one.


----------



## MayaTlab (Dec 9, 2017)

BillB said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > When I was a kid in the 90s I was able to borrow my grandfather's rangefinders to play Tintin. So for me large lenses have always been the exception, not the rule, and I've never really loved using them.
> ...



I love the 100mm f2.8 IS USM's overall IQ, and I used to own one, but I find the difference in focal length noticeable and prefer to use the smaller 85mm f1.8 when shooting most of the time.


----------



## slclick (Dec 9, 2017)

So....back to the focal length at hand, the 135mm lens rumored to be refreshed...

What BESIDES image stabilization are you looking for in an update to this lens? 

Vignetting correction? Minimizing flare? The micro contrast, color rendition and sharpness are already top notch.


----------



## danfaz (Dec 9, 2017)

slclick said:


> So....back to the focal length at hand, the 135mm lens rumored to be refreshed...
> 
> What BESIDES image stabilization are you looking for in an update to this lens?
> 
> Vignetting correction? Minimizing flare? The micro contrast, color rendition and sharpness are already top notch.



Thanks for getting us back on track! Aside from IS, I am looking forward to weather-sealing. While not a huge factor, I have been caught in sudden rain showers that made me pack up. The 135mm is ideal for outdoors, but lack of any weather-sealing is a weakness.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2017)

danfaz said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > So....back to the focal length at hand, the 135mm lens rumored to be refreshed...
> ...



Indeed. With apologies and at the risk of again diverging from the topical focal length, we had our first real snowfall of the season today (still ongoing, in fact), and I was able to take some nice portraits of the kids in the snow with the 85/1.4L IS, whereas I wouldn't have taken the 85/1.2L II out in the snow.


----------



## slclick (Dec 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> danfaz said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Only a mere segue flesh wound, you kept to weather sealing and I agree with two posts above, that would be quite welcome on the 135L 2 (I know I know, if it's the 135L IS, it's not a Mk2.)


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 12, 2017)

slclick said:


> So....back to the focal length at hand, the 135mm lens rumored to be refreshed...
> 
> What BESIDES image stabilization are you looking for in an update to this lens?
> 
> Vignetting correction? Minimizing flare? The micro contrast, color rendition and sharpness are already top notch.



It _was_ a top notch lens. As Zeiss 135 Milvus and the Sigma 135 Art have shown, the 135L is an older design that would benefit from an update.

I'd read Dustin's 135mm Milvus review for what is possible in this day and age:

https://dustinabbott.net/2016/09/zeiss-milvus-135mm-f2-review/

Canon would do well to walk towards this level of performance. I don't say that as a slight on the 135L (by any measure a legendary piece of kit). It's just a 20+ year old lens that could use an update.

- A


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 12, 2017)

For perspective, even the cheap Samyang 135mm beats the existing Canon in every optical regard, and the focus ring is much better for manual focus, too. (Though of course, manual focus is its only option...)

The Canon 135mm f/2L has served well for many years now, but there's no denying that basically everyone else can build a better 135mm lens now, Canon themselves could improve it greatly, and as we move forward with higher-resolution sensors and higher-resolution displays (print sizes haven't changed much, but realistically, most images are viewed on screens now), the current 135mm is only going to show its age more and more.

Literally _everything_ about it can be improved, so the only real question is how far can/will Canon take it within its price bracket, or if they'll bump up the price.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 12, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> First, you make some assumptions here I could throw in your face just like you & your body just did.
> 
> Then some people might look very differently on this list. E.g. smaller lens might be a positive, vignetting can be corrected (the current f/1.8 has <2 stops wide open, reasonable), etc.



You are arguing with someone who agrees with you on at least a piece of this. I love the value proposition of the 'one stop slower lens with IS that is half the size/weight as the faster L lens' lenses. I personally own and love a few of them:

35 f/2 IS
16-35 f/4L IS
24-70 f/4L IS

But _I am not the market._

If we want to disregard Canon's non-L ring USM avoidance of late, Canon could _absolutely_ sell an 85 f/1.8 IS USM alongside an 85 f/1.4L IS USM and still sell both lenses quite well without the cheaper undercutting the more expensive one. Because the L would be sealed, outresolve the f/1.8 lens, probably have more blades and generate softer bokeh, manage aberrations better, have better build quality, etc.

I'll say it again: the appeal of lens goes well past the specs defined in its name, i.e. a lens is much more than its max aperture and if it has IS. 

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...
> I love the value proposition of the 'one stop slower lens with IS that is half the size/weight as the faster L lens' lenses. I
> ...
> But _I am not the market._
> ...


At least there are two people in the same market *pointing on myself*
Question is how many are "a market" in the eyes of Canon


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > First, you make some assumptions here I could throw in your face just like you & your body just did.
> ...



Except both lenses would have IS, the f stop difference would be less than one stop, the weight difference would be a pound. Combine this with the value proposition, and you can see my argument about stealing sales from the f/1.4L IS USM.



ahsanford said:


> But _I am not the market._
> 
> If we want to disregard Canon's non-L ring USM avoidance of late, Canon could _absolutely_ sell an 85 f/1.8 IS USM alongside an 85 f/1.4L IS USM and still sell both lenses quite well without the cheaper undercutting the more expensive one. Because the L would be sealed, outresolve the f/1.8 lens, probably have more blades and generate softer bokeh, manage aberrations better, have better build quality, etc.



Again...

1) Some people just don't care about weather sealing and build quality, unless a new 85mm f/1.8 IS USM would be worse off than the existing 85mm f/1.8.

2) Question is how big the IQ difference would be. I doubt it would be significant.

Finally, the question is not just whether the hypothetical f/1.8 IS USM would sell well, it's whether it would make more profit than the current f/1.8 USM.

Considering the large investment in making a new lens and the sales [I think] it would steal from the f/1.4L IS USM, I'm not sure it would be more profitable for Canon.


----------



## mariuspavel (Jan 27, 2018)

IF this lens is as the new 85 1.4 is, i don't know if I can retain myself not to buy it


----------



## Talys (Jan 27, 2018)

This would be near the top of my "want" list. The combination of focal length, aperture, and IS make it really ideal for headshots.... of my cat 

I love the 70-200/2.8 IS (a near perfect cat portrait lens, IMO), but it is a bit heavy to hold steady for protracted periods 1 handed... I need a hand for to get her attention and turn this way or that, unless I want to literally wait forever  

f/2.8 or better is a great help for AF when it's quite dark, even though I often have aperture set to f/8 or smaller -- and it's important to do so, because then the cat's eyes fully dilate, and when a flash goes off, with some luck, you can get really nice shots of their eyes.

Ok Ok, I know, nobody cares about my cat


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2018)

This along with an EF-M 85 are it for me. I hefted a Sigma Art 135 and laughed a bit loud at the shop. Sorry, can't deal with a medium tele lens that weighs more than the body.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> This would be near the top of my "want" list. The combination of focal length, aperture, and IS make it really ideal for headshots.... of my cat
> 
> I love the 70-200/2.8 IS (a near perfect cat portrait lens, IMO), but it is a bit heavy to hold steady for protracted periods 1 handed... I need a hand for to get her attention and turn this way or that, unless I want to literally wait forever
> 
> ...



During these droughts I have finding models, I have often thought about getting a cat or dog.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 27, 2018)

I would be torn by this coming out - I'm extremely fond of my current 135L; it has seen a lot of mileage, and I love the look it lends - to both portraits and the odd landscape shot. 

It is still such a great lens, but I know that even if nothing else changed, then a coatings update, better weather sealing and IS will make it even greater.

So, GAS may overtake me if/when this comes out, but I'll feel disloyal to the current lens... 8)


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 30, 2018)

StoicalEtcher said:


> I would be torn by this coming out - I'm extremely fond of my current 135L; it has seen a lot of mileage, and I love the look it lends - to both portraits and the odd landscape shot.
> 
> It is still such a great lens, but I know that even if nothing else changed, then a coatings update, better weather sealing and IS will make it even greater.
> 
> So, GAS may overtake me if/when this comes out, but I'll feel disloyal to the current lens... 8)



The current 135 is a great lens. My favorite for portraits. You are right. Better control of CA, add IS, better weather sealing... those would be fantastic. Even with that, like you, I would feel disloyal. Love the lens that much.


----------



## Talys (Jan 30, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The current 135 is a great lens. My favorite for portraits. You are right. Better control of CA, add IS, better weather sealing... those would be fantastic. Even with that, like you, I would feel disloyal. Love the lens that much.



It's good to see that I'm not the only person that can feel disloyal to a lens that's treated them well


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 31, 2018)

Talys said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > The current 135 is a great lens. My favorite for portraits. You are right. Better control of CA, add IS, better weather sealing... those would be fantastic. Even with that, like you, I would feel disloyal. Love the lens that much.
> ...



Well, after sleeping together for so long, I'd feel lost without her.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 31, 2018)

Good - I'm glad its not just me then


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve received another mention of a Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS USM coming in the first half of 2018, we see the CP+ show in Japan as a good time to announce the lens.</p>
> <p>We’re told production of the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS will have to meet global demand before the announcement.</p>
> <p>We’re also told that the original non-IS version will remain current for some time after the new lens appears.</p>



Any more credible info out there on this lens Craig?


----------

