# Canon EF 135mm f/2L Replacement [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 9, 2015)

```
<p>Over the last few months we’ve received a few mentions of a replacement for the EF 135mm f/2L being in active development, with a possible announcement in 2016. A couple of the mentions have said the lens could possibly be an f/1.8, as opposed to a straight f/2 replacement of this classic Canon lens. There have been no mention of the lens getting IS, which I’d wager is the case.</p>
<p>The current EF 135mm f/2L was announced almost 20 years ago and could definitely use some modernization in build and optics.</p>
<p>We do think we’ll see an updated 50mm lens, either the f/1.4 or f/1.2L before we see any other high performance prime getting a refresh.</p>
```


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Dec 9, 2015)

I would buy both the new 50L and 135L in a heartbeat. I love and rely regularly on the current optics but both could be even better with IF (50), BR (both), SWC (both) and IS (135),-and yes to F/1.8 for the 135L even if the price doubles* triples*! ;D 

Happy shooting all


----------



## plam_1980 (Dec 9, 2015)

Amazing! Can't wait, it is still my favourite lens but definitely it can use some new optics. 2016 will be a wonderful (and expensive) year for Canon fans ;D


----------



## helpful (Dec 9, 2015)

Canon, please, this is exactly what I need.

1.8, no IS, pure unrivaled optical and autofocus performance.

I just lost one of my 135mm f/2s at the NCAA tournament. Coincidence or a sign?


----------



## jebrady03 (Dec 9, 2015)

I know people say this all the time, and then eat their words when a replacement is released but...

I can't possibly see what Canon could do to a 135mm lens that would make me consider replacing the EF 135mm f/2L. It's BY FAR my favorite lens and there are no flaws that it exhibits in my own personal shooting which make me pine for a replacement. The AF is fast and INSANELY accurate and consistent. It's sharp as a knife, even at f/2, it's not too heavy/light, large/small. Even the flare and ghosting is attractive, when desired!

I suppose I'd actually LOVE for Canon to release a lens which would make me want to replace my 135L, because I can't even fathom how amazing THAT lens would be!


----------



## Mr1Dx (Dec 9, 2015)

f1.8 with IS would be a killer.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Dec 9, 2015)

A case for F/1.8 (Here I go again on this one):
After selling the 135L more than a decade ago and relying on the 70-200 2.8 variants for many years -- I always missed the 135L! A few years ago, after getting sick of using the sports/journalism lens (the 2.8s) for portraiture & events, I went back to the 135L and am so happy. 
The ONLY issue was when I decided to get her back there was this new lens: the 100 2.8L IS Macro and it was very hard to ignore the various benefits/versatility of the high IQ macro... *THIS is why the 135L should be 1.8 to add one more differentiator from the 100L.*
_An aside: My mind wants to use the metaphor of cars: the current 135L is the 6 litre naturally aspirated engine with direct power connected to a hard suspension and no traction control, whereas the 70-200 2.8L II IS is like a fancy turbo charged, cushy S-class (and equally oversized and heavy,-and costly!)._ 8)


----------



## CanoKnight (Dec 9, 2015)

If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?


----------



## bseitz234 (Dec 9, 2015)

CanoKnight said:


> If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?



Maybe you heard about the new 35L II they made recently...


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 9, 2015)

CanoKnight said:


> If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?



Like The Amazing Spider-Man, this is just a reboot


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2015)

It took just two or three shots with my 135L for it to become my favorite lens. I don't need IS as much as I thought.

A new lens might be better. I cannot see how, but it could.

Better is always... better. 

From f/2 to f/1.8? That isn't a big enough difference for me. F/1.2 would be enough, but not 1.8. Not for me.

Mine is good enough for a lifetime. It won't be replaced. Best $1000 I ever spent on a lens. It performs much higher than that.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 9, 2015)

The 135L is already a full stop faster than the 100L Macro. No need to go further with R&D. Canon already has an extremely good formula for the 135 length at f2 they only need tweak further with modern technology. Going to f1.8 only sends everything back to the drawing board. 



AE-1Burnham said:


> A case for F/1.8 (Here I go again on this one):
> After selling the 135L more than a decade ago and relying on the 70-200 2.8 variants for many years -- I always missed the 135L! A few years ago, after getting sick of using the sports/journalism lens (the 2.8s) for portraiture & events, I went back to the 135L and am so happy.
> The ONLY issue was when I decided to get her back there was this new lens: the 100 2.8L IS Macro and it was very hard to ignore the various benefits/versatility of the high IQ macro... *THIS is why the 135L should be 1.8 to add one more differentiator from the 100L.*
> _An aside: My mind wants to use the metaphor of cars: the current 135L is the 6 litre naturally aspirated engine with direct power connected to a hard suspension and no traction control, whereas the 70-200 2.8L II IS is like a fancy turbo charged, cushy S-class (and equally oversized and heavy,-and costly!)._ 8)


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 9, 2015)

Weather sealing will be added. A newer body to match the current L line along with a 77mm filter mount instead of 72mm (logical guessing). Most importantly, they will likely improve the sharpness at f2 and add the new Blue Refractive optics. Yes, the current model is still one of Canon's sharpest pieces to this day, but there is room for notable improvement. That said, I regularly shoot portrait stuff at f2 on this lens and I love it, but Canon could likely now produce the same sharpness found at f4 on the current model at f2 on the new. MAYBE we see IS, but i wouldn't suspect so. 



CanoKnight said:


> If there is no IS then what the hell is new about it ?


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 9, 2015)

A 135mm length at f1.2 would be obscenely huge. probably close to Double the area of what it is now. You're talking about a front element way bigger than what's there now. Even f1.8 would increase the front element a decent bit. 

Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass. The same filter thread of 72mm as the 135 at f2. Both those lenses have the front element going right out to the edge of the body. Now extrapolate that to what f 1.2 would demand on a much longer 135mm length. The front element would be probably closer to 90. (I need the wizards who know the formula to help me here lol)



CanonFanBoy said:


> It took just two or three shots with my 135L for it to become my favorite lens. I don't need IS as much as I thought.
> 
> A new lens might be better. I cannot see how, but it could.
> 
> ...


----------



## bseitz234 (Dec 9, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> A 135mm length at f1.2 would be obscenely huge. probably close to Double the area of what it is now. You're talking about a front element way bigger than what's there now. Even f1.8 would increase the front element a decent bit.
> 
> Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass. The same filter thread of 72mm as the 135 at f2. Both those lenses have the front element going right out to the edge of the body. Now extrapolate that to what f 1.2 would demand on a much longer 135mm length. The front element would be probably closer to 90. (I need the wizards who know the formula to help me here lol)
> 
> ...



LOL. For telephoto lenses, at least, the formula is focal length divided by max f/stop. Granted, this technically gives you the size of the entrance pupil, not any particular element, but good luck designing a lens with a smaller front element than entrance pupil. You can consider this the _minimum_ size of the front element, and it may have to be bigger (in the case of an f/1.2 lens, I'd bet the cost of that lens it would have to be bigger) to correct for aberrations. 

But yes, a 135 f/1.2 would have at least a 112.5mm front element. What does that mean for filter threads, is 115 the next size up?


----------



## m8547 (Dec 9, 2015)

Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2. 

From what I've read, the current design is optically excellent, so I don't see much room for improvement. The old 35mm did leave plenty of room for improvement. I look forward to an updated design coming out, anyway, so I can get an old 135mm cheaper!


----------



## tron (Dec 9, 2015)

m8547 said:


> Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.
> 
> From what I've read, the current design is optically excellent, so I don't see much room for improvement. The old 35mm did leave plenty of room for improvement. I look forward to an updated design coming out, anyway, so I can get an old 135mm cheaper!


Don't count on that. The new version will be most probably much more expensive so the old one will keep its price more or less. Compare 24-70 2.8L with 24-70 2.8L II for example... I would say If you like it get it now new. Just my opinion...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 9, 2015)

m8547 said:


> Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.
> 
> From what I've read, the current design is optically excellent, so I don't see much room for improvement. The old 35mm did leave plenty of room for improvement. I look forward to an updated design coming out, anyway, so I can get an old 135mm cheaper!



The front element of a 135 f1.2 would need to be 112mm, 12% bigger than the 200 f2. It isn't going to happen, and if it did, we couldn't afford it!


----------



## TeT (Dec 9, 2015)

While optically very very good, a refresh might very well be better than the 200 f2 just to throw a benchmark out there...


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Dec 9, 2015)

Just for fun (see below). There was some free time around the office... 8) 
_Edit: I removed the medium res image to be nice to the internet._


----------



## sigh (Dec 9, 2015)

The fastest 135mm lens currently on the market is made by ZY Optics, see below.

http://petapixel.com/2015/10/19/mitakon-speedmaster-135mm-f1-4-2999-gets-you-the-worlds-fastest-135mm/

That's an f1.4 lens, so 1.8 should be smaller, but still a substantial size.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 9, 2015)

So 112mm would be the bare minimum. At f2 that puts the current lens front element at a minimum of about 68mm. So there ya go. Almost double the size. Cost $3500? Not gonna happen. f2 is just dandy.



privatebydesign said:


> m8547 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.
> ...


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 9, 2015)

I really would like to see how Canon can perform on this FL with the latest in optical design.


----------



## et31 (Dec 9, 2015)

jebrady03 said:


> I know people say this all the time, and then eat their words when a replacement is released but...
> 
> I can't possibly see what Canon could do to a 135mm lens that would make me consider replacing the EF 135mm f/2L. It's BY FAR my favorite lens and there are no flaws that it exhibits in my own personal shooting which make me pine for a replacement. The AF is fast and INSANELY accurate and consistent. It's sharp as a knife, even at f/2, it's not too heavy/light, large/small. Even the flare and ghosting is attractive, when desired!
> 
> I suppose I'd actually LOVE for Canon to release a lens which would make me want to replace my 135L, because I can't even fathom how amazing THAT lens would be!



Agreed! It is already a wonderful lens! 
In future, I would love to see Sigma create a 135mm f/2.0 Art lens at a fraction of the Canon price with the sharp optical quality that manifests in their new series.


----------



## tron (Dec 9, 2015)

et31 said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > I know people say this all the time, and then eat their words when a replacement is released but...
> ...


Can you be certain that if they make such a lens it will focus consistently?


----------



## Pixel (Dec 9, 2015)

I was always under the impression that the 135 f2L was the best lens in my kit as well. But since the version II lenses have been making their way into my kit it's fallen on the way side because it can't keep up optically or AF. I like to use my 135 for sports a lot so I need a good performer and this news that a new version might be coming is right up my alley. Sharpness and contrast are what stands out about the 70-200 f2.8L IS II versus the current 135 f2L. I have no doubt this new 135L will go right back to the top of the kit. 

Still waiting on news on replacements for the ooooollllllddddd non-L primes though, like 20mm, 85mm and 100mm. Pretty sure I'd buy the 20 and the 85 non-L primes on the DAY they come out if they ever do.


----------



## et31 (Dec 9, 2015)

tron said:


> et31 said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...



The Sigma 24mm Art f/1.4 and the 50mm Art f/1.4 already speak for themselves.
The technology and the algorithms are already there. 
With continued software and engineering optimization, I'm sure that the company can deliver. 
Their new 85mm f/1.4 Art lens is next on their production line.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 9, 2015)

Every lens has its place. 70-200 2.8 Mk II is the sports lens with it's AF and IS. 135L is the portrait lens. So if you're shooting more sports, then I can see why you favor the 70-200. I do more portrait work and the 70-200 can't match the look of the prime. One doesn't replace the other, just different lenses for different purposes.



Pixel said:


> I was always under the impression that the 135 f2L was the best lens in my kit as well. But since the version II lenses have been making their way into my kit it's fallen on the way side because it can't keep up optically or AF. I like to use my 135 for sports a lot so I need a good performer and this news that a new version might be coming is right up my alley. Sharpness and contrast are what stands out about the 70-200 f2.8L IS II versus the current 135 f2L. I have no doubt this new 135L will go right back to the top of the kit.
> 
> Still waiting on news on replacements for the ooooollllllddddd non-L primes though, like 20mm, 85mm and 100mm. Pretty sure I'd buy the 20 and the 85 non-L primes on the DAY they come out if they ever do.


----------



## John (Dec 9, 2015)

i own the 135 f/2 and use it a lot. i love the lens. i would buy its replacement on the same day that it came out. i hope this CR1 rumor is true. it would be cool if they made the replacement was f/1.8, but f/2 works fine for me as well.


----------



## vscd (Dec 9, 2015)

Never used the Canon 135mm L lens but I have an old 135mm 1.8 from "Weltblick" which is quite a mess on CA and sharpness but has wonderful Bokeh. So I tested my 85mm 1.2L II with an 1.7x Kenko Teleconverter, which gives me a "free" 145mm f2. So there never was and never will be need for a native 135mm again ;D

Sadly Canon makes no new bold statements to what's possible like in the beginning of the EOS-System. We hope for a 50mm 1.4 but expect a 50mm 1.8 IS, what a shame. There should be a new 50mm L 1.0 or f0.95, a 200 1.8L again or 85L 1.2 IS. All calculations which already existed in the Lens Lineup (except of the last). New technologies and optical breakthroughs could improve upon the old ones...

Come on Canon, you can do better than that. The 11-24L was a great sign for your skills.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> m8547 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.
> ...



If it did, I'd take one. ;D


----------



## Rupp1 (Dec 9, 2015)

AE-1Burnham said:


> _An aside: My mind wants to use the metaphor of cars: the current 135L is the 6 litre naturally aspirated engine with direct power connected to a hard suspension and no traction control, whereas the 70-200 2.8L II IS is like a fancy turbo charged, cushy S-class (and equally oversized and heavy,-and costly!)._ 8)



Great analogy. I'll take the naturally aspirated 6 (in fact I recently did). The 135L is one of my favorite lenses; it would be my favorite if I shot lots more 135. Hell, it is still on the "OK with 5DS-r list". I don't need image stabilization on this lens if it means being out $1000 to get it. As the OP implied, give me the non-turbo 911.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> What? Of all lenses...The only possible reasons I see for changing this are performance at much higher resolutions than on the 5DIII, or it uses an older manufacturing process that now is too costly, or...IS.
> 
> This might be one of those lenses that could be technically better, but at the cost of its magic...
> 
> ...



I agree!


----------



## Etienne (Dec 9, 2015)

vscd said:


> I tested my 85mm 1.2L II with an 1.7x Kenko Teleconverter, which gives me a "free" 145mm f2. So there never was and never will be need for a native 135mm again ;D



And as a bonus, you have time to get a coffee while you wait for your lens to grab focus !


----------



## vscd (Dec 9, 2015)

Etienne said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I tested my 85mm 1.2L II with an 1.7x Kenko Teleconverter, which gives me a "free" 145mm f2. So there never was and never will be need for a native 135mm again ;D
> ...



No, not for the intented purpose. The 85 1.2L is for portraits. Portraitsmaybe change something like 20cm forward/backward. The 85L catches really fast any movements in this range, you just shouldn't let it hunt from horizon to minimal distance. So this is nothing for sportactivities. 

But on sport I would rather use the 70-200L IS II anyway...


----------



## jebrady03 (Dec 9, 2015)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8557270335/master-of-one-mitakon-speedmaster-135mm-f-1-4-pre-production-sample-gallery


----------



## TeT (Dec 9, 2015)

Does anyone have an idea of what they might be able to do that would improve the 135? What are the 135's week spots?

I think that 1.8 would not be an improvement, just different (and bigger).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 9, 2015)

TeT said:


> Does anyone have an idea of what they might be able to do that would improve the 135? What are the 135's week spots?
> 
> I think that 1.8 would not be an improvement, just different (and bigger).



Sharper, modern coatings, BR element, weather sealing. Compare the 35/1.4L to the new MkII to get a sense of what's possible.


----------



## TeT (Dec 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have an idea of what they might be able to do that would improve the 135? What are the 135's week spots?
> ...



*IF* they could make a 35L to 35L II type improvement, this could easily become Canon's best IQ lens...


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 9, 2015)

A lens that seems universally admired.


----------



## captainkanji (Dec 10, 2015)

This is my favorite lens. Will Sigma steal Canon's thunder on this one? I can't wait!


----------



## risc32 (Dec 10, 2015)

tron said:


> m8547 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, a 135mm f/1.2 would probably be about the size of the 200mm f/2.
> ...



note to tron, the 100-400 is currently 999.00, and this is how it works.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2015)

risc32 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > m8547 said:
> ...



Not always. When the 70-200/2.8L IS II came out, prices (both new and used) for the original version rose $200-300 and stayed above the pre-MkII price for close to three years.


----------



## ejenner (Dec 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Weather sealing will be added. A newer body to match the current L line along with a 77mm filter mount instead of 72mm (logical guessing). Most importantly, they will likely improve the sharpness at f2 and add the new Blue Refractive optics. Yes, the current model is still one of Canon's sharpest pieces to this day, but there is room for notable improvement. That said, I regularly shoot portrait stuff at f2 on this lens and I love it, but Canon could likely now produce the same sharpness found at f4 on the current model at f2 on the new. MAYBE we see IS, but i wouldn't suspect so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This would make sense. The question is going to be whether the price differential will make the upgrade worth it. For many it is going to be a hard sell, but many also loved the older 24-70 before they saw the new one.

If it is quite a bit sharper mid-frame and lower longCA and even better bokeh I think we would see many pay extra just because they use and love the lens so much that they will pay for even better.

I think I'm in that camp. The current model is good enough, but better is even better and I probably use it enough to want even better.


----------



## risc32 (Dec 10, 2015)

tron said:


> et31 said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...


 can Canon make my 85mm1.8 focus consistently? They can't, it's half retared. I dislike it, and will soon be selling it. Also, I believe many people aren't entirely pleased with the AF of the 50L and 85L. Reputable people, not just " i searched google for XYZ and damn it I didn't find it!"
Not that i'm against tron, that legacy flick is one of my all time favs.


----------



## risc32 (Dec 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I'm aware of the effect, but I didn't realized that the 70-200 lens held that inflated price for that long. Shortly after i got my 300f2.8 they announced the v2 and it's price increase was dramatic. it took the street value of my lens up with it. not that i was willing to part with it for quick buck. so always, no.


----------



## JP (Dec 10, 2015)

I would really like to have a removable tripod collar with this lens... and any other modern improvements would be a welcome too... Great lens... I use mine very often, dating back to 2000.. It's a nice alternative to hauling my 200mm f1.8 around.. IS would be nice... but I'd much rather have a 1.8 f-stop instead! 

Cheers!


----------



## RunAndGun (Dec 10, 2015)

While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good. 

Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 10, 2015)

RunAndGun said:


> While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.
> 
> Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.



As a matter of interest, how does it perform as a stills lens? Very keen to hear your reply


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 10, 2015)

risc32 said:


> can Canon make my 85mm1.8 focus consistently? They can't, it's half retared. I dislike it, and will soon be selling it. Also, I believe many people aren't entirely pleased with the AF of the 50L and 85L. Reputable people, not just " i searched google for XYZ and damn it I didn't find it!"
> Not that i'm against tron, that legacy flick is one of my all time favs.



Really? Maybe a bad copy? The 85mm f/1.8 is synonymous with fast/accurate focus. My copy is as good as a lens I own for AF purposes. And as I was just reviewing LR data, I've shot with 17 different lenses this year, all lens I've owned.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 10, 2015)

Speaking of my 85mm. It was one of my favorite lenses to use on my crop cameras outdoors (giving a nearly 135mm FF fov). After I got this lens my 70-200 collected dust until adding a full frame camera to the mix. Due to those enjoyable experiences, the 135mm f/2L has been on my wishlist for quite some time. The current 135 is an awesome lens, so I don't think we should expect the kind of improvement we just saw with the new 35mm L. Either way this is positive news. Just means a better 135mm will be available, or hopefully see a good used market of the current 135mm. Still interested in seeing Sigma throw their hat in the ring on this focal length as well.

And count me in the camp of those who can go without IS. If it keeps the weight/size down (and obviously cost) I'd prefer no IS. As long as I'm 200m or less I don't miss IS too much. Besides, it's just another thing that can go wrong with the lens and require repair.


----------



## cayenne (Dec 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> <snip>
> 
> Look at the 85mm f1.2L. That thing is a giant brick of glass.
> <snip>



I *LIKE* lenses that are a giant brick of glass.....makes me feel like I got my money's worth when I heft one of those big boys up!!



cayenne


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 10, 2015)

I wasn't complaining. I like the heft too. The point was to extrapolate that focal length and aperture to a 135mm variety, which would take the (manageable) brick of the 85L and morph it into a virtually impossible-to-handhold 135mm f1.2. Someone posted a picture of a third party 135mm f1.4. We're talking even bigger than that. I don't want a 135mm I can't reliably hand hold to shoot. That's a portrait lens, not a long birding tele or sports lens you expect to have to mount. Even if you do choose to hand hold something that bulky and heavy, it will be much more difficult to balance it against the camera for a steady shot. The current 135 f2 balances perfectly with a 5 body. And at 135mm, how much more DOF compression do you need? At 5 feet away at f2, you're getting about an inch or less DOF with ridiculous bokeh 



cayenne said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 11, 2015)

RunAndGun said:


> While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.
> 
> Even at five times the cost of it's still predecessor, it's been worth every penny of that to me.



Have you ever taken a portrait with a CN-E lens?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 11, 2015)

As a matter of fact, I use my 135L for portraits, birds, and high school sports. It runs on my 70D (135mm x 1.6 = 216mm apparent focal length.) for low light sports and does a fantastic job at football. It is a great sports lens as well as birding and portraits. Fantastic around the hummingbird feeder when there are perching locations set up for when they are waiting in line. I don't think it to be as specialised as some let on. Especially not on a crop sensor camera. Very fast and accurate with more "reach" than a 200mm on FF.



PureClassA said:


> I wasn't complaining. I like the heft too. The point was to extrapolate that focal length and aperture to a 135mm variety, which would take the (manageable) brick of the 85L and morph it into a virtually impossible-to-handhold 135mm f1.2. Someone posted a picture of a third party 135mm f1.4. We're talking even bigger than that. I don't want a 135mm I can't reliably hand hold to shoot. That's a portrait lens, not a long birding tele or sports lens you expect to have to mount. Even if you do choose to hand hold something that bulky and heavy, it will be much more difficult to balance it against the camera for a steady shot. The current 135 f2 balances perfectly with a 5 body. And at 135mm, how much more DOF compression do you need? At 5 feet away at f2, you're getting about an inch or less DOF with ridiculous bokeh
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 11, 2015)

To improve a very sharp 135mm lens lacking IS, they'd need to add IS. Sure you can make a mk. 2 version of a 35mm without IS because 35mm is so much shorter. And the old 35 was not as sharp already as the current 135mm is. 

Canon can do what it likes though. It can add a little weather sealing. Add some coatings to resist flare. But since they are also going to want to nearly double the price they would be wise to give it the simple simple feature so many people feel is needed for a lens of its substantial focal length. IS. If the kit 18-55 they give away with every Rebel can have IS, why in the world not this long-ish L lens?


----------



## RunAndGun (Dec 11, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> RunAndGun said:
> 
> 
> > While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.
> ...



That's essentially what I'm doing with it. Or the TV equivalent. The 135 and 85 are my primary interview lenses. I'm talking about lit, sit-down, feature piece interviews. Now, like most things when you start to get to that level, it becomes a part of a larger equation: lighting(Most important), composition, lens, camera, etc., BUT theses lenses are important and I love the results they give. 

I did a shoot several months ago with a friend and for my shot I needed a longer focal length and the ability to zoom between a two-shot and a single. He had a few "cinemized" lenses(there are a few companies out there that take still lenses and more or less convert them to mechanically behave like manual Cine lenses(repackaging the optics, manual aperture ring, hard focus stops, uniform and standard gearing on focus, iris and zoom rings, etc.), but they're usually limited by the original still lens design: not parfocal and in the case of Canon lenses, the iris direction is backwards(not the case with Canons real Cine lens line). So I used one of his lenses instead of one of my CN-E that I would have used under normal circumstances. I was disappointed. The subjects(people) just did not look as good to me. And funny enough, we were shooting together a few weeks ago and he walked over to me while we were shooting a two-camera interview and he commented on how good that lens(my 135) looked. And I was shooting it wide open(T2.2) or VERY close to it. They just have this warm, creamy quality to them and even though they are incredibly sharp lenses, they are not unflattering on people.


----------



## RunAndGun (Dec 11, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> RunAndGun said:
> 
> 
> > While I don't have the EF version of the 135, I do have the CN-E 135 T2.2, and it is my go-to lens for interviews on my C300 and F55. It's probably my most used lens, out of my set of (5 cine) primes. Great focal length and gorgeous image. Canon knows how to make people(skin tones) look damn good.
> ...



Besides just playing around with it at the house, I've never "really" used it as a still lens, although I have used it more than once on my 5DmkIII when we were using it as a second or third camera on some interviews. If your subject isn't moving so that you have time to focus, you would probably be fine, but keep in mind besides the manual iris, the focus barrel rotates 300 degrees from stop-to-stop. And it's probably going to be a lot heavier than the stills version. But the bokeh whores would love the 11 bladed rounded aperture. All of Canon's Cine lenses have an 11 bladed rounded aperture.


----------



## Jopa (Dec 11, 2015)

The new version needs the IS badly, it helps tremendously with the cameras like 5ds. I can shoot 200mm f/2 hand held @ 1/40s, but the 85mm f/1.2 needs at least 1/125.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 12, 2015)

TeT said:


> Does anyone have an idea of what they might be able to do that would improve the 135? What are the 135's week spots?



The c $550 Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f2 is considerably sharper than the 135L, has superb microcontrast, has barely detectable chromatic aberrations even wide open and viewed at 100% on a high resolution sensor (there's absolutely no need to stop it down except to get less shallow focus), and has bokeh that's at least as good as the Canon's, perhaps even better (check out Dustin Abbott's review and others'). But it's MF and thus a pain to use on a dslr. It hardly seems implausible to suggest that Canon could make a 135L with comparable image quality, except it would also have AF and, with luck, IS; but it won't cost $550....


----------



## SOD (Dec 15, 2015)

jebrady03 said:


> I know people say this all the time, and then eat their words when a replacement is released but...
> 
> I can't possibly see what Canon could do to a 135mm lens that would make me consider replacing the EF 135mm f/2L. It's BY FAR my favorite lens and there are no flaws that it exhibits in my own personal shooting which make me pine for a replacement. The AF is fast and INSANELY accurate and consistent. It's sharp as a knife, even at f/2, it's not too heavy/light, large/small. Even the flare and ghosting is attractive, when desired!
> 
> I suppose I'd actually LOVE for Canon to release a lens which would make me want to replace my 135L, because I can't even fathom how amazing THAT lens would be!



For the 7D you are using, there is likely little that will change in optical quality from old 135L to new 135L. But for all FF bodies, especially the newest 5DS and DS R bodies, the current 135L doesn't have the sharpness to keep up with the new sensor. The Zeiss 135/2 blows it out of the park as far as sharpness goes.

If Canon can make the new one even sharper than the 1996 edition (rated at 30 MP on new bodies) and keep its great bokeh, like the Zeiss (rated at 41 MP on new bodies), but keep its fast AF unlike the Zeiss, Canon will sell them by the truckload.

TL;DR: Canon just needs to *build the Zeiss 135/2* that is currently much better than the L, but *include AF*. Forget 1.8 and forget IS. Relatively few shooters care about those features (the 1.8 makes it too heavy, and the IS is near useless for a fixed focal length portrait lens as most everyone is using a tripod).


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 15, 2015)

I just spent the evening shooting my daughter's holiday concert with the original 135. I generally do not do portraits, but I put myself out of my comfort zone and shot portraits all evening. Yes the 135 can be improved for sharpness, but the uniformity of the ever so slightly soft focus over the full frame and the smooth bokeh at f/2 might be compromised with "an improved" version. I really need to shoot with this lens more than I do. I plan to hold onto the one I have.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 15, 2015)

SOD said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > I know people say this all the time, and then eat their words when a replacement is released but...
> ...



I shoot portraits all the time wth my 135L and almost never on a tripod. I also use it frequently on my 5DS R with excellent results. Personally, I'm very happy with this venerable lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 15, 2015)

bholliman said:


> SOD said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...



Start using a tripod and you might land a job at Sears or Olin Mills.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 15, 2015)

SOD said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > I know people say this all the time, and then eat their words when a replacement is released but...
> ...



The 7D's pixels are 4.3µm, the 5Ds's 4.14µm (source: TDP). At least in the centre, there should be little difference in resolving power of the same lens on the two bodies.


----------



## SOD (Dec 15, 2015)

scyrene said:


> SOD said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...


Good point. There was less of a difference between the lenses on the 6D, so I assumed it would be even more the case on the 7D. I was wrong. There isn't as much difference as you'll see with the 5DS, but there's more difference than you'll see with the 6D. 

Here is the resolving power of the two lenses on each body according to DxOMark:

*5DS R*
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 41 MP (+37%)
Canon 135/2 L: 30 MP

*6D*
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 20 MP (+11%)
Canon 135/2 L: 18 MP

*7D*
Zeiss Apo Sonnar: 14 MP (+27%)
Canon 135/2 L: 11 MP

So scratch what I said about not keeping up on "any Full Frame." The current 135L can keep up with the Zeiss on the 6D but cannot keep up either on the 5DS R or the 7D. DxOMark does not test the 5DS, but I'd assume the numbers would be pretty close to the 5DS R.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 15, 2015)

SOD said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > SOD said:
> ...



Well.... I gather DxO's 'perceptual megapixel' ratings are controversial. You might want to search these forums for discussions on them. I've never looked into it myself. I see what you mean by 'keep up' though - in comparison with the Zeiss, I thought you meant in general. Assuming those figures are representative, it's still doing much better on the newer body (though surely a mark II version would do better) than the older ones.


----------



## SOD (Dec 15, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Start using a tripod and you might land a job at Sears or Olin Mills.



Oh. Is that where Peter Hurley is hanging out now? :


----------



## SOD (Dec 15, 2015)

scyrene said:


> SOD said:
> 
> 
> > *5DS R*
> ...



I think this DxO sharpness/resolution rating is controversial only in that it does not specify an aperture and uses an average of, IIRC, all apertures that they share. In this case, the Zeiss is much sharper than the Canon wide open at f/2, but is not all that much sharper at f/5 and is virtually the same by f/8. The Canon is actually sharper than the Zeiss on the other end of the spectrum at say f/22.

And yes: just having trouble keeping up with that Apo Sonnar 135/2, not in general. Among all L's, it has historically been the very sharpest and is today rated only behind the magnificent new 35/1.4 L II (37 MP by that same DxO scale).


----------



## jebrady03 (Dec 15, 2015)

SOD said:


> I think this DxO sharpness/resolution rating is controversial only in that it does not specify an aperture and uses an average of, IIRC, all apertures that they share. In this case, the Zeiss is much sharper than the Canon wide open at f/2, but is not all that much sharper at f/5 and is virtually the same by f/8. The Canon is actually sharper than the Zeiss on the other end of the spectrum at say f/22.
> 
> And yes: just having trouble keeping up with that Apo Sonnar 135/2, not in general. Among all L's, it has historically been the very sharpest and is today rated only behind the magnificent new 35/1.4 L II (37 MP by that same DxO scale).



They report the results at the BEST aperture, not an average of all apertures. I didn't know that either until I emailed them asking to pull f/22 out of the measurements for the EF 35mm f/1.4L II to make it more directly comparable to the Sigma 35mm Art (I explained that I felt like f/22 was bringing the new Canon lens down) and they corrected me.


----------



## SOD (Dec 15, 2015)

jebrady03 said:


> SOD said:
> 
> 
> > I think this DxO sharpness/resolution rating is controversial only in that it does not specify an aperture and uses an average of, IIRC, all apertures that they share. In this case, the Zeiss is much sharper than the Canon wide open at f/2, but is not all that much sharper at f/5 and is virtually the same by f/8. The Canon is actually sharper than the Zeiss on the other end of the spectrum at say f/22.
> ...



Ahhh, thank you very much for that correction.

And I guess we've gotten a little off-track, but I question the value of f/1.8 in a fixed 135mm portrait lens. I already struggle to get both eyes in at f/2 and would never use f/1.8 for anything. The IS would be a little more useful, but I fear that (much like f/1.8 aperture) it would add unnecessary weight to a lens which is used outdoors quite often.

Things I do want:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Shorter minimum focus length, like the Apo Sonnar
[*]A sharper lens, like the Apo Sonnar
[*]Lightweight, like the old 135L
[*]Fast AF, like the old 135L
[*]Better weather sealing than the old 135L, which is already better than the Zeiss
[/list]

Now that I think of it, despite a couple of flaws the old 135L is still pretty much the best thing ever. Looking forward to what they can do with the sharpness and resolution though now that other lenses (Apo Sonnar, 35L II, etc.) are finally pushing well ahead of it after the 16 or so years it spent at both the top of all 135mm lenses, and at the top of all *L* lenses.

The 35L II pretty much just added weather sealing and a ton of sharpness to the old 35L. Those alone will add weight, so please no wider apertures. Hope we see the same technique in the 135L!

EDIT: And I'm also looking forward to see what the rumored Sigma 135/2 can bring to the table. After so many years with the 135L alone at the top, it finally is getting quite a load of competition!


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Dec 15, 2015)

as a 5D3, 5DSR and A7Rii owner, I have stopped using my 50L, 85L and 135L on the 5DSR because SS have to be way too high to extract the detail if you are hand holding - I have tested and tested and to get at a 90% hit rate for tack sharpness, you need to be at almost 1/ 4X FL - with the A7Rii you can be below 1/FL no problem

i want to buy the new 35L II but I would just use it on the A7Rii - otherwise the existing 35L on the 5D3 gives you basically the same results as on the 5DSR unless you are able to use high SS which pushes the ISO and starts killing the colours - obviously with great light or flash the new lenses on the new bodies is better

as a 135L owner, i would buy it just to use on the A7Rii for portraits - but I would only buy it if it comes with IS to use on the 5DSR - i do use it for indoor sports where IS doesn't matter but from an indoor sports perspective it just isn't worth the IQ upgrade

finally, while the 135L is a loved lens by those that use it, it is not a big seller for Canon so if they are going to upgrade it I think it will be a very low cost upgrade - weather sealing, new coatings = slight price increase

while I hope they come out with a modern 135 with IS, i can't see it being worth the development expenses - it is too much of a niche lens


----------



## SOD (Dec 15, 2015)

wallstreetoneil said:


> as a 135L owner, i would buy it just to use on the A7Rii for portraits



Do you enjoy tons of manual focusing a lens with a short focus throw? The 135L does not focus well or fast when adapted to the A7R. Might as well get the Apo Sonnar at that point.



wallstreetoneil said:


> while the 135L is a loved lens by those that use it, it is not a big seller for Canon so if they are going to upgrade it I think it will be a very low cost upgrade - weather sealing, new coatings = slight price increase



The 135L II was actually the most requested II lens (even over the since-released 35L II) in the thread on this forum about which new lens they'd most like to buy: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22809. At least until I stopped counting a few pages in. I'm sure it's a pretty big seller, though nothing like the kit zoom L (24-105) and the 50/1.4.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 18, 2015)

SOD said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Start using a tripod and you might land a job at Sears or Olin Mills.
> ...



;D


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 15, 2016)

hmm. I have the opportunity to buy a very new 135L for $600... should I buy or not??


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 15, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> hmm. I have the opportunity to buy a very new 135L for $600... should I buy or not??



I would say absolutely! It is my favorite lens for portraits and is also a great sports lens in low light. I think the new model will be much more than the $999 retail it commands now. It really is one of the great lenses. $600 is a steal for a "very new" pre-owned 135L. I don't have enough words to describe how great this lens is.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 15, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> hmm. I have the opportunity to buy a very new 135L for $600... should I buy or not??



I would. The 135L will slot nicely below the 70-200 f/4 IS. If you had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, then the decision would be harder.

And even if you don't use it much, you won't lose much (or more likely gain) reselling it.


----------



## MickDK (Jan 15, 2016)

@CanonFanBoy: 

Just noticed your signature.... do you really have an Canon 135mm f/2L *IS*  ?! ;D


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 15, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > hmm. I have the opportunity to buy a very new 135L for $600... should I buy or not??
> ...



okay! Yeah, just knowing that there may be a new version coming out.. but $600 is a very good deal for sure. Alrighty, can't wait to buy it! haha


----------



## jd7 (Jan 15, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> SOD said:
> 
> 
> > I think this DxO sharpness/resolution rating is controversial only in that it does not specify an aperture and uses an average of, IIRC, all apertures that they share. In this case, the Zeiss is much sharper than the Canon wide open at f/2, but is not all that much sharper at f/5 and is virtually the same by f/8. The Canon is actually sharper than the Zeiss on the other end of the spectrum at say f/22.
> ...



Interesting. DxO's own website says they use an average:
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Lens-scores

It does refer to a weighted average, but I didn't see a detailed explanation about that. I get the impression the weighted average is used for zoom lens, but I don't know how/why they weighting any of the results.


----------



## John (Jan 15, 2016)

i love this lens and use it all the time. it is great for sports and portraits. if u can get a good copy of the lens for a great price, then go for it. personally, i am hoping to sell mine later this year and buy the updated version (assuming that it comes out).


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 16, 2016)

MickDK said:


> @CanonFanBoy:
> 
> Just noticed your signature.... do you really have an Canon 135mm f/2L *IS*  ?! ;D



Thanks! Nice catch. DUH! ;D


----------



## Zanken (Jan 16, 2016)

John said:


> i love this lens and use it all the time. it is great for sports and portraits. if u can get a *good copy of the lens* for a great price, then go for it. personally, i am hoping to sell mine later this year and buy the updated version (assuming that it comes out).


Do people notice much sample variation? For purposes of AF it actually feels like my sharpest and most reliable lens outside of user error.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 21, 2016)

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 135L. They are not the same. If you enjoy portrait work, there is no substitute for that 135L. The 70-200 does a fine job, but it doesnt achieve the 3 dimensionality and gorgeous bokeh the 135 does. 



Random Orbits said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > hmm. I have the opportunity to buy a very new 135L for $600... should I buy or not??
> ...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 21, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> I have the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 135L. They are not the same. If you enjoy portrait work, there is no substitute for that 135L. The 70-200 does a fine job, but it doesnt achieve the 3 dimensionality and gorgeous bokeh the 135 does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which is why I said the decision would be harder because it is not the same. The closer lenses are in their specs, the more muddy the use cases between them. What you highlight is a specific use case where the 135L wins handily, but if one more limited financial constraints and can't have both the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 135L and shoots all different types of photography, then the case for the 135L isn't as strong.


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 6, 2016)

give me this lens with IS and weather sealing and give it to me now!

arr arr arr


----------

