# Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2.8 IS



## Guest (Jan 22, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href=""></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Patents with three popular telephoto lenses with the addition of image stabilization have shown up. It’s long been expected to see IS added to Canons highly regarded 135 f/2.0, I don’t know where a 2.8 will fit into the lineup, and adding stabilization to the 85 and 100 would follow with Canons current practice of sticking IS on all their mid-range glass.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2014-10283

Publication date 2014.1.20

Filing date 2012.6.29</p>
<p>Example 1

Focal length f = 85.56mm

Fno. 1.86

Angle of view 2ω = 28.4 °

Image height Y = 21.635mm</p>
<p>Example 2

Focal length f = 102.06mm

Fno. 2.00

Angle of view 2ω = 23.9 °

Image height Y = 21.635mm</p>
<p>Example 3

Focal length f = 131.00mm

Fno. 2.80

Angle of view 2ω = 18.8 °

Image height Y = 21.635mm</p>
<p>Canon patents

Positive and negative positive

Inner Focus (group 2)

(Part of the third group) antivibration</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-01-22" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p>Update: I accidentally read the135 f/2.8 as f/2.0, apologies for any potential false hope we brought.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Wait, let me guess.

Release prices: $999, $1,099 and $1,499.

Lee Jay


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Where's that drool icon when I need it!


----------



## Sanaraken (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Time to save up for the 135mm f2 IS.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Let me see... Image height Y = 21.635mm, not enough to cover FF 24mm?


----------



## Ricku (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Sigh. Patents, patents and more patents.

Very alluring, but they don't mean anything!

How long has it been since we saw the first patents on the 14-24L and the 35L II?


----------



## bchernicoff (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

The patent for the 135mm says f/2.8 not f/2


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



bchernicoff said:


> The patent for the 135mm says f/2.8 not f/2


I hope that's not the lens they actually release, although it would save me a ton of money. Very sad indeed if it turns out to be a f/2.8 lens :'(


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



BozillaNZ said:


> Let me see... Image height Y = 21.635mm, not enough to cover FF 24mm?



That's probably radius of the image circle.


----------



## Ricku (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



mackguyver said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > The patent for the 135mm says f/2.8 not f/2
> ...


Yup. I have the 135L, alongside my 70-200 IS II. Even though I love the 135, it does feel very unnecessary some times. 

A 135 2.8 would feel even more unnecessary!

But a 135 f/1.8 (and with IS).. Please give me.


----------



## Zv (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



mackguyver said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > The patent for the 135mm says f/2.8 not f/2
> ...



That would make a rather pointless addition to the line up when the 70-200LII covers both of those criteria very well (f/2.8 and IS). And assuming it will cost in excess of $1000 there would be very few who would opt for it. 

Just a patent mind, and it was filed 18 months ago. The 70-200LII had been selling well in that time. Could affect their final decision on the 135 IS.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

I think I'll grab the 135 without IS once the new one is out...


----------



## ksagomonyants (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Is 135 f2 going to be the only L lens among these three?


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



Guest said:


> Focal length f = 131.00mm<
> Fno. 2.80



lmao, Canon would release a 135mm 2.8 IS. A great addition to any kit with the 24-70 f4 IS.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Looking at the linked website, I am very suspicious: all the block diagrams seem essentially the same, with different elements made smaller or bigger and shifted a bit. The 85 1.8, 100 2 and 135 2 don't look a bit like each other.
Now I am not very knowledgeable about block diagrams, maybe someone can give an expert opinion?
Someone's idea of a joke?

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-01-22


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

ooh. I want an 85mm f/1.8 IS!


----------



## IsaacImage (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

85mm 1.2 IS would be nice.
But it's a niche market, so keeping dreaming about


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



mackguyver said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > The patent for the 135mm says f/2.8 not f/2
> ...



There's no assurance this patent will result in a lens sold on the shelves, but if 10 years of digital photography didn't kill the 135mm f/2.8 w/ softfocus, it must sell well enough to justify it's continue production, and even upgrade.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

I like the 100f2IS the most out of the bunch, but if the 135f2.8IS were extremely sharp wide open, it would be hard not to consider it.

But yeah, taking f2 away kind of kills the appeal. I assume most people are looking for a low light action lens or long portrait lens in the 135f2, IS does not replace a stop worth of aperture in either case.
The 35f2.8IS makes sense, this, not so much.


----------



## rs (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



Lee Jay said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > Let me see... Image height Y = 21.635mm, not enough to cover FF 24mm?
> ...



Yes, the image height quoted in patents is the radius of the imaging circle.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

The 85/2 IS is sorely needed.

A 135/2 L IS would be most welcome too.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Okay, so now it is starting to get interesting... 



Lee Jay said:


> Wait, let me guess.
> 
> Release prices: $999, $1,099 and $1,499.


I fear, you will have to add up another 100 to 200 $. 
Unless Canon has learned the lesson from the latest release of the non L lenses with IS.



bchernicoff said:


> The patent for the 135mm says f/2.8 not f/2


That is really disappointing, if this is the patent coming to release. :'(



tianxiaozhang said:


> I think I'll grab the 135 without IS once the new one is out...


Exactly my thought, if this is coming true. 

But a optically really good 85 f1.8 would be one on my wish list as I am not so happy with the actual lens.
A 100 f2.0 is also very nice but too close to the former and i prefer the 85 mm reach.

Now let's wait (further on) and see and save up some money...


----------



## noncho (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Sounds great for me


----------



## Menace (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Very keen on the 135 2.0


----------



## RomainF (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

I don't see the point of a 135 f/2.8. 
At the time of superlative sharp f/2.8 zoom lenses (24-70 II and 70-200 II), why would you buy a 135 that doesn't add anything "big" to your pics ? Maybe a tiny little bit sharpening ? Is it really worth it…? For me, it definitely ain't.

Maybe a quite long prime lens for the 16-35 ; 24-70 owners. 
But i feel it would be a real "downgrade" if it actually is 2.8. Why get less if you pay more ? The 135 f/2 is a beloved glass and is already super compact.


----------



## tron (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

135mm 2.8L IS is a very nice lens that will really help me save money. I am simply NOT INTERESTED! ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Ok, I'll try this again.
I think this is a FAKE post.
Just look at the block diagrams before you get too excited!

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-01-22




sagittariansrock said:


> Looking at the linked website, I am very suspicious: all the block diagrams seem essentially the same, with different elements made smaller or bigger and shifted a bit. The 85 1.8, 100 2 and 135 2 don't look a bit like each other.
> Now I am not very knowledgeable about block diagrams, maybe someone can give an expert opinion?
> Someone's idea of a joke?
> 
> http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-01-22


----------



## guidoz (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Oh good.. I just ordered a 135L yesterday.... perfect timing ;D


----------



## Ruined (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

As someone mentioned before, the 135 is *NOT* f/2 and is *NOT* a replacement for the 135L.

The 135 shown here is f/2.8, and is a replacement for the now discontinued 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus.

The 135L will have its own replacement that is f/2 (and hopefully IS, too, given the focal length).


----------



## bholliman (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



AudioGlenn said:


> ooh. I want an 85mm f/1.8 IS!



+1, also an IS version of the 135L f/2 (not the 2.8 version listed here - meh).


----------



## noncho (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



RomainF said:


> I don't see the point of a 135 f/2.8.
> At the time of superlative sharp f/2.8 zoom lenses (24-70 II and 70-200 II), why would you buy a 135 that doesn't add anything "big" to your pics ? Maybe a tiny little bit sharpening ? Is it really worth it…? For me, it definitely ain't.




I see the point - small and light 135 2.8 IS prime for M would be nice


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

:/


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



noncho said:


> RomainF said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the point of a 135 f/2.8.
> ...



Definitely cheaper than a 70-200/2.8 IS II too.


----------



## preppyak (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



sagittariansrock said:


> Ok, I'll try this again.
> *I think this is a FAKE post.
> Just look at the block diagrams before you get too excited!*
> 
> http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-01-22


The reason you are getting no traction is because this is always the source of patents for canon lenses. If this is a fake post, so are about 1,000 others on Canon patents.

Furthermore, as these lenses are very similar in focal length, their block diagrams are naturally going to look very similar. The difference between an 85mm and 100mm lens is tiny; thus why their current iterations are very similar in optical quality. Below are the current 85mm and 100mm lenses. Obviously IS shifts things a bit, but notice that their diagrams, at least in the front groups, are basically the exact same.











PS: Red scare text in capitals isnt really going to make anyone read your point


----------



## preppyak (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



Ellen Schmidtee said:


> There's no assurance this patent will result in a lens sold on the shelves, but if 10 years of digital photography didn't kill the 135mm f/2.8 w/ softfocus, it must sell well enough to justify it's continue production, and even upgrade.


Actually, the 135mm f/2.8 is discontinued. I don't think Canon officially discontinued it, but, try and find it from a reputable dealer anymore...it's dead. The price of the 135mm f/2 coming down a lot basically killed it. 

Of course, I also think a 135mm f/2.8 IS would be dead in the water as well. Who would buy it? It'd have to be priced under the 135L, and less than an 85 and 100 IS lens to even gain traction. More likely its just to protect the design

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12064-USA/Canon_2516A003_Telephoto_EF_135mm_f_2_8.html


----------



## Etienne (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

I'll take the 85 !


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



preppyak said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I'll try this again.
> ...




Sorry if it was too crude, although clearly it made someone more knowledgeable (you) read them 
Wasn't trying to scare anyone or seek attention, but I was just trying to get some clarification (I'll change the color). Like many, I am also an interested party and would like to know if this is genuine.

As I clearly mentioned, I am not an expert on block diagrams, but-
The IS elements are at the very back. Is that common?
As you mentioned, 85 1.8 and 100 2.0 are similar. However, 135 2.8 is wildly different.
Finally, while this might be a reliable source otherwise, that doesn't mean it can have false information.
Anyway, thanks for listening.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

It's interesting to see that the 135 f/2.8 Soft Focus isn't available at any of the major retailer's sites or from Canon's shop, but it's still listed in their line-up. I realize it's quite out-dated, but it's been available pretty recently, from what I can remember. Maybe one or all of these lenses are coming soon?

Also, with regards to the lens diagrams, take a look at the Mk II super telephotos - they are all nearly identical to each other - so it's not hard to imaging that these lenses could be as well given their similar focal lengths and Canon's desire to streamline design and manufacturing.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



preppyak said:


> Of course, I also think a 135mm f/2.8 IS would be dead in the water as well. Who would buy it? It'd have to be priced under the 135L, and less than an 85 and 100 IS lens to even gain traction.



This is an easy one 

Personally, I think the 135L f/2 will also be discontinued, and replaced with a 135L f/2 IS for double the price; 135mm is long enough where you really see some large benefits w/ IS.

As a result of that, this 135 f/2.8 IS lens will then be the only 135mm prime choice in the $500-$1000 range.


----------



## candyman (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



Ruined said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, I also think a 135mm f/2.8 IS would be dead in the water as well. Who would buy it? It'd have to be priced under the 135L, and less than an 85 and 100 IS lens to even gain traction.
> ...




For me a good reason to keep my 135 f/2
It is a very good lens


----------



## tron (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



candyman said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > preppyak said:
> ...


 +1000000 !


----------



## Vern (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



A 135 2.8 would feel even more unnecessary!

But a 135 f/1.8 (and with IS).. Please give me.
[/quote]

+1, a real upgrade on the very good 135 f2 would be exciting. Faster for sports, IS for portraits - a winner for me. f 1.8 should be doable w/o being too heavy - lighter than the 200 f2 IS anyway (?).


----------



## mrzero (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

This lineup would actually make sense with the previous IS primes released: 24/2.8, 28/2.8, and 35/2. Each of the non-L IS primes replaced a low-cost model of the same focal length and aperture. The 50/1.8 is ripe for replacement with a 50/1.8 IS. These three would make sense, replacing their non-L counterparts. The 135/2.8 IS would take the place of the 135/2.8 soft focus. Consider the ultimate price points of the three IS primes we have now -- around $500 to $600. That would leave plenty of room for somebody who wants a 2.8 telephoto with IS but doesn't want to shell out for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. It also gives you options in the 135 (2 without or 2.8 with IS) and 100 ranges (2 with IS or 2.8 with macro and maybe IS). The 85 makes sense because the L is such a specialty high price lens, and they could probably even keep all 3 in the lineup. A lot of folks could probably get excited over a "holy trinity" with IS and 2-2.8 apertures that could be shot wide open, handheld, and for the price of a single 2.8 zoom lens.


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



mrzero said:


> This lineup would actually make sense with the previous IS primes released: 24/2.8, 28/2.8, and 35/2. Each of the non-L IS primes replaced a low-cost model of the same focal length and aperture. The 50/1.8 is ripe for replacement with a 50/1.8 IS. These three would make sense, replacing their non-L counterparts. The 135/2.8 IS would take the place of the 135/2.8 soft focus. Consider the ultimate price points of the three IS primes we have now -- around $500 to $600. That would leave plenty of room for somebody who wants a 2.8 telephoto with IS but doesn't want to shell out for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. It also gives you options in the 135 (2 without or 2.8 with IS) and 100 ranges (2 with IS or 2.8 with macro and maybe IS). The 85 makes sense because the L is such a specialty high price lens, and they could probably even keep all 3 in the lineup. A lot of folks could probably get excited over a "holy trinity" with IS and 2-2.8 apertures that could be shot wide open, handheld, and for the price of a single 2.8 zoom lens.



+1

I'm still very much looking forward to (and waiting ... impatiently for...) Canon's 50mm true USM (hopefully with IS)... Hoping 2014 will be a great Canon year!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

I'm taking all of this in with a skeptical eye. Consider:


Bundling the 135 in with the 85 and 100 makes little sense. The 85 F/1.8 and 100 F/2 are 'paired' lenses and the 135 (disregarding the soft-focus version) is an L lens paired with the lesser discussed 200 F/2.8L. I say 'paired' in that they seem to share some aspects of the housing and general design, and they were released on or about the same time (the first pair was '91/'92 and the second pair both came out in '96). I would hazard a guess that Canon would design these lenses simultaneously to maximize subcomponent efficiencies, limit subcomponent inventory, all that. They still seem to be doing that with recent non-L IS refreshes: the 24 and 28 are highly similar in size/shape and I would guess the much-discussed 50 F/(unknown) non-L IS they are working on will have some size/footprint similarities as the 35 F/2 non-L IS.


Only one prime L lens under 200mm has IS, and that's the 100L macro. Surely if an L lens 'IS refresh' program was to get underway, despite IS' greater value at longer FL, the money would be in the high-seller FL, which are the 24, 35, 50, etc. -- just like with the non-L IS refresh campaign has done.



It seems curious that the (admittedly ancient) non-L primes have been getting the big upgrades (those new lenses are a lot more than just IS upgrades) treatment and the L lenses have not. The last time an L prime in a common focal length was updated was some six years ago. One might wonder if they have the upgrades planned, but will only release them after they ensure they are good enough to work on the high-MP full-frame rigs that we all expect are coming.

Personally, I see the 135mm length as a separate animal from the 85 and 100, and being such a sacred cow to so many users, Canon will probably take quite some time to offer a replacement for the 135L.

- A


----------



## DJL329 (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



tianxiaozhang said:


> I think I'll grab the 135 without IS once the new one is out...



FYI: Prices for discontinued lenses typically go up, not down, as no more new ones are getting produced.


----------



## ugly.|.face (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

Will the 135 f/2 IS not be a L lens?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



ugly.|.face said:


> Will the 135 f/2 IS not be a L lens?



One would assume it will be an L lens. A 135mm F/2 prime is certainly more aimed at pros than hobbyists, right? 

But if it's F/_2.8_ like the patent says, to many on this forum it will appear to be a downgraded lens from the current F/2 offering (even if it is sharper, lighter, etc.).

- A


----------



## PepeSilvia (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*

I've been looking to get something like the 85mm f/1.8 since upgrading from a 20D to a 5Dc. I love my 50mm f/1.8, but need a longer prime now (at least 85). I see the 85mm f/1.8 around $200-300 used, but can never commit, wondering what the replacement will be.

What price range are you all expecting these to come in at? If the current 85mm f/1.8 is about $400 retail (often closer to $300), and the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS revisions are around $500-600 retail, is it unreasonable to hope the 85mm f/1.8 IS will cost less than $500? I would love to see a new short-tele prime with IS and great optical quality for under $500. On the flip side, what are the chances the 85mm f/1.8 drop in price a bit new/used after the IS version is available?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



PepeSilvia said:


> I've been looking to get something like the 85mm f/1.8 since upgrading from a 20D to a 5Dc. I love my 50mm f/1.8, but need a longer prime now (at least 85). I see the 85mm f/1.8 around $200-300 used, but can never commit, wondering what the replacement will be.
> 
> What price range are you all expecting these to come in at? If the current 85mm f/1.8 is about $400 retail (often closer to $300), and the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS revisions are around $500-600 retail, is it unreasonable to hope the 85mm f/1.8 IS will cost less than $500? I would love to see a new short-tele prime with IS and great optical quality for under $500. On the flip side, what are the chances the 85mm f/1.8 drop in price a bit new/used after the IS version is available?



All the non-L IS refreshes opened at high prices and quickly came down to earth:

24 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $500-ish (18 months post-launch)
28 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $549 (18 months post-launch)
35 F/2 IS: Released at $849, but now $549 (15 months post-launch)

It's unusual to see these kind of shortly-after-release price drops with _lenses_. The presumption is that these lenses aren't selling well. 

If interested in the 85 IS, I'd certainly wait a bit for a better deal based on the numbers above. But expect the new lens to soundly beat the current one based on the quality of those three above -- they really are terrific, and IS is only a piece of their appeal.

- A


----------



## zlatko (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



noncho said:


> RomainF said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the point of a 135 f/2.8.
> ...



I agree. It would be much smaller and lighter and cheaper than a 70-200/2.8, and yet it could do much of the same work. It definitely has a point. If a 70-200 is used for, say, just 10% of your photos, it may not be worth lugging the big zoom. This lens could be a great alternative, sort of mid-way in the 70-200 range. It offers much of the same reach without so much of the weight and bulk, and saves money too. (Of course, many people will still prefer the 70-200.)


----------



## zlatko (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



preppyak said:


> Of course, I also think a 135mm f/2.8 IS would be dead in the water as well. Who would buy it? It'd have to be priced under the 135L, and less than an 85 and 100 IS lens to even gain traction. More likely its just to protect the design



Dead in the water?! Not at all. For weddings, I've used the 70-200 (several versions) for a very small percentage of my photos, and yet I need something in that range. The current 135/2 has been a great substitute (much smaller & lighter), but it lacks IS. With IS it would be a dream, even if f/2.8 and even if not an L. With a 24-70 on one camera, having a 135/2.8IS on a 2nd camera would be perfect for many wedding ceremonies. Likewise, an 85/1.8 with IS would be similarly perfect on an APS-C camera. Canon knows that their customers have diverse needs.


----------



## zlatko (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> All the non-L IS refreshes opened at high prices and quickly came down to earth:
> 
> 24 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $500-ish (18 months post-launch)
> 28 F/2.8 IS: Released at $799, but now $549 (18 months post-launch)
> ...



These price drops are bigger than I expected, but I'm guessing exchange rates account for part of it. Eighteen months ago, a dollar bought just 80 yen. Now it buys over 100 yen. That's a rather big difference.

Introductory pricing takes into account that the lenses have a higher value for early adopters — people who've eagerly awaited exactly such a lens. They're willing to pay more. It also takes into account the fact that exchange rates can go up or down. If the value of the yen decreases, it's easy to reduce the price of the lenses abroad. If the value of the yen increases, there's no need to raise prices for a while as the initial pricing already took into account that possibility.

A possibly related example: The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 for micro four thirds was introduced in Sept. 2012 at $1,500. It now sells for ~$1,275 in the US and can be imported from Japan for as little as $1,020.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



zlatko said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > RomainF said:
> ...



I hear you. I often choose the 28 or the 50 prime as the walkaround and have the 100L macro as my compact tele option. 

I feel the pros doing wedding/portrait work will want the 135 to be F/2 despite the size/weight, but as the _second_ option in my bag, lighter is better. I can't tell you how many times I wasn't sure I was going to need my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II and just threw the 100L in the bag instead. 

Sadly, I now save the 70-200 for specialized needs -- sports, moving targets, wildlife, etc. It's a pity b/c it's a spectacular lens.

- A


----------



## FilipOk (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> PepeSilvia said:
> 
> 
> > I've been looking to get something like the 85mm f/1.8 since upgrading from a 20D to a 5Dc. I love my 50mm f/1.8, but need a longer prime now (at least 85). I see the 85mm f/1.8 around $200-300 used, but can never commit, wondering what the replacement will be.
> ...



This is nothing but a shameless marketing of Canon to take extra money from those who strongly waited for a new product on start of sales ). This applies to all company products regardless of how well they are on sale.


----------



## zlatko (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



FilipOk said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > PepeSilvia said:
> ...



Canon doesn't "take extra money" from anyone. They set a price but no one is forced to pay it. They were able to offer lower prices later when the yen took a huge hit. Would you be happier and give Canon more credit if prices went UP instead?


----------



## vscd (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



FilipOk said:


> This is nothing but a shameless marketing of Canon to take extra money from those who strongly waited for a new product on start of sales ). This applies to all company products regardless of how well they are on sale.



I may agree, but not to the full extend. The new lenses are expensive indeed, but they all have new technologies within... everyone want IS, aspherical elements, USM and everything in a small package but no one wants to pay the price. You can *always* get the old lenses, used, for a bargain. 

For example Canon builds create lense for a small price if they don't have the latest gadgets in it. You can get the new 40mm 2.8 STM for about 120$ or less... and this lense is fantastic, even wide open. Except of some vignetting which is no catch nowadays.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



vscd said:


> FilipOk said:
> 
> 
> > This is nothing but a shameless marketing of Canon to take extra money from those who strongly waited for a new product on start of sales ). This applies to all company products regardless of how well they are on sale.
> ...


There's also this other little thing called supply & demand . Think about new music & movies. When they first come out, everyone wants one, and they charge full price. Six months later, they're in the bargain bin after demand drops off - lenses and camera gear aren't much different.


----------



## Cali Capture (Jan 23, 2014)

With the maybe 135 f/2 "L is", nobody has speculated about color. Not to be a lens racist but the question comes with prejudice! In the off white camp we will have the sports guys who will want this for low light action, the marketing group who will say a new "Baby White Tele" will help drive sales and the collectors who will want to differentiate the legend from the new kid. The Black is beautiful crowd will be portrait, studiosos, streetwalkers, and old school conservApetures! Will Darth 135 be telling Luke 135Lis he is his father?
In review of Canon's white boys, the line in the paint booth starts in reach with the 70mm zooms with the 70-200mm f/4 (no IS) and for primes at the 200mm f/2. So this is gray scale area for sure! Another question will be barrel material, does composite plastic come in white? The largest is the macro 100mm L is and she runs on the dark side. The macros run to 180mm and stick together with thier tans, so perhaps that is not a good white balance. Will the "is" require a larger diameter barrel, score one for blanco! Mixed race is always an option in cameras, black hood/white body. Yet Obama & Tiger Woods supporters will contend you are black no matter what the other half!
So what say you? Where do you think a 135mm f/2L is will land on the paint belt, what color would you like to see it and why?


----------



## vscd (Jan 23, 2014)

I usually find the white ones too conspicuous. Especially for the short focal range it would be too flashy in my eyes...

So, I would like to see another black one. Plastic or not is not important, but weathersealing would be.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2014)

Cali Capture said:


> With the maybe 135 f/2 "L is", nobody has speculated about color. Not to be a lens racist but the question comes with prejudice! In the off white camp we will have the sports guys who will want this for low light action, the marketing group who will say a new "Baby White Tele" will help drive sales and the collectors who will want to differentiate the legend from the new kid. The Black is beautiful crowd will be portrait, studiosos, streetwalkers, and old school conservApetures! Will Darth 135 be telling Luke 135Lis he is his father?
> In review of Canon's white boys, the line in the paint booth starts in reach with the 70mm zooms with the 70-200mm f/4 (no IS) and for primes at the 200mm f/2. So this is gray scale area for sure! Another question will be barrel material, does composite plastic come in white? The largest is the macro 100mm L is and she runs on the dark side. The macros run to 180mm and stick together with thier tans, so perhaps that is not a good white balance. Will the "is" require a larger diameter barrel, score one for blanco! Mixed race is always an option in cameras, black hood/white body. Yet Obama & Tiger Woods supporters will contend you are black no matter what the other half!
> So what say you? Where do you think a 135mm f/2L is will land on the paint belt, what color would you like to see it and why?



I don't particularly care about the color, but the 200 F/2.8L that no one ever talks about is black, whereas the 200 F/2L IS (and its predecessor 200 F/1.8 IS) is white. So it seems that 200mm is the 'gray' inflection point for primes.

So my guess is that a new 135 would be black.

- A


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 23, 2014)

If canon makes it f/1.8 and IS... I'd have no need for a 70-200.


----------



## vscd (Jan 23, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I don't particularly care about the color, but the 200 F/2.8L that no one ever talks about is black, whereas the 200 F/2L IS (and its predecessor 200 F/1.8 IS) is white. So it seems that 200mm is the 'gray' inflection point for primes.



I dont' know if it's only the focal length. It's just a calculation of how big the lenses are and how affected to heating the whole system will be or maybe how likely the lense is used in the sun (for some hours). But the turning point may be around those 200mm length... because no one need longer focal lenghts inside buildings  

On the other side I never got problems with my black 80-200L 2.8 drainpipe. And I wouldn't like the attention of a white one.


----------



## FilipOk (Jan 24, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



vscd said:


> FilipOk said:
> 
> 
> > This is nothing but a shameless marketing of Canon to take extra money from those who strongly waited for a new product on start of sales ). This applies to all company products regardless of how well they are on sale.
> ...



Exactly! New technologies - are what makes the production cheaper and allows to produce better products FOR THE SAME MONEY. Just compare the TV that you bought ten years ago and modern at the same price. It's natural that companies are updating their product lines to be competitive. But I do not see any reason why renewed version of for example 24-70/F2.8 L should cost a half times more than the previous one. 10 - 20% for all innovations - maybe, but not 50! Because of it is the same product in fact.

And in general it is a little not about that... for example Sigma recently announced new 50 mm atr lens. And I'm going to buy it immediately as soon as it's released. Because I know that the price will be resonable and actual for many years (and not dependent on fluctuations in the yen) or perhaps just slightly increase due to inflation. But after Canon's new product release it's may be better to wait a couple of years if your budget is limited: the price may fall by a third ).


----------



## vscd (Jan 25, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



> New technologies - are what makes the production cheaper and allows to produce better products FOR THE SAME MONEY.



This is just true if you build an *old* product with *new* technologies. But the 24-70II is a new calculated lens, with 2 more glasses and other specs. You have to pay for the development, for the ingeneers and for the new expensive ULD elements et cetera. The price rises fast if you come to the limit, see @OTUS/Zeiss.

My point was that the old product can be bought for a lower price, too, after the new one came to the market. So, *if* you want the latest you have to pay for it. If not, everyone can get along with the old one.* An old one, matured for years and known for the best press photos shoot everyday. Better than most of us, maybe.*


----------



## tron (Jan 25, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



vscd said:


> > New technologies - are what makes the production cheaper and allows to produce better products FOR THE SAME MONEY.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except for the fact that the price of the old 24-70 2.8L went* up* when the new version was announced!!!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



tron said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > New technologies - are what makes the production cheaper and allows to produce better products FOR THE SAME MONEY.
> ...




Unfortunately, it will depend on how Canon prices the next version. If they bring out a 135 f/2 IS for $ 1200, then I don't foresee the 135 f/2's price going up.


----------



## tron (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



sagittariansrock said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...


Any recent example to back this ? Comparison with 70-200 4L vs. 70-200 f/4L IS and 24-70 2.8 vs. 24-70 2.8L II says otherwise.


----------



## vscd (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



tron said:


> Except for the fact that the price of the old 24-70 2.8L went* up* when the new version was announced!!!



Where do all those rumours come from? This is not true, the truth is that you now can get the new 24-70 L 2.8 II for the same price as the old one was at that time. So you get a far better lense for the same price... 

I admit the 2600$ Bucks were high at the beginning, but the price went down after a few months:







The graph shows 1000days back, datasource: http://geizhals.at/de/?phist=734241&age=1000.

P.S. It could be that the pricing was different from europe/germany, but I doubt that.


----------



## tron (Jan 26, 2014)

These were not the street prices no matter what...


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> I'm taking all of this in with a skeptical eye. Consider:
> 
> 
> Bundling the 135 in with the 85 and 100 makes little sense. The 85 F/1.8 and 100 F/2 are 'paired' lenses and the 135 (disregarding the soft-focus version) is an L lens paired with the lesser discussed 200 F/2.8L. I say 'paired' in that they seem to share some aspects of the housing and general design, and they were released on or about the same time (the first pair was '91/'92 and the second pair both came out in '96). I would hazard a guess that Canon would design these lenses simultaneously to maximize subcomponent efficiencies, limit subcomponent inventory, all that. They still seem to be doing that with recent non-L IS refreshes: the 24 and 28 are highly similar in size/shape and I would guess the much-discussed 50 F/(unknown) non-L IS they are working on will have some size/footprint similarities as the 35 F/2 non-L IS.
> ...


I do not think that it is a L lens refresh. I think that it is a mid range refresh. Canons mid range lens were dinosaurs before the IS refreshes started. Back in the old FD days there was three 135mm lens it is very likely that they are dropping the soft focus and replacing it with a normal 135mm. The certain versions of the FD 85mm, 100mm, 135mm shared much of the same design. They were a lens family. It is likely they are just returning to that. 

I expect a L refresh sometime later. I just cannot see a 135mm f2.8 L IS being a big seller unless it was a macro. Most looking at the 135L are in it the the bokeh.

I expect the L refresh when it happens to be exactly like you said 85,100 as a family and 135,200 as a family.


----------



## zlatko (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



tcmatthews said:


> I expect a L refresh sometime later. I just cannot see a 135mm f2.8 L IS being a big seller unless it was a macro. Most looking at the 135L are in it the the bokeh.



The current 100/2.8L IS Macro has amazingly good bokeh. I'm guessing that a 135/2.8 IS (L or non-L) would be just as good, if not better.


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS*



zlatko said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > I expect a L refresh sometime later. I just cannot see a 135mm f2.8 L IS being a big seller unless it was a macro. Most looking at the 135L are in it the the bokeh.
> ...



The 100L IS has good bokeh. But I would not say it is even in the same league as the current 135L. If they made a 135/2.8 IS it would likely have as good or better bokeh than the 100L. But it will not be in the same league as the 135L.


----------



## pradeepgj (Mar 12, 2014)

Any idea on Canon's timeline for a parent to turn into a real product? I am really looking forward for the 85mm IS


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2014)

pradeepgj said:


> Any idea on Canon's timeline for a parent to turn into a real product? I am really looking forward for the 85mm IS



Next two years, one would think.

The non-L IS refreshes are in pairs, like the originals from the '90s:

24 / 28 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
35 / 50 have similar size, filter diameter, etc.
85 / 100 (the F/2 -- not the two macros) have similar size, filter diameter, etc.

So I see the 85mm and 100mm non-L IS refreshes to be released together.

The only mystery is why the 50 non-L IS is taking so long. One would have expected that one with the release of the 35mm.

- A


----------



## tron (Mar 12, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> pradeepgj said:
> 
> 
> > Any idea on Canon's timeline for a parent to turn into a real product? I am really looking forward for the 85mm IS
> ...


Or ... three or four  
But rest assured that in five or six there will be a CR2 for all three missing lenses: 50 IS,85 IS,100 IS ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2014)

tron said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > pradeepgj said:
> ...



I believe Canon _must_ answer in the 50 segment soon or Sigma could legitimately scoop some bread and butter Canon pros. 

Consider: the buzz for the Sigma 50 Art is deafening, and if it's as good as billed and priced correctly, it could scoop both the (a) often-shooting-wide-aperture-but-still-wanting-AF camp (using the 50L) and I-need-a-sharp-corner-to-corner-50 camp (stuck with the trusty old Canon 50 F/1.4).

The overdue Canon 50 F/wedontknow IS is a strong answer to the second group's needs and seems to be the only thing Canon has in the pipeline right now.

- A


----------



## tron (Mar 12, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


I agree and I do not think it is difficult for Canon to do so. 

Unless, they are busy working hard for 35mm 1.4L II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II, 400 5.6L IS .... ;D ;D

OK I stop ;D ;D ;D


----------

