Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions
Thread started 10 Oct 2016 (Monday) 18:11
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Is it time for a 135mm L white lens?

 
agv8or
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
agv8or's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
Midwest
Oct 25, 2016 17:03 |  #31

FEChariot wrote in post #18161543 (external link)
Not having AF is obsolete in my book. I got over that in the 80s.


CheshireCat wrote in post #18161658 (external link)
Subjective priorities. Most of my 135mm shots are stills or portraits. When I need AF and flexibility, I reach for the 70-200/2.8.

About obsolete, just compare the two lenses side by side to realize how much better the Zeiss is.

I am not sure I would use "obsolete" but antiquated sure comes to mind. I do not care how great the optics are, if you cannot nail focus you still have an out of focus image. I have a few manual focus lenses but I find them very cumbersome to use which probably explains why I do not use them much.

Talley wrote in post #18164940 (external link)
Would a 135 1.4 IS lens the size of a 300 2.8 IS or a 200 F2 IS really be hailed as a goto lens? Especially for the 5-6k price tag it would create?

I'd rather have canon come out with a larger 85 1.2 II with IS and have zero CA and improved sharpness across the frame. This would be MUCH bigger seller than the 135.

Survey says? :-)

I doubt it but then again I am not so sure my idea of a larger and faster 135mm would be such a big seller either that's why I posed the question. I would buy a larger and faster 135mm lens with IS before buying the 200L 2.0 IS and definitely long before buying a larger 85mm even if it had IS or less CA. The 85L needs a focus limit switch before anything.


Rand

Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,125 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Oct 27, 2016 16:46 |  #32

a 135 F 1.4 will weigh and be sized the same as the 200 F2 so ask yourself again... do you want that?


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
agv8or
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
agv8or's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
Midwest
Oct 27, 2016 21:09 |  #33

Talley wrote in post #18168780 (external link)
a 135 F 1.4 will weigh and be sized the same as the 200 F2 so ask yourself again... do you want that?

Yup!

You have a 200L f2.0 IS lens so what is the difference? I prefer 135mm over 200mm. I would be using the lens for portraits and events which is the same thing that most people use the 200mm lens for so, I do not see a difference.

I had both V1 and V2 300L f2.8 IS lenses for several years so I am used to hand holding the weight of lens. I always kicked around buying the 200L f2.0 IS lens but I just never liked 200mm for portraits and 200mm is too short for the type of wildlife photography I was using the 300mm lenses for. It would not have been that wise of investment, for a lens I would hardly use.

Others may or may not feel the same way about 135mm vs 200mm, which is why I posed the question.


Rand

Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by Tom Reichner. 9 edits done in total.
Oct 27, 2016 22:47 |  #34

Talley wrote in post #18168780 (external link)
a 135 F 1.4 will weigh and be sized the same as the 200 F2 so ask yourself again... do you want that?

For some of the photography I do back east, that would be an incredibly useful lens (if it had I.S.).

In Virginia and in Tennessee, the deer are in woodland environments. In these places, under the forest canopy, there is precious little light. On top of that, the forest is downright messy! And close - I mean, there is not usually a way to get the deer to get way out in front of the background foliage because there simply isn't that much open space - the woods are pretty thick, and so your subject-to-background distance is always going to be shorter than what you would like, and as a result it is very difficult to blur out that background that is full of wayward distractions, like twigs that have glare on them, or a leaf that is turned so that its underside faces you, or some stones that are lighter in color than everything else around them.

A 135mm is a most useful focal length for such venues. And then the wide aperture would take care to two problems - kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. The super-wide aperture would allow a lot of light in, so that I could maintain the shutter speed and ISO settings that are necessary. And that super-wide aperture would also help to blur out the messy background optically, which would be so helpful because one cannot blur it out physically by changing one's POV in relation to the different elements within the frame.

Keep in mind that to some of us, the size & weight of a 200 f2 doesn't seem very restrictive - my main lens is a 400 f2.8; another lens I use quite often is the Sigmonster 300-800mm f5.6. I dare say that a 135 f1.4 with I.S. would be handholdable in most situations, although it would be helpful to have a monopod just to help take some of the weight from time to time. I see other wildlife photographers stalking thru the countryside with the Canon 200-400/560 f4 without a tripod or a monopod. The size and weight doesn't keep them from using it in this manner, so why would the size and weight of a 200 f2 or a 135 f1.4 be any different?

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,125 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Oct 28, 2016 05:54 |  #35

I don't find the 200 F2 restrictive in any way and handhold it for 1.5hrs worth of baseball all this past season. Without a doubt the 135 1.4 would create more separation than the 200 F2 would. I do know the professional world drives the big whites production so not sure on the professional mass how demanding a 135 1.4 would be especially when the 135 F2 is such a stellar performer and value. I see a trend though... all the big tele's are getting lighter and all the short focal length lenses are getting heavier. My assumption is the 135 replacement would be heavier and would have IS. Even if it kept F2 having IS would be a huge hit.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,712 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Oct 28, 2016 09:28 |  #36

Talley wrote in post #18169276 (external link)
... all the big tele's are getting lighter and all the short focal length lenses are getting heavier. ...

Is the latter true with Canon lenses too? Or just 3rd party? Canon's newer L zooms are mostly lighter at the shorter end. That said, I've not compared at the shorter L primes.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,125 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Oct 28, 2016 10:25 |  #37

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18169448 (external link)
Is the latter true with Canon lenses too? Or just 3rd party? Canon's newer L zooms are mostly lighter at the shorter end. That said, I've not compared at the shorter L primes.

35LII heavier... 24-70II did lighten up but 16-35 2.8 III got heavier


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by Tom Reichner. 4 edits done in total.
Oct 28, 2016 10:41 |  #38

.

Talley wrote in post #18169276 (external link)
I see a trend though... all the big tele's are getting lighter and all the short focal length lenses are getting heavier.

Yes, I see this too.

Cases in point; the 400 f2.8, 500 f4, and 600 f4 all got lighter, while the new 100-400 got heavier.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,712 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Oct 28, 2016 11:53 |  #39

Talley wrote in post #18169490 (external link)
35LII heavier... 24-70II did lighten up but 16-35 2.8 III got heavier


Gotcha. I immediately thought of the 24-70mm, but that does appear to be the exception.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,705 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Oct 28, 2016 23:13 |  #40

I think the 135 f1.8 is a good balance of not too heavy, but still good. 1kg, and manageable size


Sony A7rii x2 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,718 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Oct 29, 2016 02:36 |  #41

Charlie wrote in post #18170039 (external link)
I think the 135 f1.8 is a good balance of not too heavy, but still good. 1kg, and manageable size

i feel like it's more realistic too...sigma is supposed to have a rumor on one with OS...i mean i know this is about canon coming out with a faster 135mm...but i just don't see it...canon is in their track of upgrading lenses that people like, and coming out with lenses that nobody asked for, and that's it...if you're expecting a faster than f2 135mm you better be ready to look at third party because it's way more likely to be sigma than canon...and it'll be a black lens...not white...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,080 views & 22 likes for this thread
Is it time for a 135mm L white lens?
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00161 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
808 guests, 437 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016