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
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 02 Dec 2017 (Saturday) 02:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Maybe finally? EF 135L f/2L IS USM coming in 2018

 
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
Avatar
2,470 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Likes: 1167
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Dec 28, 2017 19:32 |  #31

conraderb wrote in post #18511895 (external link)
Not to put down any rumors, but anyone who has real information on this has probably signed a pile of NDAs (nondisclosure agreements).

Rock solid leaks (not to say that this is or is not one) are usually at the direction of the firm itself. IOW NDA is irrelevant.


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Avatar
525 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 312
Joined Apr 2016
     
Dec 28, 2017 19:33 |  #32

Charlie wrote in post #18527978 (external link)
ignorance is bliss :lol:

Considering that the sigma 135 is one of the sharpest lenses on the market, it makes the L seem real old. The L aint bad, but the sigma is clearly in a different league. The sigma wide open @ 1.8 feels like the Canon @ f4, it's an incredible optic, and in that sense, I find it a great value. It's a bonafide super optic.

to a large extent I agree that the L is old. For portraits purposes, I prefer the not so sharp Canon 135mm L compared to the very sharp Sigma 135mm Art.

If I am the product manager, I would the update the 135mm L design similar to the 85mm f/1,4 IS USM.

maybe "EF 135mm f/1,8L IS USM"

 :p


Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2,8L IS II
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT |
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agv8or
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,149 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 359
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
     
Dec 28, 2017 19:37 |  #33

Charlie wrote in post #18528251 (external link)
no, but charts give you a good idea on performance.

TDP has photos on their site

photozone has photos on their site, and here's their review: In our review of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 HSM DG ART we were pretty much stunned by its quality. However, the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 HSM DG ART tops that. Those who have followed us over the years know that we don't easily come up with superlatives but this time it's hard to avoid them really. The Sigma lens is the best lens that we have tested so far. The resolution figures are outlandishly good -plus low CAs, very low distortions and comparatively low vignetting. The quality of the bokeh is very close to perfection (for a conventional lens) except for the inevitable cat eye highlights in the image corners. If there is a real weakness it is bokeh fringing at large aperture settings. However, we've rarely seen lenses that can correct them and they were not as fast anyway.
The build quality is top notch and, honestly, we can't really find any downsides here. The used materials are of great quality and weather-sealing helps in situations when the going gets tough. The AF is very fast and near silent.

So how does it compare to granny Canon EF 135mm f/2 USM L? The Canon lens had its time but, at least for now, the 135mm realm is ruled by Sigma. That being said, the Sigma is heavier and a bit more expensive - also because it's a little faster. However, if you are serious about considering your options in this fairly specialized market segment, it is worth going for the very best. Highly recommended!

With all that you've said I "personally" (strictly IMO & subject to change if I had a Sigma lens to compare) don't see any major real world significant improvements, from the comparisons I've seen, that would make ME want to dump my 135L and spend more than $600 difference to do so. If the Sigma 135 Art had OS, as was rumored when it first came to light, I would have jumped the 135L ship in a minute, especially since I don't see it lacking in any qualities that the 135L has.

So I'll continue to wait for the 135L IS.


Rand

Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 883
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
     
Dec 28, 2017 19:39 |  #34

umphotography wrote in post #18528292 (external link)
Not True with Bryan Carnathan. Best guy on the net. He tells it like it really is

I really like Bryan's site ... he puts in an amazing amount of work.

He is, nevertheless, just one more person engaged in the business of moving product.

As I said elsewhere, somebody is paying for what he does. Hey ... it isn't me, it isn't you. :-)

But he is not independent.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,507 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4808
Joined Sep 2007
Post edited 4 months ago by Charlie.
     
Dec 28, 2017 19:48 |  #35

umphotography wrote in post #18528288 (external link)
Charlie

I have shot both lens side by side. There is no doubt that the Sigma is a bit sharper. It also has a different color and contrast rendering than the 135L.

If I was not a Canon shooter and I did not have a 135L---I would buy the sigma

But I am a canon shooter and the market is FLOODED with 135L which can be consistently purchased for $700.00

There is no way I would spend the extra $$ on the Sigma

Furthermore. I have known Bryan since 2008. If you read further in his review he will tell you that the 135L could probably use an update however, its still a darn fine lens

This is what he actually said so I will copy/paste so you can Re-Read

---------------

" Of course, if Canon made your camera and there is a Canon "L" lens in the comparison mix, that lens is usually an excellent choice – practically a no-brainer. In this case, there is the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens, a perennial favorite and all-around great-performing lens. As I mentioned earlier, it is more than 20 years older than the Sigma 135 Art Lens and though it is aging very well, it is still an old model.

Looking at the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art Lens vs. Canon 135mm f/2L Lens image quality comparison, we see the Sigma turning in sharper results at f/1.8 than the Canon does at f/2, especially in the periphery of the image circle. While the Canon performs well here, the difference is strong enough to be noticeable. By f/4, the two lenses are more similar in throughout-the-frame sharpness, but the Sigma still holds a slight advantage."

---------------

The Sigma is slightly sharper at F/1.8 than the 135L at F/2.0

Pump up sharpness and clarity and its a mute point

I dont see price a big issue, hence my decision to try out the more expensive lens. Same could be said about when the 24-70ii/70-200ii came along. I'm sure you've face that decision before, it's really the same thing, different flavor. I've owned many standard zooms and they all vary in sharpness with the 24-70ii at the top. Same with the 70-200ii. At some point, you've gotta make that decision whether it's worth it or not. The 135 is my favorite portrait lens, so I put the most money in that. I dont care too much for standard f2.8 zooms, so spend as little as possible on that. It's just a matter of priority. I'de rather shoot the 135 f1.8 over 200 f2, just my preference, I wish there was smaller 200f2 (certainly love the results), but I've yet to find a small version.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - 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
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,771 posts
Likes: 966
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 4 months ago by bobbyz.
     
Jan 01, 2018 19:17 |  #36

I honestly thought that 135mm 1.8 from Sigma had OS. Sigma has been putting out great lenses lately. Even older non Art models if you get one without AF issues were very nice. I remember my Sigma 30mm f1.4 being the sharpest lens I owned and I had 300mm f2.8 IS at the time and almost most canon lenses except the 200mm f2. To me the 135L though very nice sometimes didn't give me results that I was looking for. Maybe it was due to needing higher shutter speed or something else. I found later the 85L to be better. I almost bought 200mm f2 but didn't as I was worried it will be replaced soon and I wanted to see what the Sigma had to offer. Now I have moved to Fuji and happy with them. 56mm f1.2 is nice small lens. And if someone complains oh, that is a crop and blaa blaa blaa, I have a bigger Fuji cropper to bring out, the GFX and the 110mm f2. It might not match f1.2 in aperture but man, look from it is wow so far, or maybe it is just my eyes having paid all those $$$. :)


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,876 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2704
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 11, 2018 00:29 |  #37

.
Mike,

I see what appears to be some inconsistency in your statements and responses here in this thread. For instance, when Charlie said this:

Charlie wrote in post #18527978 (external link)
Considering that the sigma 135 is one of the sharpest lenses on the market, it makes the L seem real old. The L aint bad, but the sigma is clearly in a different league. The sigma wide open @ 1.8 feels like the Canon @ f4, it's an incredible optic, and in that sense, I find it a great value. It's a bonafide super optic.

Your response was this:

umphotography wrote in post #18528215 (external link)
Where are you buying the stuff you are smoking ?

Seriously, Thats about as far out in left field as I have read lately here at POTN

But then you later said this:

umphotography wrote in post #18528288 (external link)
Charlie

I have shot both lens side by side. There is no doubt that the Sigma is a bit sharper. It also has a different color and contrast rendering than the 135L.

If I was not a Canon shooter and I did not have a 135L---I would buy the sigma

So it is odd to me that you would state that the Sigma is a bit better, yet tell Charlie that his praise of the Sigma is as far out in left field as anything you have read here on POTN lately.

Then when Charlie quotes Bryan Carnathan:

Charlie wrote in post #18528243 (external link)
Bryan Carnathan seems to have a similar opinion:

" . . . the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens is a "prime" example. Exceptional image quality, including impressive sharpness and negligible distortion, is right at the top of this lens' advantages. Having the f/1.8 aperture at a telephoto focal length can be a game-changer and there is a special wow factor in the background blur this combination creates.

The 135 Art lens brings more than just great image quality – it is the full package. Great looks, quality design ... perhaps the only missing feature is optical stabilization.

The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens is an exceptional portrait photography lens. Even if portraits are not necessarily your thing, this lens may send you seeking portrait opportunities. And, the image quality the 135 Art delivers will cause you to pull it out for any other use you can make 135mm work for. I'm nearly certain that you are going to like this one!"

Your response is:

umphotography wrote in post #18528292 (external link)
Not True with Bryan Carnathan. Best guy on the net. He tells it like it really is

So Bryan Carnathan says that the Sigma is a "game changer", and has "exceptional image quality", and that it has "a special background blur." And you respond by saying that Bryan is the best guy on the net and that he tells it like it is.

Yet when Charlie gave high praise to the Sigma, you told him he was smoking something and that his comments were way out in left field.

I cannot understand the logic and reason behind your statements, because they seem to contradict one another. I mean, it seems that you are contradicting yourself, which, of course, would be illogical for someone to do. It almost seems as though the way you feel about things flip-flops from one moment to the next.

If you could provide some clarity to these apparent contradictions it would help me, and presumably others, to make more sense out of the posts that you have made in this thread.

.


"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 "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
9,966 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1698
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
Post edited 4 months ago by umphotography.
     
Jan 22, 2018 19:47 |  #38

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18538449 (external link)
.
Mike,

I see what appears to be some inconsistency in your statements and responses here in this thread. For instance, when Charlie said this:

Your response was this:

But then you later said this:

So it is odd to me that you would state that the Sigma is a bit better, yet tell Charlie that his praise of the Sigma is as far out in left field as anything you have read here on POTN lately.

Then when Charlie quotes Bryan Carnathan:

Your response is:

So Bryan Carnathan says that the Sigma is a "game changer", and has "exceptional image quality", and that it has "a special background blur." And you respond by saying that Bryan is the best guy on the net and that he tells it like it is.

Yet when Charlie gave high praise to the Sigma, you told him he was smoking something and that his comments were way out in left field.

I cannot understand the logic and reason behind your statements, because they seem to contradict one another. I mean, it seems that you are contradicting yourself, which, of course, would be illogical for someone to do. It almost seems as though the way you feel about things flip-flops from one moment to the next.

If you could provide some clarity to these apparent contradictions it would help me, and presumably others, to make more sense out of the posts that you have made in this thread.

.


I was referring to his statement of a bonafide super optic and that F/1.8 makes the canon feel/look like F/4....again what pot is he smoking..... not even a remotely accurate statement. The canon and sigma and both dam close with Boken wide open. Sigma is sharper. But how much sharper do you need a portrait lens to be.

If Im a canon shooter im buying a used 135L for $700.00 at anyplace USA before I pop for the Sigma...pretty simple...If I dont have a 135L I might consider the Sigma. Its a great lens. But its not the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ as some would have you believe. There better glass out there. For Example the 200L F/2.0 comes to mind


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,771 posts
Likes: 966
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jan 26, 2018 17:55 |  #39

If Sigma had OS, then yes. I do think that if Sigma does come out with 200mm f2 it will put more pressure on Canon price of the 200mm f2. 200mm f2 is good, not denying it but other companies are also coming out with very good glass. The latest Sigma offerings come to mind. And now being a Fuji user, their lenses are also great. That Fuji 110mm f2 I think is notch above 200mm f2.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
texshooter
Senior Member
620 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Jun 2009
     
Apr 24, 2018 18:26 as a reply to  @ bobbyz's post |  #40

Image stabilization is so overrated. I did an experiment and found that IS provides about one full true stop advantage, nothing close to the 4-5 stops commonly advertised. The only way to get me to upgrade my 135mm f2 lens to an IS version will be when it's significantly sharper wide open because I only use it wide open. If I have to stop down to F5.6 to get maximum sharpness, I will be disappointed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,771 posts
Likes: 966
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 28 days ago by bobbyz.
     
Apr 25, 2018 02:53 |  #41

texshooter wrote in post #18612835 (external link)
Image stabilization is so overrated. I did an experiment and found that IS provides about one full true stop advantage, nothing close to the 4-5 stops commonly advertised. The only way to get me to upgrade my 135mm f2 lens to an IS version will be when it's significantly sharper wide open because I only use it wide open. If I have to stop down to F5.6 to get maximum sharpness, I will be disappointed.

Try 400mm at 1/60 or even 700mm at 1/125 or less. The shorter focal lengths can let you hold almost a second now a days with in body and lens IS. And who keeps coming with that IS means lens won't be sharp. Try shooting with 300/400mm f2.8 IS I or the IIs and tell me they aren't sharp.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,876 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2704
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Apr 25, 2018 12:01 |  #42

bobbyz wrote in post #18613046 (external link)
And who keeps coming with that IS means lens won't be sharp.

The people who make such claims rarely have an extensive body of work available for us to review, so there is really no way to assess their skill level with using a camera. . Comments and advice about how to use gear, what settings to use, etc, are pretty much useless if they come from someone whose talents I cannot assess.

Conversely, if someone has produced an extensive body of professional-caliber work, and captured stellar images in a lot of challenging situations, then I know that the advice that he/she gives out is valid and worth paying heed to.


.


"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 "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 883
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
Post edited 28 days ago by DaviSto.
     
Apr 25, 2018 13:01 |  #43

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18613293 (external link)
The people who make such claims rarely have an extensive body of work available for us to review, so there is really no way to assess their skill level with using a camera. . Comments and advice about how to use gear, what settings to use, etc, are pretty much useless if they come from someone whose talents I cannot assess.

Conversely, if someone has produced an extensive body of professional-caliber work, and captured stellar images in a lot of challenging situations, then I know that the advice that he/she gives out is valid and worth paying heed to.

.

Whatever he chooses to say, bobbyz gets cut a whole lot of slack by me, if only because of http://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18571306. Some form of 'stabilisation' might be needed. Image stabilisation ... not much.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,876 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2704
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Apr 25, 2018 13:26 |  #44

DaviSto wrote in post #18613319 (external link)
Whatever he chooses to say, bobbyz gets cut a whole lot of slack by me, if only because of http://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18571306. Some form of 'stabilisation' might be needed. Image stabilisation ... not much.

.
I wasn't talking about BobbyZ. . I think highly of Bobby and his opinions.

I was agreeing with Bobby - that is why I quoted him.


.


"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 "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 883
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
Post edited 28 days ago by DaviSto.
     
Apr 25, 2018 13:31 |  #45

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18613335 (external link)
.
I wasn't talking about BobbyZ. . I think highly of Bobby and his opinions.

I was agreeing with Bobby - that is why I quoted him.

.

Yes ... I was just looking for an excuse to link to that shot ... no other reason for commenting tbph.

Edit: although I do agree with you, there are some strong views expressed here about kit by people who don't appear to take a lot of photographs ... not even bad ones, let alone good ones.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

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

2,585 views & 20 likes for this thread
Maybe finally? EF 135L f/2L IS USM coming in 2018
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is eyecancu
881 guests, 451 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.