135 f/2 IS - Possibility/Pipe Dream

[shutterfiend]

It's common knowledge that it's very possible for Canon to manufacture it.

However, Canon has to price it at around a very afforable $1500, since the non-IS sells for under $1000.

If the 200 f/2 IS becomes popular at the suggested price ($6K?) it's unlikely that Canon would make this lens anytime soon.

[surfjungle]

I don't think it'd be worth the effort in making that lens with the IS. Its not long enough to benefit massively from it and the quality etc of that lens at the moment is stellar according to many articles and peoples reviews. I know I wouldn't pay an extra €600 for IS on that lens - no way. As an aside to this, the fact that the 200 F2 IS is so expensive boggles the mind, I've seen pics of the lens etc and its not comparable at all to the 200 F2.8 - this I know. But looking at it simply - an extra stop and IS and the price is quintripled - that's a lot of money to ask, unless Canon are sure of their market.

[Candiness]

Originally Posted by surfjungle

I don't think it'd be worth the effort in making that lens with the IS.

You may be right. It's hard to improve upon a lens that so closely approaches perfection.

That said, a handful of folks at dpreview offer some fairly cogent reasons for why a 135L IS may not be a pipe dream after all.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=29261734

[wordsworth03]

Really, they should have made a 135mm f/2 IS Macro lens. That would be ridiculously awesome

[fi20100]

Originally Posted by wordsworth03

Really, they should have made a 135mm f/2 IS Macro lens. That would be ridiculously awesome

Well since the current 135L already is ridiculously awesome, one would hope a IS version would be as good...

[MMX]

Imho with the latest sensors and their ISO capabilities the IS doesn´t make so much sense as it did few years ago.
When shooting moving objects, you need time that is short enough anyway.
When shooting still objects, you can use a tripod that provides far better results than IS.
The only moments when you really use the advantage of IS is when you shoot people (exposure 1/100 s or something like that needed) with a medium telephoto lens (100-300 mm) because when the lens is too long you´ll probably use a monopod anyway.

So with 135mm f/2 lens I don´t really see the sense of IS.

[Gel]

The 135L is the best lens I own, can't see them making it better.

[bacchanal]

me: Oh hi thread from 2008, how's it going?

thread: Makin' a comeback bro

me: sweet, how's that 135L treatin' ya?

thread: it's pretty rockin'

me: rad, mine too

me: so anyway, why's this Gel guy have such a rad lens collection but such a creepy looking avatar?

thread: beats me man

[form]

If the 135L had IS I could see myself using it more than I currently do.

[Karl Johnston]

I wonder what the threads say about me

[Gel]

Originally Posted by bacchanal

me: Oh hi thread from 2008, how's it going?

me: so anyway, why's this Gel guy have such a rad lens collection but such a creepy looking avatar?

It's British dentistry, we all look like that over here

[Poe]

Originally Posted by surfjungle

I don't think it'd be worth the effort in making that lens with the IS. Its not long enough to benefit massively from it and the quality etc of that lens at the moment is stellar according to many articles and peoples reviews. I know I wouldn't pay an extra €600 for IS on that lens - no way. As an aside to this, the fact that the 200 F2 IS is so expensive boggles the mind, I've seen pics of the lens etc and its not comparable at all to the 200 F2.8 - this I know. But looking at it simply - an extra stop and IS and the price is quintripled - that's a lot of money to ask, unless Canon are sure of their market.

So why did Canon make a 24-105L IS? Those lengths are less than 135, yet it has IS.

Canon really didn't have to make a 100L IS, but they did.

If there is a market, they will make it to sell it to customers to make money.

[MMX]

Originally Posted by Poe

So why did Canon make a 24-105L IS? Those lengths are less than 135, yet it has IS.

But 24-105 has f/4 while 135 has f/2. And the new 100 is a macro lens where you need to use narrow aperture because of DOF and moreover when the object is close, even the smallest shake will make it blurred.

[RWatkins]

Sure, I'd love it. However, would this not steal some of the thunder from the 200 f/2.0?

[Poe]

Originally Posted by MMX

Imho with the latest sensors and their ISO capabilities the IS doesn´t make so much sense as it did few years ago.
When shooting moving objects, you need time that is short enough anyway.
When shooting still objects, you can use a tripod that provides far better results than IS.
The only moments when you really use the advantage of IS is when you shoot people (exposure 1/100 s or something like that needed) with a medium telephoto lens (100-300 mm) because when the lens is too long you´ll probably use a monopod anyway.

So with 135mm f/2 lens I don´t really see the sense of IS.

Originally Posted by MMX

But 24-105 has f/4 while 135 has f/2. And the new 100 is a macro lens where you need to use narrow aperture because of DOF and moreover when the object is close, even the smallest shake will make it blurred.

By your reasoning earlier, we should be using tripods. Now you say it's okay to be hand holding IS lenses for macro work? Seems contradictory. I think there's a gap in Canon's lens technology and there is definately a market for them to fill with updated products.