Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS

Very very interesting....

Any thoughts?

I would buy it instantly. I sold my 135L and quite miss it

Fake.

It would be a WHOLE lot bigger....

And it better have a fluorite element for C/A which its not going to be cheap...

Don't count on it though because it would compete with the 200 2L which is surely one of Canons BEST.

Theres been a patent, but one thing on it makes me feel its fake..

Look at the focus limiter, it has 3 positions, I just dont see a lens like the 135L having a 3-position focus limiter

As for size, Airfrog, Sony has a 135mm f/1.8, its not really that big, uses 77mm filters sure, but not "huge", it measures 89x115 vs the 135L's 83x112.. meaning they're basically the same size, it is a bit heavier though, 1050g vs 750g... We're not looking at the difference between a 300 f/4 and a 300 f/2.8 here

http://www.photozone.d​e …lphaff/500-zeiss_135_18ff

-edit- what it appears to be, is a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro with the front of the new 24-70 f/2.8L II glued onto it..

I do admit it looks cool though

Its aperture wouldn't be that much bigger than that of the 200mm f/2.8L (75mm versus 71.43mm).

The 200 f/2.8L is an $800 lens.
The 135L is $1,000
Add IS and this could be $1,600.

Make it $1,800 and people would still buy it.
I'd be definitely interested.

Looks like a photoshop based on the 100L.
The text around the barrel seems off, especially the "USM" lettering doesn't seem to be aligned properly.

sth_ wrote in post #14800888
Looks like a photoshop based on the 100L.
The text around the barrel seems off, especially the "USM" lettering doesn't seem to be aligned properly.

Upon closer examining it, it looks like Chopped.
Especially from " : 1.8 L IS USM"

Come on, if you're gonna fake it, at least fake a 135mm f/1.2L! That'd be fun!

Not fake!.

Size-wise, it wouldn't be much different from the present 135/2L. IS might be welcome as long as it didn't have a negative effect on IQ.

The primary feature of the 135/2 (and I would presume the 135/1.8) would be the ability to shoot at an extremely fast aperture. Other than the f/2 and better, the 70-200 f/2.8 lens would be about as good.

Tom W wrote in post #14802639
Size-wise, it wouldn't be much different from the present 135/2L. IS might be welcome as long as it didn't have a negative effect on IQ.

The primary feature of the 135/2 (and I would presume the 135/1.8) would be the ability to shoot at an extremely fast aperture. Other than the f/2 and better, the 70-200 f/2.8 lens would be about as good.

For me, the primary feature of the 135L is beautiful IQ and bokeh and its unassuming size. It'd be hard to beat but I suppose modern IS and 1/3 stop more would make it just that much better.

Really, is 70-200 f2.8L IS II about equal to a stopped down 135L f2.0? I've heard it's good but that would be incredible.

It will need fluorite for C/A and aspherical element to keep down spherical aberration 1.8 and those things will drive up the cost and it will have increased size. Look at the size difference between the 200 2.8 and the 200 2L for instance. And the size and weight on the 200 2L is worth every penny but I doubt Canon will do it because of the 200 2L.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14802724
It will need fluorite for C/A and aspherical element to keep down spherical aberration 1.8 and those things will drive up the cost and it will have increased size. Look at the size difference between the 200 2.8 and the 200 2L for instance. And the size and weight on the 200 2L is worth every penny but I doubt Canon will do it because of the 200 2L.

Uhm..

1. we're talking an increase of 1/3 of a stop here, Sony makes a 135mm f/1.8 and its really not any bigger than the 135mm f/2L just FYI, Basically 77mm filter instead of a 72... IS wont add much to the size of the lens..

2. How will Canon lose sales of the 200 f/2 because of a 135mm f/1.8? One is 200, The other is 135, Different focal lengths entirely... i highly doubt the 135 f/2L kills sales of the 200mm f/2L since they're both f/2...

3. It would -still- be less expensive, Probubly about $1600-1700 or so, Flourite elements arent THAT expensive to add... Nor do they mean a high price tag, the Canon 70-200 f/4L (NON-IS) has a Flourite element with 2 UD glass elements in it...

4. IS is highly useful for video and Canon seems to be very interested in lens updates to make them better for video... Theres also a patent for this design, Patents do tend to lead to -something-

If it's true, it'll be very expensive!

I would be very interested in this lens