Canon needs a medium telephoto with IS

I was looking at my lenses recently, thinking what do I need / want? I realized I don't have an optimal low light telephoto lens. The 70-300L has IS but is rather slow - the 135L is 2.0 but no IS.

The current Canon 70-200s are all a bit short compared to the 70-300L, and I can't really justify owning two zooms. So what I really want is a fast prime with IS. But the only ones Canon makes are the expensive pro lenses (200 2.0, 300 2.8, etc.) and the 100mm macro (still a bit slow at 2.8). For whatever reason Canon has not come out with a reasonably fast 85mm, 100mm, or 135mm lens with IS. Why?

I don't know how lenses are built, but would the IS assembly combined with a large aperture make the lens too big for most people?

goldboughtrue wrote in post #16022686
I don't know how lenses are built, but would the IS assembly combined with a large aperture make the lens too big for most people?

IS assemblies aren't very big or heavy, large aperture is what adds size/weight.

Some of the new IS lens are smaller and lighter than their old non IS version(like the MKII primes-this has more to do with new designs and materials used). I can't think of a lens that uses similar construction that IS version has any real difference in size/weight than the non IS version.

you mean like the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII, or the 200 F2?

People have been clamoring for an update to the 135L for some time. A few minutes in this section of the forum should show that. The 85L is plagued by complaints of slow focusing (they're right). If either of these were to get an update IS would be a welcome inclusion. Personally I would have predicted they would include IS in the 24-70 II, but they didn't. I would be surprised if whatever medium telephoto they roll out next isn't stabilized. They could certainly charge for it.

85L IS


Get to work Canon.

lovemyram4x4 wrote in post #16024708
I can't think of a lens that uses similar construction that IS version has any real difference in size/weight than the non IS version.

The 70-200/2.8 non-IS's 240g/8.5oz difference compared to the IS/IS-II's, is definitely noticeable, and the IS lenses typically have more lens elements than the non-IS versions.

koala yummies wrote in post #16024973
The 70-200/2.8 non-IS's 240g/8.5oz difference compared to the IS/IS-II's, is definitely noticeable.

But keep in mind, that those lenses were different optical designs, not just strapping IS on an existing lens. Look at the number of elements and groups.

If the 70-200mm options, of which there are 5 made by Canon, three with IS, is too short, how will a 135mm f/2 with IS help?

And you mention the affordable 200mm f/2.8L as well, but again, there are already two lenses in that FL and speed with IS.

If 200mm is too short, your into 300mm territory, where there most certainly is an affordable IS prime. 300mm f/4L IS

Although I'm all for a 135mm IS, I am still confused by your logic in the initial post where you seem to want a faster 70-300mm L.. (ie a HUGE SIGMA 120-300mm, or maybe the SIGMA 100-300mm f/4 EX with OS.. I'd like to see that lens too.)

gonzogolf wrote in post #16024978
But keep in mind, that those lenses were different optical designs, not just strapping IS on an existing lens. Look at the number of elements and groups.

Yes, precisely. Thus, heavier. (I was editing and typing that into my reply as you replied). Both your post and my post demonstrate the inaccuracy of the post about IS lenses not being any heavier than non-IS counterparts with the same aperture and focal length.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16024978
But keep in mind, that those lenses were different optical designs, not just strapping IS on an existing lens. Look at the number of elements and groups.

You have to add elements and groups for IS..

I'm not saying the lenses are identical otherwise, but, IS does add both a new group of optics and the motors to move it all.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16024992
You have to add elements and groups for IS..

I'm not saying the lenses are identical otherwise, but, IS does add both a new group of optics and the motors to move it all.

yeah but each as also been an optical upgrade so its hard to tell how much each of that adds.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16024980
If the 70-200mm options, of which there are 5 made by Canon, three with IS, is too short, how will a 135mm f/2 with IS help?

And you mention the affordable 200mm f/2.8L as well, but again, there are already two lenses in that FL and speed with IS.

If 200mm is too short, your into 300mm territory, where there most certainly is an affordable IS prime. 300mm f/4L IS

Although I'm all for a 135mm IS, I am still confused by your logic in the initial post where you seem to want a faster 70-300mm L.. (ie a HUGE SIGMA 120-300mm, or maybe the SIGMA 100-300mm f/4 EX with OS.. I'd like to see that lens too.)

Sorry, I probably didn't explain my situation very well ...

- The 70-300L is my telephoto lens of choice, and I probably will not change. The 70-200s are all great but a bit short (I shoot at 300mm a lot), and after having owned a 1.4x TC for a bit I realized it isn't for me. (In theory I'd love a f4 70-300, but I suspect after seeing the size and price of this lens I might stick with what I have.)
- My only issue with the 70-300L is it is a bit slow, even considering it has IS. The 135L is fine for indoor sports, but for things like school shows etc. a prime lens with IS would help me use a slower shutter speed (1/60 or thereabouts).
- Canon's only tele options with IS are the "pro" lenses like the 200 2.0L IS and 300 2.8L IS (both way out of my budget), the 300mm 4.0L, and the 100mm 2.8L IS Macro.

What I'm really hoping for is a (somewhat) reasonably priced prime lens with a 2.0 aperture and IS. Best case is a 135L IS, but I'd settle for an updated 100. Anything past 135mm will likely be way over my budget.

jrbdmb wrote in post #16027374
Sorry, I probably didn't explain my situation very well ...

- The 70-300L is my telephoto lens of choice, and I probably will not change. The 70-200s are all great but a bit short (I shoot at 300mm a lot), and after having owned a 1.4x TC for a bit I realized it isn't for me. (In theory I'd love a f4 70-300, but I suspect after seeing the size and price of this lens I might stick with what I have.)
- My only issue with the 70-300L is it is a bit slow, even considering it has IS. The 135L is fine for indoor sports, but for things like school shows etc. a prime lens with IS would help me use a slower shutter speed (1/60 or thereabouts).
- Canon's only tele options with IS are the "pro" lenses like the 200 2.0L IS and 300 2.8L IS (both way out of my budget), the 300mm 4.0L, and the 100mm 2.8L IS Macro.

What I'm really hoping for is a (somewhat) reasonably priced prime lens with a 2.0 aperture and IS. Best case is a 135L IS, but I'd settle for an updated 100. Anything past 135mm will likely be way over my budget.

So all you want is a cheap, sharp lens, Fast aperture, fast focus, No problem. I'm sure canon will have it hand delivered by a sleigh pulled by a team of unicorns.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16027387
So all you want is a cheap, sharp lens, Fast aperture, fast focus, No problem. I'm sure canon will have it hand delivered by a sleigh pulled by a team of unicorns.

I'd settle for a old fat bearded dude accompanied by eight reindeer.

I know a 135L IS is going to be $1500 minimum, and even a new 100mm IS will probably get close to $1000. I'm just not quite prepared to man up and pay $6000 for the 200 2.0L.

jrbdmb wrote in post #16027411
I'd settle for a old fat bearded dude accompanied by eight reindeer.

I know a 135L IS is going to be $1500 minimum, and even a new 100mm IS will probably get close to $1000. I'm just not quite prepared to man up and pay $6000 for the 200 2.0L.

Looking at past trends I think the 135L is more likely $2k.