135L Replacement?

As of yet, it's 14 years old. That puts it up with the 180 Macro as the second oldest Canon L still in production. Going by Canon's rate of lens replacements, I think we'll be seeing it replaced sometime within the next two years. In fact, I would be surprised if Canon went out of order and replaced it more than a year plus or minus out of that. It could benefit from a new optical formula to compete with Nikon's 135 offerings.

It's still a beautiful lens, but when it's replaced what will it have? I'm expecting 5-stop IS like the 200/2.0L and maybe even a jump to a 1.8 aperture.

Don't forget the 50 1.4 as that's been out for around 18 years.. They have no reason to update the 135L imho. It's still the easiest lens I've ever used giving out perfect results. The only thing they could possibly do to make it better is add IS which would bump the price and weight up significantly which I doubt many people would buy if they used the original 135L before and know how good that is.

The 135L doesn't need a replacement or upgrade. It is a wonderful lens as is. Canon won't replace it just because its an older design.

Pre-2006 L primes that are expected to be updated from oldest to newest

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1998 EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

Pre-2005 L zooms that are expected to be updated from oldest to newest.

1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1998 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1999EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2002 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
2003 EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D was announced in 1995. What is besting both 135/2 is the 2006 Carl Zeiss ZA Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 for Sony Alphas. More than 4-stops of IS and a f-number of 1.8, 1.6 or even 1.4 would be nice.

Canon has not introduced any new non-L EF prime since 2001 and that was the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM. If DO doesn't count then 2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM was the last. It was discontinued when 2009 EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS USM was marketed.

Canon will replace it because 65MP FF sensors will outresolve and show the flaws of this film lens. It is only a question of when. I am thinking within 24 months.

The following lenses are on my update wish list.

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

there isn't much of a demand of that lens itself either. not going to be that many more folks jump out to buy it all of a sudden even if it has IS.

HyperYagami wrote in post #11905409
there isn't much of a demand of that lens itself either. not going to be that many more folks jump out to buy it all of a sudden even if it has IS.

that has always confused me a bit. i think dollar for dollar, my 135L has made me the most amount of money judging from how much i paid for it, the frequency i use it, and it's ability to impress clients. you'd think for such an impressive piece of glass at a relatively low price, the demand would be ridiculous for this thing.

dolina wrote in post #11888790
AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D was announced in 1995. What is besting both 135/2 is the 2006 Carl Zeiss ZA Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 for Sony Alphas. More than 4-stops of IS and a f-number of 1.8, 1.6 or even 1.4 would be nice.

While there is no denying that the 135/1,8 ZA is superior to both the Canon and the Nikon equivalents the Canon is optically a good lens and not in a dire need of an update. The Nikon on the other hand is...

You people are crazy thinking that the 135L needs to be updated It's a real gem in the Canon lineup. There's so much they need to focus their attention on before the 135L...

MOkoFOko wrote in post #11907005
You people are crazy thinking that the 135L needs to be updated It's a real gem in the Canon lineup. There's so much they need to focus their attention on before the 135L...

this. There is absolutely no reason for Canon to worry about trying to perfect near perfection. They need to focus on other things before they even think about updating the 135L

alt4852 wrote in post #11905467
that has always confused me a bit. i think dollar for dollar, my 135L has made me the most amount of money judging from how much i paid for it, the frequency i use it, and it's ability to impress clients. you'd think for such an impressive piece of glass at a relatively low price, the demand would be ridiculous for this thing.

the problem is once they upgrade is it's not "relatively low price" anymore. you still have to compete with all variants of 70-200mm f/2.8.

you have to admit *generally speaking* it's not the most popular lens in their lineup, it's quite niche, and in that case you'll have to charge premium in order to make economical sense, while it can't either.

Just wondering, how would everyone feel about an integrated soft-focus adjustment like the 135SF (obviously able to be set to none)? I know Nikon has their defocus control lenses that offer even more specific effects than that.

It's an even more niche lens then a fast 135mm prime.. Canons softfocus design is no more useful then Nikons DC control imo. The problem with toying around with uncorrected SA seems to be it's hard to control. Which is apparent from the many DC lenses that are out of whack right out of the box.

A design that actually makes a difference in terms of bokeh is the STF design from minolta(now rebranded as Sony), it slaps both Nikon and Canon on the fingers and offers a unique and visible look.

Despite that it's a niche lens and it's not without compromise that you get the unique look.

Damn I love my 135mm

Do you get girls pregnant with that love ?