135/2L mkii ?

I love, love, love my 135L, but we really need a stabilized version.

Do we? I personally don't need it at all. Ive never had an issue with the lens.

dexy101 wrote in post #17715622
Do we? I personally don't need it at all. Ive never had an issue with the lens.

maybe we dont but i do

Whats your reason for wanting one?

dexy101 wrote in post #17715658
Whats your reason for wanting one?

My guess would be slow shutter speeds of non-moving targets in low light when flash isn't an option. Just like just about every other usecase of IS.

i tend to shoot around sunset where shutters can drop to 1/100 or less unless i go to ISO 400 or 800 if i stop down below f/2. shade is big issue at this time of day.

i'd just like to get an extra stop or two of handholding.

The ability to use slower shutter speeds to balance ambient with flash would be very useful. I have no real complaints as it is, but it could be even better.

I love the 135L bit agree that one with IS would be amazing for me.

I also would love the 135L with IS!

I'm all for it. After it releases at a premium, then stabilizes just above the price of the current version a year later, I can have my pick of used mk1 versions at around $500 ... or something like that.

I would have jumped on an IS version if they had produced it before I bought my current one, but now that I have it, I would not pay more to upgrade it. At least not before upgrading and expanding a bunch of other parts of my kit.

IS and better flare control

The 135L is just one more lens I had to learn to work within the limitations of. I sold my first copy because I can't hand-hold (effectively) 200mm. I recently purchased another copy and love it on full frame. I don't think this lens needs IS.

Primarily because I don't like being gouged by Canon. None of the current IS II lenses come close to being worth what they are asking for them. The 24-70 II is a prime example. Not as sharp wide open as some of the consumer primes. My 28 1.8 is better (OK, only in the center) at f/2.8 than this beast. So is the 35IS and the 50 1.4. Not sure about the 85 1.8, but wouldn't doubt it. You have to stop the 24-70 II down to f/5.6 to get it sharper than any of my consumer primes. And it is slower than all of them. And it still doesn't have IS for $1700! Canon is doing good work with current lenses, no doubt. They are also riding the current boom (10-15 years) boom in zooms, and making bazillions of dollars doing it. What they are not doing is giving better IQ than was available 10-15 years ago with their primes.

I like my 135L as is. I just shoot it Tv, or Av with 1/250 minimum shutter speed. I would not buy an $1800 IS version, which by the way, would not be 135 II. It would be EF 135 f/2L IS USM, no II.

then you should be all for a 135L with is as that would have brought the price of your 135L non is down in price. You could have bought a great lens for a cheaper price.

elitejp wrote in post #17717048
then you should be all for a 135L with is as that would have brought the price of your 135L non is down in price. You could have bought a great lens for a cheaper price.

True enough. But that hurts sellers as much as it help buyers. Net effect is a big fat ZERO.