Canon EF 135 F2L IS

Would you sell your 135 F2L if the price was double, only for the IS ?
We all know that Canon is not only specialised in great lenses, but also in astonishing prices

Normally this year this lens will be announced
http://www.lens-rumors.com …-to-be-announced-in-2016/

I am quite happy with my 135L. Part of its appeal is the quality versus price. I paid a little over $800 new for my copy a few years ago, and could not imagine paying $1,600 just to add IS.

Heya,

As nice as IS would be, I won't pay $1500+ for that.

If all 135L's were that cost, you'd see a lot less people with them. The $700~800 thing as they are is why it's so good. If you made it double the cost, it quickly isn't quite as awesome enough to warrant hurrying up and buying it. While it's not the same, the 85L comes to mind, excellent lens, but it's cost is more the put off than anything else for most people.

I'm happy they will release an IS version of the 135L. They should do it for all their lenses frankly.

It will drive down prices on non-IS copies, so I can get them even cheaper!

Very best,

Would have liked IS when I had my 135 - but double? Would have easily paid 20 or 25% more however.

I can't imagine Canon would just slap IS on it and not any other improvements and release it like that. If they made improvements to the optics and everything about the lens and released that with IS, I'd buy it. Otherwise, IS would be nice, but I don't care about it that much.

While the 135 is an amazing lens, I did find that I was needing to use a shutter of 1/200 to get consistently sharp images. I would consider my hands to be steadier than average...for my primary job I'm using sharp objects on human tissue and haven't killed anybody yet. I don't know what it is about the shape, size, weight and focal length combined, but it was real trouble for me. IS would have been welcomed, but certainly not at double the price.

For double the price, I'd need at least the same optical quality, IS, and maybe a slightly wider aperture. Just imagine a 135 f/1.4L IS...now that would be amazing.

If I take a look at my gear and prioritize where I would spend money on additions or upgrades, the 135/2 is about the bottom of that list. My 100L is probably the only lens lower on the list. So I woul dt spend any money upgrading to a 135/2 IS, not at least until the rest of my kit was completed. Now a 200/2.8 IS might tempt me if the price was kept around $1000-1200.

I think the FL is kind of niche. It would be nice to have IS, but not at that premium.

No.

Just for the record. I don't believe Canon is updating the 135L. The current model still sells like hot-cakes. The demand for new, refurbished, and used units is strong. Investing R&D for something that is working well makes little sense. Even if they do update it, I doubt it will have IS. Canon refused to put IS in the 24-70 f/2.8L update for IQ reasons. Huge success story there. Same argument applies to the 135L. I think.

mannetti21 wrote in post #17879043
While the 135 is an amazing lens, I did find that I was needing to use a shutter of 1/200 to get consistently sharp images. I would consider my hands to be steadier than average...for my primary job I'm using sharp objects on human tissue and haven't killed anybody yet. I don't know what it is about the shape, size, weight and focal length combined, but it was real trouble for me. IS would have been welcomed, but certainly not at double the price.

For double the price, I'd need at least the same optical quality, IS, and maybe a slightly wider aperture. Just imagine a 135 f/1.4L IS...now that would be amazing.

It would also be a heck of a lot larger and heavier than the current 135L f/2.

where are you coming up with double the price? it'd be more, but i can't imagine it'd be double the price...it's more like would you pay $1,200-$1,300 for the lens...so an extra $200-$300...I'm sure many would...which i like, because then i could get an old one for cheaper

I considering switching to a Sony body simply for the IBIS. Take that for what it's worth...

DreDaze wrote in post #17879471
where are you coming up with double the price? it'd be more, but i can't imagine it'd be double the price...it's more like would you pay $1,200-$1,300 for the lens...so an extra $200-$300...I'm sure many would...which i like, because then i could get an old one for cheaper

If you honestly think that Canon would update the lens, add IS, and only charge $200-300 more, I would bet you my 135L that it introduces at least at $1,499 if not more.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17879474
If you honestly think that Canon would update the lens, add IS, and only charge $200-300 more, I would bet you my 135L that it introduces at least at $1,499 if not more.

meh, if it's replacing the lens entirely and the original is being discontinued i don't think it's that far off...the 35LII went up in price 18%, the 100-400L price went up from 1699 to 2199 a 24% raise...so all of a sudden they're going to make it a 50% mark up?

have they ever done that with any lens?

DreDaze wrote in post #17879499
meh, if it's replacing the lens entirely and the original is being discontinued i don't think it's that far off...the 35LII went up in price 18%, the 100-400L price went up from 1699 to 2199 a 24% raise...so all of a sudden they're going to make it a 50% mark up?

have they ever done that with any lens?

What was the 24-70 I vs the 24-70 II? I don't know personally. But by adding IS, they are kind of creating a new lens. The people who LOVE the 135L looks but dont like that it is no IS, are going to have no choice but to pay for it. While the people who currently have the 135L arent going to swap for the IS as they have learned to use it without IS. They wont be able to get all that much better IQ out of it, and since Sigma, Nikon, Sony all dont have a great 135mm F2 lens, Canon will gouge us. At least that's my thoughts. Also, I think Canon should be selling the lens for more than they are. I honestly wonder if they regret pricing it as such.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17879528
What was the 24-70 I vs the 24-70 II? I don't know personally. But by adding IS, they are kind of creating a new lens. The people who LOVE the 135L looks but dont like that it is no IS, are going to have no choice but to pay for it. While the people who currently have the 135L arent going to swap for the IS as they have learned to use it without IS. They wont be able to get all that much better IQ out of it, and since Sigma, Nikon, Sony all dont have a great 135mm F2 lens, Canon will gouge us. At least that's my thoughts. Also, I think Canon should be selling the lens for more than they are. I honestly wonder if they regret pricing it as such.

yeah, that was definitely closer to a 50% raise in price...and you are right about the no competition...that rumor of a sigma 135 f1.8 OS needs to come true to drop all the prices

i feel like canon's recent prices haven't been as crazy as they were a couple years back though