Canon EF 135 F2L IS

DreDaze wrote in post #17921508
people used to say that about zooms faster than f2.8 though...

What zoom is faster than 2.8 for FF?

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17921817
What zoom is faster than 2.8 for FF?

sigma 24-35/2 but it's as big as a 24-70/2.8

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17921817
What zoom is faster than 2.8 for FF?

the 24-35 f2...plus with sigmas 18-35f1.8 and now 50-100 f1.8 i don't think anyone would be shocked if they came out with like an 85-135 f2 for FF in the future..if you had said that a few years ago nobody would've believed it

I forgot about the 24-35, but look at how short that focal range is. I just can't imagine seeing some thing 85-135 @F1.8 for full frame anytime soon with current technology. The size would be massive. And even if they did produce it, would the average person be willing to haul that around?

.

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?

The 400mm f2.8 IS was $7200, and it was replaced with the 400mm f2.8 iS v2 at $10,999.

The 500mm f4 IS was $5400, and it was replaced with the 500mm f4 IS v2 at $10,000.

The 600mm f4 was $7800, and it was replaced by the 600mm f4 IS 2 at $12,999.

All of these updated versions represented an increase of more than 50%. In fact, the 500 f4 was actually an 85% increase.

.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17878764
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've already sold two copies in anticipation. Ready to pay around 1600-1800 for it.

If they created a new 135L simply to replicate most Canon mk2 lenses.....that'd be "Interesting"

I prefer the IQ of my 100L f/2.8IS. Even though it's slower the IQ is more like the fresh new nano coating Canon lenses.

On the other hand seldom touch my 100L because the 70-200L f/2.8mk2 provides better perspective and is ultra versatile.

I'll eventually pick up a 135L for the heck of it but then it's a niche lens that will very likely collect dust too I'll just need it when I need faster glass in a longer prime f/2

AlanU wrote in post #17922271
On the other hand seldom touch my 100L because the 70-200L f/2.8mk2 provides better perspective and is ultra versatile.

I am really just considering selling my 135L and going the 70-200 route. It is such a good lens, and so versatile. The cost of a 85 1.8, 135L, and my Tamron 70-300VC (which is an awesome lens BTW) I can basically afford the 70-200 IS II. It won't be quite as good for those 15% of shots, but it will be better for every other shot that the 135L can't get.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17922465
I am really just considering selling my 135L and going the 70-200 route. It is such a good lens, and so versatile. The cost of a 85 1.8, 135L, and my Tamron 70-300VC (which is an awesome lens BTW) I can basically afford the 70-200 IS II. It won't be quite as good for those 15% of shots, but it will be better for every other shot that the 135L can't get.

Do it. I sold my 135L's for the 70-200 IS II. It's a boring lens, but it's reliable, zooms, has IS and gets the job done better than the 135L's. More practical. Not as finger-can't-be-placed-on-why dreamy as the 135L, but it's done very well for me with weddings and sports compared to the 135 prime. I'll get the 135 prime again either with Zeiss APO or Canon's IS when it comes out, but only in addition to the 70-200 and not as a replacement.

idkdc wrote in post #17922489
Do it. I sold my 135L's for the 70-200 IS II. It's a boring lens, but it's reliable, zooms, has IS and gets the job done better than the 135L's. More practical. Not as finger-can't-be-placed-on-why dreamy as the 135L, but it's done very well for me with weddings and sports compared to the 135 prime. I'll get the 135 prime again either with Zeiss APO or Canon's IS when it comes out, but only in addition to the 70-200 and not as a replacement.

I agree, but the thing that is keeping me from making the change is that I never photograph anything I can't stage. Portraits and automotive. So primes make sense since I can place the subject as I want and they sit still. They are cheaper, usually sharper, and weigh less.

But I also have compared the zoom directly to the 135L. Below is a quick example.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/A9Vr​ZN

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17922502
I agree, but the thing that is keeping me from making the change is that I never photograph anything I can't stage. Portraits and automotive. So primes make sense since I can place the subject as I want and they sit still.

But I also have compared the zoom directly to the 135L. Below is a quick example.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/A9Vr​ZN Comparison by Andrew Smith, on Flickr

This test wasn't done for sharpness or anything other than, when exporting at sizes I would use online, what looks the best. The 2.8 zoom and the F4 are actually pretty close when all the way down to ~135mm, but the 135L is clearly special. And since the F4 and the 2.8 are so close unless you are zoomed all of the way out to 200mm, I would MUCH prefer the F4 IS. I love the F4 feel, size, and weight. I am not a huge fan of the 2.8 IS II because of those same factors. While it would be a MUCH more expensive setup, I think a 85L and 135L would be better for my uses than the 70-200 IS II. It also doesn't hurt that I now have a Sigma 300mm F2.8 I can use if I need the length.

If you already have the 135L, the 70-200 F4L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark I will not satisfy you, or at least they never satisfied me because of the f/2 aperture and sharpness / je ne sais quoi of the 135L. If I shot strictly controlled photos, I'd personally stick with the 135L or move up to the Zeiss APO Sonnar.

idkdc wrote in post #17922521
If you already have the 135L, the 70-200 F4L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark I will not satisfy you, or at least they never satisfied me because of the f/2 aperture and sharpness / je ne sais quoi of the 135L. If I shot strictly controlled photos, I'd personally stick with the 135L or move up to the Zeiss APO Sonnar.

The only benefit I saw in the photos of the 135L over the F4 IS was the DOF and the look of the bokeh. Sharpness was the same wide open, colors looked the same, everything else was pretty much identical. The DOF at f2 is so thin anyways, I need much more practice before I can successfully use it anyways. So if I end up having to stop down to 2.8 or so to feel confident I get a completely in focus subject, both 70-200's become damn close.

Also, I hated the 2.8 IS I. It was terrible for me. I would only be considering the 2.8 IS II.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17922524
The only benefit I saw in the photos of the 135L over the F4 IS was the DOF and the look of the bokeh. Sharpness was the same wide open, colors looked the same, everything else was pretty much identical. The DOF at f2 is so thin anyways, I need much more practice before I can successfully use it anyways. So if I end up having to stop down to 2.8 or so to feel confident I get a completely in focus subject, both 70-200's become damn close.

Also, I hated the 2.8 IS I. It was terrible for me. I would only be considering the 2.8 IS II.

What body are you shooting on? I personally only shoot wide aperture with a 5D3 autofocus system or aperture. Yeah, the 2.8 IS Mark I sux. 2.8 IS Mark II is the only way to go. The 70-200 F4L IS is really only good for its flexibility in zoom and for landscapes in my opinion. For portraits, I prefer 2.8 and wider.

As a lomg time follower of the 135L thread, many sold theirs to get the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Most of them came back within a year as zoom just couldn't quite replicate the look of the 135L.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17922537
As a lomg time follower of the 135L thread, many sold theirs to get the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Most of them came back within a year as zoom just couldn't quite replicate the look of the 135L.

My resolve is strong...I will wait for the 135L IS. Never mind that I bought and sold the 135L twice before. Shush.