Who would buy a 135 / 2.8 IS?

meland wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

meland wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Canon has released some really nice lenses as of late in the form of the 24 / 2.8 IS, 28 / 2.8 IS, and 35 / 2 IS, the latter being, from what I can tell, the most popular. One can only hope that Canon will continue these updates by making a 20 / 2.8 IS, 50 / 1.4 IS (the 50 / 1.8 update is rumored to be an STM lens without IS), 85 / 1.8 IS, and 100 / 2 IS.

But would anyone have any interest in a 135 / 2.8 IS? I mean, it's a stop slower than the fantastic 135 / 2L and the same speed as a 70-200 / 2.8L IS II. So why a 135 / 2.8 IS? Well, it would be quite a bit smaller and lighter than the 135 / 2L (think 35 / 2 IS vs 35 / 1.4L) and have IS, but would likely cost about the same. I think for many, the differences in size and weight, along with IS, would matter more than the extra stop. For those that it wouldn't, Canon would still have the 135 / 2L (or Sigma, possibly, a 135 / 1.8A OS).

With regards to the 70-200 / 2.8L IS II, well, it would be way, way, way smaller, lighter, and less expensive. One could argue that a trio consisting of an 85 / 1.8 IS, 135 / 2.8 IS, and 200 / 2.8L IS (if Canon ever made such a lens) would be comparable in price to a 70-200 / 2.8L IS II, but be significantly smaller and lighter when mounted on the camera.

So, with that in mind, would anyone get a 135 / 2.8 IS at about the same price as a 135 / 2L?

Your points are totally valid but from a manufacturer's point of view such a lens is not likely to be a priority at the moment because the potential sales would be quite small. At one point in history 135mm was probably the most popular focal length after 50mm. But once reasonable quality zooms in the 70-210 range hit the market interest in 135mm lenses declined markedly. For enthusiasts who needed a fast 135mm with apertures such as f/2.0 there was still some demand but it was not large. For everyone else the zoom was much more versatile, even if heavier or slower.

Well, 24-70 and 24-105 zooms are popular, right? The 35 / 1.4L is popular, right? And yet, the 35 / 2 IS is a popular alternative. Why not the same for a 135 / 2.8 IS?

I suppose the question is once the manufacturers no longer have the soccer moms as a market and the market really starts to shift back to enthusiasts / pros in earnest, will those enthusiasts' demands include the desire for a 135/2.8 in sufficient quantities for it to be worth making one. Technically it's not a problem.

I'm not saying such a lens would be a priority, but thinking it would be a natural extension of Canon's excellent updates of consumer primes with IS.

Although many feel that 135mm is a kind of nothing focal length.

Well, the 135 / 2L seems to be popular. If anything, I think 70mm is kind of neglected. I mean, there are 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and 70-300mm zooms, and the only 70mm prime that I'm aware of (for Canon, anyway) is the Sigma 70 / 2.8 macro (which I absolutely love, by the way!).

As you probably know it came into being largely because it was the longest focal length that would couple accurately with a Leica's rangefinder and with the emergence of SLRs it continued in popularity for a while.

Actually, I did not know that.

Plus the fact that it was a focal length that was cheap and relatively easy to design to give good performance. But on full frame it's arguably not that useful - a bit too long for portraiture and too short for a lot of sports and wildlife.

Hmm. The 200 / 2.8L seems to be far less popular and/or hailed than the 135 / 2L for either sports or portraiture, or, it would seem, just in general.  Still, I would agree that the 70-200 / 2.8L IS II would be far more versatile for either, but, again, you would pay for that versatility in terms of size, weight, and price, and pay a lot in all three categories.

Tele zooms exposed that and so it ceased to sell. Perhaps it's a bit more useful on APS-C but whether there is a big enough market for a 135/2.8 IS now is hard to say. If I were still in photo marketing I don't think I could make much of a case for it.

I dunno. A 135 / 2.8 IS would trade f/2 for IS against the 135 / 2L and trade macro for a longer focal length against the 100 / 2.8L IS macro. In both cases, it would be considerably smaller and lighter, if not less expensive, and I think that is where its appeal would lie, just like the 35 / 2 IS vs the 35 / 1.4L or 35 / 1.4A.