Who would buy a 135 / 2.8 IS?

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?

Not me, I will not trade my 135 F2 for the 135 F2.8 with IS, I hardly feel the need to use IS especially when shooting at F2, I don't shoot in the cave, LOL, so i rather have a faster lens (for DOF control and stopping action) instead of giving up one stop for the IS, however, base on what I saw, I would definitely trade my 135L for the Zeiss 135 APO F2 in the near future.

As for 135L F2.8 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 IS II, yeah I think the size will be quite different and for most people that's a important thing, but I sure hope if they actually bring out the 135 F2.8 IS, they better have a better boken than the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, I am no big fan of that lens in terms of Bokeh, I found my MK I version is better in this regard, but the MKII is day and night sharper at the long end wide open so I did upgraded it, but I normally don't use it for portrait but use it for events.

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.

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.

Such a lens wouldn't appeal to me as the 135L is my favorite lens.  I use it practically exclusively for portraits and mostly portraits of my 2.5 year old and friends her age.  I've noticed with them that their fast moving eyes need a decently fast shutter speed (1/200+) so camera/lens shake is rarely a problem as I'm shooting fast enough to eliminate the eye movement/blur.

However, if I didn't already have the 135L and was in the market for a 135 prime, I'd ABSOLUTELY consider it.  I'm a big fan of IS in lenses!

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?

Nope - F2 is what makes the 135L special to me and the F2 lens weight is nice as it stands. I also have the 100 F2.8Macro w/ IS, and between the 135L and 100L I have everything covered. I am guessing they will not come out w a F2 135 w/ IS, but if they did it would be NICE but cost as much as my 100L and 135L 

having highest admiration for canon 70-200 f4.0IS, which equals or beat all of the primes in that FL range, i don't think i'd be thinking about 135 f2.8IS (i suppose you mean 135 2.8 L IS). that is coming from someone who had the 70-200 f4.0IS (and has 13-14 other "L" lenses) for the last 6 years and lost it very recently

syd

Steve W wrote:

At least that's what I do. I have my 5DIII and 1DX and love to use my 135/2L on it but have also put it on my A7-II with IBIS and now its image stabilized. AF very slow with the Metabones adapter but manual focus is fast and easy with the EVF, focus peaking and focus magnification.

Yes.

I don't have the A7ii but that would be a great combination.

The 135 f2 L is one of my favourite lenses now after the 17 adn24 TS-E lenses, the difference is I find the CANON TS-Es to be much more useable on the A7s/A7 than the 7D.

The 135 on the other hand is wonderful for different reasons on all three.

Fast AF in good light on the 7D and on the A7s and A7 wider AF point choice is available and can be used with the sun in or near the frame.......AF is actually useable for me on the A7/A7s with this lens ....not for fast action or chasing kids but for seated/stationary adults is ok.......in the lowest of light the a7s will auto focus the lens (AF-S) when the 7D will not.

The A7 is good at ISO 12800 and the A7s at least two stops higher so IBIS is less needed.

For birds in flight AF is easy with the Canon 7D.....

So a 135 2.8 IS would be great for many but I don't think I need it....and love the 135 f2 L.

rebel99 wrote:

having highest admiration for canon 70-200 f4.0IS, which equals or beat all of the primes in that FL range...

...by which measure the 70-200 / 4L IS "equals or beat all of the primes in that FL range".

...i don't think i'd be thinking about 135 f2.8IS (i suppose you mean 135 2.8 L IS)...

No, not 135 / 2.8L IS.  Think a 135 / 2.8 IS along the same lines as the 35 / 2 IS.  So, the 135 / 2.8 IS would compare to the 135 / 2L in the same way that the 35 / 2 IS compares to the 35 / 1.4L.

...that is coming from someone who had the 70-200 f4.0IS (and has 13-14 other "L" lenses) for the last 6 years and lost it very recently

syd

Collett 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?

Nope - F2 is what makes the 135L special to me and the F2 lens weight is nice as it stands. I also have the 100 F2.8Macro w/ IS, and between the 135L and 100L I have everything covered. I am guessing they will not come out w a F2 135 w/ IS, but if they did it would be NICE but cost as much as my 100L and 135L

...isn't f/1.4 what makes the 35 / 1.4L special?  Yet the 35 / 2 IS seems to be a rather popular alternative.  This is why I was thinking a 135 / 2.8 IS would be a popular alternative to the 135 / 2L.

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.

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.  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.  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.  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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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'm glad I don't fit the mold for the average photographer.  I LOVE the 135L for portraits!

It works well even from about 15' away (+/-) even for portraits of couples

My parents on the beach last night

Or much closer for head and shoulders shots

My niece on the beach last night

It's far and away my favorite lens

Abu Mahendra wrote:

No, but I would consider buying a 100F2 IS, a modern remake of the existing lens.

As a happy 100 / 2 owner, I would love such an update.  Thing is, given the popularity of the 85 / 1.8 and 100 / 2.8L IS macro, I have a feeling such an update will never come.

Great Bustard wrote:

Collett 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?

Nope - F2 is what makes the 135L special to me and the F2 lens weight is nice as it stands. I also have the 100 F2.8Macro w/ IS, and between the 135L and 100L I have everything covered. I am guessing they will not come out w a F2 135 w/ IS, but if they did it would be NICE but cost as much as my 100L and 135L

...isn't f/1.4 what makes the 35 / 1.4L special? Yet the 35 / 2 IS seems to be a rather popular alternative. This is why I was thinking a 135 / 2.8 IS would be a popular alternative to the 135 / 2L.

Oh, you had to bring up that example. The one where I own the 35 F1.4 (Sigma Art) and the Canon F2 w/ IS

Actually I think there is a bit of distinction in that, with 135mm at F2.8 (vs 35mm at F2), there is more competition with not only the 70-200F2.8IS, but also, as you mention below, the fine 100L. I am thinking the large installment base and flexibility of the 100L would make it a more popular stabilized telephoto prime over a 135mmF2.8IS.

Now 135 at F2 w/ IS - that is another matter.

Collett wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Collett 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?

Nope - F2 is what makes the 135L special to me and the F2 lens weight is nice as it stands. I also have the 100 F2.8Macro w/ IS, and between the 135L and 100L I have everything covered. I am guessing they will not come out w a F2 135 w/ IS, but if they did it would be NICE but cost as much as my 100L and 135L

...isn't f/1.4 what makes the 35 / 1.4L special? Yet the 35 / 2 IS seems to be a rather popular alternative. This is why I was thinking a 135 / 2.8 IS would be a popular alternative to the 135 / 2L.

Oh, you had to bring up that example. The one where I own the 35 F1.4 (Sigma Art) and the Canon F2 w/ IS

Actually I think there is a bit of distinction in that, with 135mm at F2.8 (vs 35mm at F2), there is more competition with not only the 70-200F2.8IS, but also, as you mention below, the fine 100L. I am thinking the large installment base and flexibility of the 100L would make it a more popular stabilized telephoto prime over a 135mmF2.8IS.

But the 100 / 2.8L IS macro, and especially the 70-200 / 2.8L IS II, would be *massive* in comparison to a 135 / 2.8 IS.

Now 135 at F2 w/ IS - that is another matter.

For that, there will be Sigma Art.  But, again, it will be huge compared to a 135 / 2.8 IS.