No news of a RF 135mm f/1.4L IS USM for <$4K?

Click said:

Beautiful sky. Nicely done, danfaz.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Click!

HenryL said:

Beautiful images, especially the first one. The foreground adds just the right elements to complement the sky imho.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Henry!
The 2nd shot was the first one I took, but then I saw the reflection of sky and moon in the water, so pulled back to get that. I do prefer that one, as well.

Exploreshootshare said:

100mm F1.4 sounds like anvery nice bookend for the vcm prime lens lineup. I speculated canon might come up with one, but I was told by forum members that would be physically impossible. If this one is a bit longer and it works out, great!

Click to expand...

This design isn't a true 100mm f1.4, but instead 97.50mm f1.46 which would give you a minimum 66.78mm front element - just small enough to use their 67mm circular filter size.

Beautiful images, especially the first one. The foreground adds just the right elements to complement the sky imho.

josephandrews222 said:

...there are comments on here, and then there are real world comments on here.

This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done.

Canon's implementation of IS in its lenses? Indispensable for my own photography.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it's real enough, but the 28-70mm f/2 is my main lens for work.
I work photography full-time, photographing news (not sports) and events. Last year I took about 40k photographs with that lens alone, and I do not use burst shooting at all.

My base shutter speed is 1/200, that is what I set my cameras to when putting them in the bag.
By default, the 28-70 f/2 goes attached to the R6. The RP is carried without a lens, so I can choose whether I'll attach the 16mm or the 70-200, when I arrive at my destinations - sometimes I don't use the RP.

If there's enough light, I try to maintain at least 1/200. However, if I'm shooting inanimate subjects (or a room), I'll drop the shutter speed to lower my ISO. When in the field, for inanimate subjects, my usual lower limit with the R6 is 1/10th, whatever the focal length from 28 to 200mm. I may go lower with the 16mm, to half a second or one second. If I'm using electronic shutter, then half a second is the limit.

In all scenarios, the stabilisation systems can go further, but I'm not doing math in the field, I just pick a shutter speed I know will work with all my lenses. Also, it becomes tiring changing so many settings for one or two photographs, and I'm still carrying my bag in the other shoulder, so the steadiness of my body isn't necessarily at its best.

My only lens with IS is the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, all my other lenses are unstabilised. So yes, I find IBIS to be very effective.

I don't know, does that sound real enough?

roby17269 said:

Well, mine arrived yesterday after an excruciating 1-month wait
The Adorama rep told me that they cannot keep those in stock... and that there were 20-ish people in the queue after me, but they receive 2-3 a week, so there's that

Click to expand...

If 1 month is "an excruciating wait", how would you define our waiting for the RF 35mm f/1,2, sophisticated torture maybe ?

It’s certainly a nice option if you want to run a trio of fast primes, 100mm / 50mm / 24mm. It keeps the focal length math very tidy.

Beautiful sky. Nicely done, danfaz.

On a different note: a 100mm „bang-for-buck“ lens sounds great! Would it be possible to make such a lens like the 45mm F1.2?

Also, was the EF 100mm a bang for buck lens like the ef50mm f1.8 or more like the RF35mm f1.8 when looking at the rrp?

100mm F1.4 sounds like anvery nice bookend for the vcm prime lens lineup. I speculated canon might come up with one, but I was told by forum members that would be physically impossible. If this one is a bit longer and it works out, great!

A couple of different shots of this moon rising behind some storm clouds.
Canon R52 + RF 24-105 f/2.8

riker said:

I just had a recent experience with the 28-70/2, shooting in low light conditions (event). I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images and probably how much I got used using IS. I had to explicitly focus on having a steady hand which I haven't much done in the past ~15y.

Click to expand...

josephandrews222 said:

...there are comments on here, and then there are real world comments on here.

This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done.

Canon's implementation of IS in its lenses? Indispensable for my own photography.

Click to expand...

It would help if the real world comment included the body being used, because the post implies that there was no stabilization happening, yet on bodies with IBIS the 28-70/2 has excellent stabilization as I know from personal experience.

Since you’re commenting further on the real world applicability of the post, that brings up another point. Personally, I shoot a lot of low light events, and I get a little to no benefit from image stabilization in the wide and standard focal lengths. At the events, I typically shoot in low light (concerts, performances, etc.), the lowest shutter speed I use is 1/125 s and that is plenty fast enough to eliminate the effect of camera shake with a 70 mm lens. I mean, maybe if the event was a sculpture display, then IS would be of benefit… As always, YMMV.

I do get benefit from IS when shooting low light events with the 100-300/2.8, though.

riker said:

Surprisingly yes.
I just had a recent experience with the 28-70/2, shooting in low light conditions (event). I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images and probably how much I got used using IS. I had to explicitly focus on having a steady hand which I haven't much done in the past ~15y.

Btw, I don't really see Canon leaving IS behind despite the development of IBIS. I believe it's the combination of the two which can give a real good result.

Click to expand...

...there are comments on here, and then there are real world comments on here.

This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done.

Canon's implementation of IS in its lenses? Indispensable for my own photography.

riker said:

Surprisingly yes.
I just had a recent experience with the 28-70/2, shooting in low light conditions (event). I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images and probably how much I got used using IS. I had to explicitly focus on having a steady hand which I haven't much done in the past ~15y.

Click to expand...

I presume you’re using a camera that lacks IBIS. The point being made was that the 28-70/2 delivers 8 stops of stabilization with IBIS alone, which is the same as the 24-70/2.8 IS achieves in combination with IBIS.

riker said:

Btw, I don't really see Canon leaving IS behind despite the development of IBIS. I believe it's the combination of the two which can give a real good result. Especially at higher focal lengths, but I'm no expert, can't draw a graph

Click to expand...

Canon has a graph for you (not a proper one, since it’s lacking numbers on the axes). You are certainly correct that the benefit of lens IS is mainly with longer focal lengths.

EOS 4 Life said:

Yes, some of us own cinema cameras.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It's outside my area. But I have seen it said that cinema cameras are usually used with rigs (is that the word?) to stabilise them? Cinema lenses don't usually have IS, do they?

Zadak said:

Well, according to a recent article, Yodobashi sees Hasselblad XCD 2,8–4/35–100E as the #1 selling lens these days

Click to expand...

Well, mine arrived yesterday after an excruciating 1-month wait
The Adorama rep told me that they cannot keep those in stock... and that there were 20-ish people in the queue after me, but they receive 2-3 a week, so there's that

scyrene said:

Is IS necessary when IBIS works so well with it?

Click to expand...

Yes, some of us own cinema cameras.

eero said:

Have you ever had issues with pocketable cameras that end up full of dust inside?

Click to expand...

I got a neoprene case for my V1.

mangobutter said:

My guess, RF 28-50 1.8 or 24-35 1.8, the latter one probably being a bit harder to make. I do not think there will be a 1.4 zoom.

Click to expand...

f/1.8 is not really different enough from f/2 unless they add IS or something

Well, according to a recent article, Yodobashi sees Hasselblad XCD 2,8–4/35–100E as the #1 selling lens these days

Berowne said:

So, if Canon will make a fast zoom, we should expect a plastic phantastic with low image quality like the 1.2/45 or APS-C glass. But definitely not a L Lens.

Click to expand...

What do you class as low quality?

The 1.2/45 is not trying to be the sharpest lens in the world, just a reasonable priced offering for the masses.

Ph0t0 said:

I hope they really release something like this.
For my use ... something in the area of 35-85mm f1.4 would be a dream lens. Even if it is a 50-85mm f1.4 I would still buy it.

Click to expand...

I'm OK with 50-85/1.8

scyrene said:

Is IS necessary when IBIS works so well with it?

Click to expand...

Surprisingly yes.
I just had a recent experience with the 28-70/2, shooting in low light conditions (event). I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images and probably how much I got used using IS. I had to explicitly focus on having a steady hand which I haven't much done in the past ~15y.

Btw, I don't really see Canon leaving IS behind despite the development of IBIS. I believe it's the combination of the two which can give a real good result. Especially at higher focal lengths, but I'm no expert, can't draw a graph
2025 - 14-30 IS, 16-28 IS
2024 - 28-70 IS