I really like the first one. Great shot! Well done, Alan.

scyrene said:

Some headline apertures ratios are narrower* on RF lenses than what came before, but again this issue has been blown out of proportion by forum chatter. The best example is the RF 100-500, which is no narrower than the EF 100-400 which it replaced, it just adds more focal length and so the maximum aperture at the long end is a narrower f-stop. The only objective deficiency of that newer lens is the weird extender compatibility restriction.

Click to expand...

The 100-500 is F6.3 at 400mm. But i agree most people on internet comparing it to other 100-400 lenses that stop at 400mm. Same situation with the RF 100-400 - most people compare it to other professional 100-400 lenses, while in fact it's a cheap 70-300 replacement with added 100mm.

Blackheaded Gull (R5ii/200-800mm).

P-visie said:

It is the belief that optically corrected lenses are better than digitally corrected lenses.

Click to expand...

When considering the end result, why? As far as I can tell nearly all lenses need some type of corrections or Photoshop wouldn't have all those profiles.

SvO2 said:

Heavy though

Click to expand...

Just a little and with the adapter is even more front heavy; that's why I'm looking forward to this new 45 f1.2 if it is any good

DocInfoSci said:

Quite a few of the general purpose modern lenses on shelf feature darker glass than prior equivalents so demand more sensor sensitivity if shooting the same times of day in the same degrees of shade as prior sensor or glass offerings for comparable tiers.

Click to expand...

Some headline apertures ratios are narrower* on RF lenses than what came before, but again this issue has been blown out of proportion by forum chatter. The best example is the RF 100-500, which is no narrower than the EF 100-400 which it replaced, it just adds more focal length and so the maximum aperture at the long end is a narrower f-stop. The only objective deficiency of that newer lens is the weird extender compatibility restriction.

*Better high ISO capabilities is one reason for this, as you say, but as has been discussed on these forums in the past, (probably) the main reason Canon brought out RF lenses with narrower maximum apertures is that the mirrorless system allows autofocus in much dimmer light, so they were no longer arbitrarily restricted to f/5.6. I'm sure we would have seen such lenses in the EF era otherwise - it's not a drift towards darkness, it's an opening up of more possibilities in lens design.

DocInfoSci said:

OK, so I was probably a little harsh with the middle finger. But it's still no longer a "thanks for keeping with us non-pro still shooters" message. Maybe that's just a sign of the times, though.

Click to expand...

I don't know if any camera release is ever done as a thank you to existing customers. They just want to sell as many as possible - to whomever they deem most likely to part with some money.

My 40 Art's AF seems accurate enough, but it's definitely slower and noisier than most Canon USM lenses I've used.

Ridiculously sharp even wide open despite being one of the cheapest lenses I own. Heavy though

GMCPhotographics said:

My experiance with 3rd party lenses is that they are often very sharp, comparitively so. It's the rest of the hardware is often the dissapointment. The AF and / or IS systems are weaker on 3rd party. AF is less consistent and less accurate. The build and durability is poorer and often there's a difference in contrast, colours and rendering. Flare suppression on Canon L series is usally top drawer, 3rd party is a but of a crap shoot with flare and ghosting.

Click to expand...

The AF of the latest Art/Sports Sigma lenses (15mm f/1.4 fisheye, 35mm f/1.2 II, 135mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2, for example) is instantaneous and the weather sealing and build quality is top notch. The lens coatings are excellent as well and the behaviour of the lenses is just like a pro grade first party lens.

m4ndr4ke said:

That ended when Canon launched the RF mount, back in 2018 lol. We all know Canon's EF lenses work a lot better on mirrorless cameras than they did on DSLRs. Generally speaking, the same happened with third party glass from reputable brands. It's time to stop relying on outdated information, that is misleading at this point - it's been 7 years.

Click to expand...

I can guarantee my 40 Art, 105 Art and 24-105 Art are as good as any Canon RF (yes, RF, non EF) when comparing consistency and accuracy; they're also so well integrated in my Canon body (and surely Sigma paid licence for this, getting in return full access to AF algorithms and in body corrections) then when I connect them to my R6 (and same was on my 6D that lived with me for almost 10 years) the camera recognise them by the name, and they enjoy corrections for vignette, distortion, chromatic aberrations and diffraction for jpeg and video, and even real time on lcd and evf on the ML cameras. Only the DLO is not available for the Sigma's, otherwise Canon bodies treat them as proper Canon lenses.

(internet picture)


About durability, no problems whatsoever, and about build quality, well, I guess many have never taken into their hand an Art lens from the last 10 years (but also many top tier Tamron's, and now Chinese are getting also there), their build is as robust, if not more, then any current RF L lens to date.

"It's time to stop relying on outdated information"

YES, definitely

Last year I bought almost immediately the RF 28-70 STM, and if the 45 f1.2 is any good I'll be surely ordering as soon as I see trusted reviews (and I'll ditch the 40 Art which is probably the sharpest lens on the market, period), so I'm not a Canon hater by design, I enjoy Canon since 1999 in the film era and never had any other photo system apart from Hasselblad V, but I'm not blind to the rest of the market, and the progress that Sigma and Tamron did (which makes them in my eyes "first party" lens manufacturers on pair with CanNikSon), and that Chinese manufacturers are doing right now.

Lovely series, ISv.

GMCPhotographics said:

AF is less consistent and less accurate.

Click to expand...

That ended when Canon launched the RF mount, back in 2018 lol. We all know Canon's EF lenses work a lot better on mirrorless cameras than they did on DSLRs. Generally speaking, the same happened with third party glass from reputable brands. Come on, it's time to stop relying on outdated information, that is misleading at this point - it's been 7 years.

GMCPhotographics said:

The build and durability is poorer

Click to expand...

Better in many cases, specially considering many third party lenses cost as much as low end to medium range offerings from first parties.

GMCPhotographics said:

often there's a difference in contrast, colours and rendering.

Click to expand...

Well, that's to be expected, I guess. Each brand with their own signature. Heck, even among the same brand we don't have the same rendering across all lenses. Just yesterday, or two days ago, I was here commenting that I'm not very fond of the lower contrast look of the RF 50mm f/1.2, that differs from my 28-70mm f/2.

GMCPhotographics said:

Flare suppression on Canon L series is usally top drawer

Click to expand...

That's actually an area where I'm not a very happy Canon customer lol. This is not to say that every lens from other brands is better, but I see a lot of offerings from our opponents retaining a lot more contrast when the sun is in the frame. Try comparing a few Canon RF lenses against Sony or Sigma DN lenses, you may be in for a surprise.

I hope that the new 45mm 1.2 is going to be a sharp lens with slow AF and cheap housing. And that the replacement for 50mm 1.2 is a f1.0 lens.

m4ndr4ke said:

You’re giving way too much credit to the Sigma’s sharpness.

Like I said to someone else, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is sharp, but it’s not THAT sharp. It was excellent by 2014 standards, when it was released, but that was 11 years ago.
A modern f/1.4 or f/1.2 prime lens, wide open, performs as good as the Sigma did stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4.

Anyway, I never bought f/1.4 for portraits, I did it for the light, because f/2.8 to f/1.4 is a very big difference, and not every environment allows the use of flash.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Click to expand...

My experiance with 3rd party lenses is that they are often very sharp, comparitively so. It's the rest of the hardware is often the dissapointment. The AF and / or IS systems are weaker on 3rd party. AF is less consistent and less accurate. The build and durability is poorer and often there's a difference in contrast, colours and rendering. Flare suppression on Canon L series is usally top drawer, 3rd party is a but of a crap shoot with flare and ghosting.

Walrus said:

Had the 135 L for many years, it's a beautiful lens, and still sharp by today standard, at least on all 20mpx bodies I had (5D II and 6D), and also AF was pretty good, and we all know that EF lenses on R bodies works even better then on DSLR's, so I think today is still good for some indoor sports, and certainly for portraits and weddings.

Also consider the Sigma 135 f1.8 Art (which I swapped the 135 L for in the past; now I also ditched it for the 105 1.4 Art) which is a beautiful lens, depending on what you're looking for; the Canon is probably slightly more 3D's and probably has a smoother render of bokeh highlights, with a more "classic" look, while the Sigma is razor sharp even at f1.8 and certainly more "clinical".

I know many prefer global rendering over absolute sharpness, personally I just prefer a sharper lens, that I can "sweeten" in post if needed, rather then a softer look which is more complicate to sharpen if needed; I saw the difference between the Canon and the Sigma, but for my taste, I happily sacrificed a tad of rendering for a definitely sharper lens.

Click to expand...

My copy of the EF 135mm f2.0 L is a bit battered. It's had a hard life and it's delivered consistently when other lenses would have given up the ghost many times over. One of the benefots of the EF 135mm f2.0 L is that it can take a 1.4x tc with minimal drop in IQ. The 2x TC is pretty poor optically on this lens.
For me, I can do 95% on this lens with what i can do on my 70-200/2.8 II LIS. I can often take a few steps forwards and make up the difference between a 200 & 135mm lens. If notm, there's the 1.4x TC or even drop my R5 into 1.6x crop mode and it's a very sweet approx 200mm. It's way lighter and smaller than the EF zoom and gives slightly nicer results (in my opinion). Although the RF 70-200mm f2.8 LIS is pretty spectacular in terms of it's physical size and weight. If I have a 24-70 f2.8 with me, I use the long end of that lens to compliment my 135 on my other camera.
My EF 85mm f1.2 IIL is boarderline sharp enough wide open for my R6ii and R5....I need a lot of post sharpening for that particaulr lens. My 135, is matching or even very slightly out resolves both my R6ii and R5 sensors. I need a touch more sharpening on my R5 than I would with my EF 24-70mm f2.8 II L. but it's close.
The achillies heel of the EF 135mm f2.0 L (and also the EF 85mm f1.2 II L) is strong magenta / green Loca on spectacular highlights. it's easily corrected in Lightroom, but it is very strong on these two lenses. The other issue on my R5 and R6ii is AF point accuracy, the smallest AF box is still too large for the super slim DOF these two lenses produce and the view finders (although excellent) don't seem to make the exact point of focus pop as much as I would like. If I put a subject on a 30' slant, the smallest AF window on offer on either camera covers quite a lot of distance in the AF window and literally could be anywhere in that window.
I am getting the best AF results out of my R6ii and R5 with these two lenses than I've ever seen before with DSLR 5D series cameras.
I have tried a RF 135mm f1.8 LIS.
The rendering was very similar to my older lens. It lens was a lot larger and heavier (although the size isn't a lot different to my adapted ef 135mm f2.0 L). The extra 1/3rd of a stop was slightly more noticable that I expected in portraits. The lens was noticably heavier and less manageble. it was nice to have the image Stabiliser...although both my R6ii and R5 have IBIS, which helps a bit with long lenses.
I liked the reduced min focus distance. The copy I handled seemed to be closer to 130mm than my EF lens. it was certainly sharp! Oh yes, it's a very sharp lens for sure. The rendering and colours are very nice, maybe more contrast on the RF and the colours pop a bit more. It doesn't take a TC which is dissapointing, however, there's always the 1,6x crop mode to fall back on.
My reasons for not replacing this lens, the old one is a known thing. It's suprisingly still sharp enough. Do I really want blistingly sharp portraits? It's smaller, lighter and does 95% of what the new RF can do. It's also free to me because I bought it over 20 years ago. The new one is very expensive. I think I'm more likely to get a RF 50L first, then maybe a RF 85L and then possibly a RF 135L.....eventually, when I have had a fiscal windfall!

Michael Clark said:

That all depends upon what one means by "better". Flat field correction usually means less smooth bokeh, especially prior to the late 2010s.

Roger Cicala talked about this in one of his blogs a while back.

If you want to do document reproduction (or shoot the sharpest photos of flat test charts) you need a different type of lens than the EF 50mm f/1.2 L. It doesn't matter if the out of focus areas are harsh when your entire field is the same distance from the camera.

If you're shooting portraits in a 3D environment (i.e. not in a studio with a diffuse backdrop), though, smooth out of focus areas are far more important than the edges and corners being focused on exactly the same distance as the center of the field is focused.

Click to expand...

Michael Clark said:

Not everyone buys lenses to do flat document (i.e. test charts) reproduction. The idea that flat field correction is more important than smooth out of focus areas for an f/1.2 portrait prime is misguided at best.

If you want to be the best test chart shooter in the world, then the Art is the lens for you.

Click to expand...

You’re giving way too much credit to the Sigma’s sharpness.

Like I said to someone else, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is sharp, but it’s not THAT sharp. It was excellent by 2014 standards, when it was released, but that was 11 years ago.
A modern f/1.4 or f/1.2 prime lens, wide open, performs as good as the Sigma did stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4.

Anyway, I never bought f/1.4 for portraits, I did it for the light, because f/2.8 to f/1.4 is a very big difference, and not every environment allows the use of flash.

Exploreshootshare said:

I´m currently looking to purchase a used EF 135mm F2. I have been looking at this lens on the used market for nearly two years now and it always around 600 €, sometimes 550 €. It hasn't lost any value since I started looking.

The lens really sparked my interest and I could use for school plays, sports and especially for a golden wedding I am shooting next year. This golden wedding made my decision to purchase it. The RF is too expensive for my limited use case, but I´m really looking forward to the EF and I'm curious to shoot with it

Click to expand...

Had the 135 L for many years, it's a beautiful lens, and still sharp by today standard, at least on all 20mpx bodies I had (5D II and 6D), and also AF was pretty good, and we all know that EF lenses on R bodies works even better then on DSLR's, so I think today is still good for some indoor sports, and certainly for portraits and weddings.

Also consider the Sigma 135 f1.8 Art (which I swapped the 135 L for in the past; now I also ditched it for the 105 1.4 Art) which is a beautiful lens, depending on what you're looking for; the Canon is probably slightly more 3D's and probably has a smoother render of bokeh highlights, with a more "classic" look, while the Sigma is razor sharp even at f1.8 and certainly more "clinical".

I know many prefer global rendering over absolute sharpness, personally I just prefer a sharper lens, that I can "sweeten" in post if needed, rather then a softer look which is more complicate to sharpen if needed; I saw the difference between the Canon and the Sigma, but for my taste, I happily sacrificed a tad of rendering for a definitely sharper lens.

GMCPhotographics said:

My EF 135mm f2.0 L I’ve owned for nearly 20 years now. I never missed a beat. Sure, the new RF version is more expensive, slightly brighter, has IS and is a bit larger too…but my old lens turns in such nice images.

Click to expand...

I´m currently looking to purchase a used EF 135mm F2. I have been looking at this lens on the used market for nearly two years now and it always around 600 €, sometimes 550 €. It hasn't lost any value since I started looking.

The lens really sparked my interest and I could use for school plays, sports and especially for a golden wedding I am shooting next year. This golden wedding made my decision to purchase it. The RF is too expensive for my limited use case, but I´m really looking forward to the EF and I'm curious to shoot with it

GMCPhotographics said:

I buy L lenses because of many factors, one is durability. In a professional environment, gear takes more of a beating. I’ve had more failures with Sigma and Tamron than the rest of my L lenses put together. Those 3rd party lenses were sharp and cheap but way less durable. Both brands ended up costing me more money in the long run. L lenses are reliable and dependable, they also hold their value on the used market better too. My EF 135mm f2.0 L I’ve owned for nearly 20 years now. I never missed a beat. Sure, the new RF version is more expensive, slightly brighter, has IS and is a bit larger too…but my old lens turns in such nice images.

Click to expand...

I correct in "some people"; I didn't want to generalise, I have L lenses too, for example a classic 70-200 f2.8 non-IS since more then 15yrs, and it never skipped a beat.
Just wanted to say that I see (also in here) some people brag L lenses not because they enjoy quality and duration, but just because they can afford it

John Wilde said:

So it's not going to be announced until June.
(Being silly. That's the way people in the USA read that date.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, but June 11th, 2025 would have meant that we already have the camera and the lens in our hands

Walrus said:

People like to brag L lenses, even when the lens sucks...it's just "I have a thicker wallet then yours"; you can afford it, and you want people to know you can. Some thinks buying third party lenses makes them "poor", but it's ok, as they swap lenses very easily at any new release, so in a short time they flood the used market with many pro lenses at bargain prices for people really needing them to buy. I actually appreciate that

Click to expand...

I buy L lenses because of many factors, one is durability. In a professional environment, gear takes more of a beating. I’ve had more failures with Sigma and Tamron than the rest of my L lenses put together. Those 3rd party lenses were sharp and cheap but way less durable. Both brands ended up costing me more money in the long run. L lenses are reliable and dependable, they also hold their value on the used market better too. My EF 135mm f2.0 L I’ve owned for nearly 20 years now. I never missed a beat. Sure, the new RF version is more expensive, slightly brighter, has IS and is a bit larger too…but my old lens turns in such nice images.

Michael Clark said:

I guess I'm upside down. I tend to use year-month-day

Click to expand...

I use this format when labelling images and folders, so they list numerically in Windows. Otherwise, they array all over the place in a random sequence

Walrus said:

People like to brag L lenses, even when the lens sucks...it's just "I have a thicker wallet then yours"; you can afford it, and you want people to know you can. Some thinks buying third party lenses makes them "poor", but it's ok, as they swap lenses very easily at any new release, so in a short time they flood the used market with many pro lenses at bargain prices for people really needing them to buy. I actually appreciate that

Click to expand...

A bit naive...

Ozarker said:

Feel better? Do you have a worldwide grip on the English language now? You don't understand regional variations?[…]

Click to expand...

Speaking of regional differences, that was an excellent opportunity to use “bless your heart.” It’s in my top 3 of English colloquialisms

josephandrews222 said:

Thanks so much for the link.

That the Hubble was imperfect...I remembered.

I did not know why, and did not know that Perkin-Elmer was involved.

=====

As part of my graduate studies, I utilized IR spectroscopy on a regular basis.

The existing device (1980) in our lab was very old...and its innards were very much analog. I cannot find anything online that looks like what I remember...they were wide and tall and heavy.

Our lab had two of them. Finally, they both broke down at the same time.

About 1981 or 1982, we replaced them with a single Perkin-Elmer IR spectrometer, a new design...all electronic.

PE had trouble with these, and their service personnel were in the dark as far as repairs were concerned.

It turns out, across town, that my wife was employed in a chemistry lab at that same time, and they too had these new PE IR spectrometers in her labs.

And the devices in her labs were also problematic.

Her repairman was the same guy that worked on ours (Rodney), the recollection of whom causes both my wife and I to smile.

Remember, this was 45 or so years ago.

And you know how Rodney attempted (often successfully) to repair these electronic IR spectrometers, in both of our labs?

He literally swapped circuit boards...in-and-out...one at a time.

The way you put a graphics card into a PC!

=====

My camera at that time?

A Polaroid and a Minolta, I think.

Click to expand...

Minolta? They made the the first mass produced AF cameras as I recall (after Konica). Later it was Konica-Minolta and now just Sony...