Canon to come out with a RF 100mm f/1.4 VCM?

[Richard-CN]

When I was scanning patent applications, I quickly reviewed one when it was first released and assumed (cough, yes, we know how that works) that it was simply embodiments of prior-designed lenses and nothing newsworthy. Today, I was looking back through the applications, and out of a whim (or inspiration), I took a closer look […]

See full article...

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

 

[EricN]

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!

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.

 

[dolina]

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

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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.

Works for me camera manufacturer aren't always honest when it comes to focal lengths.

 

[Tom R5R7]

I'd like it if it were a 105, just to offset it from others. Granted, that is purely a marketing kind of thing. Of course, since the filter size is only 67 mm, you would not be able to do f/1.4 as mentioned in the previous post.

 

[el peso]

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

Once again. Canon already has RF 135/1.8. They won't release 1.4 just because someone wants.

 

[roby17269]

Not that I'd be interested in such lens, but wouldn't a 100 1.4 non macro VCM be a bit too close to the existing 85 1.4 VCM?

In terms of pure field of view there isn't such a difference that some gentle cropping wouldn't overcome.

 

[el peso]

Not that I'd be interested in such lens, but wouldn't a 100 1.4 non macro VCM be a bit too close to the existing 85 1.4 VCM?

In terms of pure field of view there isn't such a difference that some gentle cropping wouldn't overcome.

I feel like 100mm is a happy medium between 85mm and 135mm: you get more perspective compression and more natural facial proportions than with 85mm, but you still don’t need a walkie-talkie to communicate with your model.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not that I'd be interested in such lens, but wouldn't a 100 1.4 non macro VCM be a bit too close to the existing 85 1.4 VCM?

There was the EF 85/1.8 and the EF 100/2 that were siblings in design and performance. Personally, I had the former but both were pretty popular lenses.

 

[roby17269]

There was the EF 85/1.8 and the EF 100/2 that were siblings in design and performance. Personally, I had the former but both were pretty popular lenses.

True although my personal experience is that I saw (used in real life or online) way more 85 1.8 than 100 2 lenses... this is purely an anecdotal data point

I'd also argue that those 2 lenses were cheap... I would be surprised if a 100 1.4 VCM would not eat into the sales of the 85 1.4 VCM

 

[roby17269]

I feel like 100mm is a happy medium between 85mm and 135mm: you get more perspective compression and more natural facial proportions than with 85mm, but you still don’t need a walkie-talkie to communicate with your model.

Agree to disagree in a friendly, non-confrontational manner

I already don't see a significant difference between the 85 1.2 and the 135 1.8 (I have and use both, I prefer the 85) and a 100 1.4 would be too "nuanced" for me.

Not that I'd mind if Canon would release a 100 1.4, at least apart from it being another distraction for the delivery of the RF 35 1.2 , but I would not buy it.

 

[dolina]

Once again. Canon already has RF 135/1.8. They won't release 1.4 just because someone wants.

Sigma has one!

 

[mb66energy]

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.

A step width I always liked and own in the old EF versions - the rest can be done be feet (mostly). But now a little bit spoiled by using 24-105 and 100-400 !

 

[mb66energy]

What a great interesting lens and design with 17! lenses and "only" 12 groups. Might be a lens which is stellar from 1.4 - maybe interesting for wide field astro photography.
I miss image stabilization as a feature but IBIS works well up to ~100mm with modern Canon cameras so maybe not the real problem.

Can it substitute my old EF 2.0 100? Never! because the old one is tiny against that design and great e.g. on an R7 where it converts into a 160mm lens in terms of angle of view.

 

[el peso]

Sigma has one!

Buy Sigma, what a problem?

 

[el peso]

Agree to disagree in a friendly, non-confrontational manner

I already don't see a significant difference between the 85 1.2 and the 135 1.8 (I have and use both, I prefer the 85) and a 100 1.4 would be too "nuanced" for me.

Not that I'd mind if Canon would release a 100 1.4, at least apart from it being another distraction for the delivery of the RF 35 1.2 , but I would not buy it.

Of course, it’s definitely a subjective thing. The purchase perspective matters too — whether you’re buying from scratch or swapping/upgrading existing gear. I used to own the EF 85mm f/1.4L and liked it, but eventually sold it after getting the original RF 70–200mm f/2.8L. Still, I always had the CY Zeiss Planar 100mm f/2 in the back of my mind. I’ve tried the EF 100mm f/2 as well, but its character left me indifferent. I’m considering the RF 85mm f/1.4L, though I’d probably prefer an RF 100mm f/1.4L instead.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

True although my personal experience is that I saw (used in real life or online) way more 85 1.8 than 100 2 lenses... this is purely an anecdotal data point

They were twins, you couldn't tell them apart unless you read the lettering




I could see myself considering a lower end 100 to 135mm lens, but not a L variant. That, or MAYBE an upgrade to the 85mm f/2 in the same philosophy as the 45mm f/1.2 (not that fast, but internal focusing and no macro).