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

[Ph0t0]

I asked the forum for some examples since I don't shoot those genres... thanks for providing some but perhaps the commentary wasn't necessary. My only lens faster than f2.8 is for astro.
I am happy to seek information if I don't know it.

I wasn't sure if you were serious or just teasing, because it seems like there are so many things you can photograph with a 100 or 135mm lens, even with an aperture wider than f2.0

But if you are serious:
I really do shoot with wide apertures a lot.
One pretty common scenario is that a company hires me to take some shots for their website. I take some portraits of employees infront of a backdrop, some shots of their products on a backdrop, some shots of their HQ - all with narrow apertures, and loads of depth of field ... And then I put on some primes (40mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 or 135mm 1.8) and I take some shots thatbare more hmm "symbolic", "abstract", "lifestyle" shots... I don't know the right term (english is not my native language). Anyway shots where you get the sense of what is in the background, but focus only some details: hand holding pipette with blurred lab equipement in the background, someone working on a computer with coworkers blurred etc. And in anlot of cases it is better to stand back further and use a lens with narrower field of view, to get the right framing and avoid some distractive elements, that I would get in my frame with a wider lens.

The other thing I do fairly common is shooting clothes. And we usually take some studio shots where everything needs to be sharp and perfectly lit. And then a day or two later we go out and shoot on location - and a lot of times I use 135mm 1.8 to blur the distractive elements in the background, or just because I'm taking advantage of the evening light and city lights, and prefer to keep the ISO down, and loose some DOF.
If I'm shooting a model standing on a boardwalk next to the sea, I can usually step a bit further away - put a 85 or 135mm lens on. Frame the shot so that I leave plenty of space empty next to the model (in case they make a wide print, and put some info next to the model) and shoot wide open. The model is gonna be sharp enough so that they can make a tighter crop if they need to, and the sea in the background is gonna be blurry and provide some unobtrusive background for text if needed.
If you take a shot like that with a 100mm f1.4 from the distance of 10m and client later crops the shot so that they only have the model in a frame that is gonna look similar to a 200mm f5.6. and if they crop it even tighter (just the torso) that will look similar to hmm 350mm f16? Or something similar. Which means that the dof on the face won't be that shallow.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No. Not at f/1.2, either. One eye out of focus is a photographer problem, not an aperture problem. Portraits ain't just close up head shots. Below = f/1.2 @85mm.

If the subject is not directly facing the camera, using a very wide aperture can certainly mean only one eye is in focus. It's not necessarily a problem, more of a choice...but IMO it is one that should be intentionally made. Personally, I am ok with only the nearer eye in focus, depending on the shot. This is with the EF 85/1.2L II at f/1.8.

 

[Ozarker]

If the subject is not directly facing the camera, using a very wide aperture can certainly mean only one eye is in focus. It's not necessarily a problem, more of a choice...but IMO it is one that should be intentionally made. Personally, I am ok with only the nearer eye in focus, depending on the shot. This is with the EF 85/1.2L II at f/1.8.

View attachment 228327

I'm also ok with only the near eye being focused. I just get tickled when I see posts bemoaning ultra bright apertures not being useful for portraits. Photographer problem.
When the f/1.2 lenses came out I saw lots of posts on the net about the eye problem and how these fast lenses aren't good for portraits, probably from people who never used them, as is usually the case.

I was quite lucky to have them when I had them. To be fair, most people will never have or use one of these so it's understandable they would assume such things.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm also ok with only the near eye being focused. I just get tickled when I see posts bemoaning ultra bright apertures not being useful for portraits.

Yeah, portraits are arguably the main use case for a lens like the 85/1.2 (particularly the EF version, since the AF was ponderous). The ultra bright part of it was sometimes a problem, though a solvable one...too much light. I typically used a 3-stop ND for outdoor portraits at wide apertures. That's one benefit of my current cameras – the max shutter speed of 1/64000 s vs the 1/8000 s of a DSLR gives me that 3 stops without the filter (well, I only need about 1.5 stops with the 85L DS, since the coating results in a ~1.5 stop loss at f/1.2).

 

[David - Sydney]

I wasn't sure if you were serious or just teasing, because it seems like there are so many things you can photograph with a 100 or 135mm lens, even with an aperture wider than f2.0

But if you are serious:

Yes, I was being serious. I would use an emoji if I was teasing.
Thanks for the examples. I appreciate your time to describe them.

Wide aperture makes perfect sense for outdoor/blurring backgrounds and bokeh. I thought that 100mm (or 135mm) would be too far away to direct models especially with outdoor ambient noise.
For indoor/studio, I found 100mm (or more) to be hard to direct the model especially when shooting floor length shots. Moving the lights/backdrop was easier to control the background lighting.

For the environmental shots, I would say they are similar to stock libraries (albeit specific for the brief) or B-roll for video but others may have better names.

Low light outdoor portraits makes sense. For me, I would use my 100/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 and have a greater distance to the background if possible to enhance the blurring/separation. This assumes it is possible to move the subject relative to the background. I'll use an off camera speed light sometimes.

For my indoor sports, f2.8 or f4 was sufficient to blur the other participants and still show their body postures.
I do push the ISO with the poor lighting in halls but hasn't been an issue for my non-paying subjects.

 

[DocInfoSci]

I think the addition of the 100 would be great for the VCM series, as opposed to needing the macro 100mm, because the ergonomics would match, I assume, the other VCM lenses. The language design for a lens series matters: consistency has solid benefits when moving through a set of glass in a short period of time. I think the VCM approach to-date has been very smart in this regard. +1 for the hybrid shooter influence here.

I put together a travel kit of a 24mm, 50mm, and 100mm (macro) EF L lenses for people / lifestyle / optional strobe photography. It's a potent combo. A VCM set like that would probably make a lot of people happy (just as a 35/85 pair would). Consistently sized lenses would make the experience in my kit a smidge more pleasing.

 

[JohanCruyff]

Using a very complicated yet powerful algorithm called "average", I can state that an intermediate lens between the RF 85mm F/1.2 and the RF 135mm F/1.8 could be a RF 110mm F/1.6.
Or F/1.5.

This apparently weird focal length and aperture would make sense IMO, considering that
1) it could weight less than a 100mm F/1.4, and that
2) Canon RF lenses ofter offer something different from old EF lenses and from other brands' ones.

But any "RF 100-105mm F/1.something" would be interesting.