Is an RF 135mm f/1.4L USM in development? [CR1]

[SecureGSM]

I would love to see a RF 400mm f/2.0 @ the same size/weight as current model.

That would be a lens with around 200mm front element size (massive). 6-7kg is a very conservative weight gestimation. I mean it could be even heavier by mile.

 

[dolina]

No point in developing a new pro sports camera for release before 2020 Olympics?

No point in developing any DSLR further as the money is in mirrorless.

 

[Kit.]

No point in developing any DSLR further as the money is in mirrorless.

What makes you think that there is no money for Canon in a new pro sports camera released before 2020 Olympics?

 

[dolina]

What makes you think that there is no money for Canon in a new pro sports camera released before 2020 Olympics?

That's what the 16 months will indicate. There's nothing wrong with the D5 or 1DX2. You can still by them after 2020.

 

[Loswr]

What makes you think that there is no money for Canon in a new pro sports camera released before 2020 Olympics?

I'm not sure his statements qualify as 'thinking'. As has already been pointed out to him, DSLRs continue to outsell MILCs, and Canon expo;icitly stated that they are continuing to develop DSLRs.

 

[Trey T]

ILC is sun setting.


No point in developing a new pro sports camera for release before 2020 Olympics?

The wildlife and sport career/industry is much narrower than wedding or lifestyle photogs. For every 1000 wedding photog, there's only 1 sport photogs. The sport career is all driven by talents while the wedding career is all in the camera specs or gadgets, so-to-speak. If canon come out w/ on in the next 9mos, it will still be in transition phase for the photogs. The risks of using new camera w/o much practice is career-damaging.

 

[Trey T]

But...Physics. For a telephoto design, the exit pupil is irrelevant in determining overall lens dimensions. So is the image circle (it’s always big, which is why there are no long telephoto EF-S lenses). A 24mm lens, the RF flange matters. A 400mm lens, it just doesn’t.

Seriously...Physics. You two should get acquainted. Roger Cicala published a series of blog posts on lens design. There are other online resources.

Did Roger publish a blog post on 400mm f/2.8 RF lens design that can be scaled to f/2.0 design?

 

[Loswr]

Did Roger publish a blog post on 400mm f/2.8 RF lens design that can be scaled to f/2.0 design?

You're like a bull terrier, you just won't let this go. Tell you what...why don 't you go design and manufacture a 400mm f/2.0 pancake lens. We'd all love that! Physics be damned!

Heck, I'd even settle for you finding one legitimate source that suggests supertelephoto lenses will be smaller because of the RF mount. Good luck.

While you're frantically googling, try comparing Canon's patents for two 100-400mm zoom lenses that are both f/5.6 at the long end. The scaling of the EF lens to RF mount saved a massively impressive 9.5mm, a huge, whopping 3% of the length of the lens.

EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM II (CR link)

• Example 3
  • Zoom ratio 3.75
  • Focal length f = 104.16-166.66-391.00mm
  • Fno. 4.60-5.20-5.80
  • Half angle ω = 11.73-7.40-3.17 °
  • Image height Y = 21.64mm
  • 221.48-252.31-300.68mm overall length of the lens
  • BF 70.65-87.69-113.37mm

RF 100-400 f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM (CR link)

• Focal distance 102.21 195.97 389.86
• F number 3.83 4.93 5.85
• Half angle of view (degree) 11.95 6.30 3.18
• Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64
• Lens total length 204.85 250.29 291.30
• BF 4.31 31.68 97.49

But hey, you go right on believing that RF mount + 400mm lens = magic.

 

[sdsr]

I am happy to defend the 200 f2.8LII. I got one used a couple of months ago, and I love it. Reasonably small and light (just a little bit bigger than the 135L), fast to focus, sharp across the frame at f2.8, and beautiful bookeh! It made me sell the 70-200 f2.8LIII I got on sale on black friday last november without thinking twice.

The 200 f2.8LII is plenty sharp, but yes, when pixel peeping I admit that it could be sharper. In my opinion though, I find the lack of biting crisp details to provide a very pleasing and “organic” look. I’m not sure I would want it sharper if I could choose... The only thing I miss in it is IS.

I quite agree, which is why I kept it when I switched to Sony bodies - which have the advantage of IBIS. To answer an earlier question, I find it effective on both this lens and 135mm (I've not tried anything longer), though I've not tried the 200mm with slower speeds than 1/60.

 

[sdsr]

The 135 f2 is showing its age, compared to the Sigma f1.8 and the Samyang f2 it's pretty lousy with softness and CA all over the place. It needed to be upgraded to a II about a decade ago.

Back in 1996 it was stunning. Even by 2009 it was still a good lens. Today it's just another old lens bypassed in Canon's obsession with new-shiny-sexy.

I wonder who works on Canon's assembly lines for lenses like that. It must be tough on their morale.

It's true that the Sigma f/1.8 and Samyang (and Zeiss f/2 and Zeiss Batis f/2.8) have less CA and are sharper (I expect the same will be true for the upcoming Sony 135 1.8). But depending on what you're shooting the differences (esp. sharpness) may be trivial and even work to Canon's advantage. (Either way, it's hardly "lousy with softness.") Have you not seen the beautiful photos that have been taken with the 135 f2? Elena Shumilova, for instance, uses one for most of her photos. https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/ If I worked on a Canon assembly line for the 135 f/2 knowing that such photos could be taken with it, my morale would be rather good. Or are you being sarcastic?

 

[YuengLinger]

It's true that the Sigma f/1.8 and Samyang (and Zeiss f/2 and Zeiss Batis f/2.8) have less CA and are sharper (I expect the same will be true for the upcoming Sony 135 1.8). But depending on what you're shooting the differences (esp. sharpness) may be trivial and even work to Canon's advantage. (Either way, it's hardly "lousy with softness.") Have you not seen the beautiful photos that have been taken with the 135 f2? Elena Shumilova, for instance, uses one for most of her photos. https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/ If I worked on a Canon assembly line for the 135 f/2 knowing that such photos could be taken with it, my morale would be rather good. Or are you being sarcastic?

Great link!

 

[Viggo]

It’s a very good reason why some people think the 135 f2 is the sharpest lens they ever tried and some find it seriously fuzzy and lacking. It’s one of the worst offenders when it comes to copy variation along with the 35 L mk1 and 16-35 II.

I’ve had at least 8 or 9 135’s in my time and they are either very sharp or very soft, never had one in between...

 

[privatebydesign]

It's true that the Sigma f/1.8 and Samyang (and Zeiss f/2 and Zeiss Batis f/2.8) have less CA and are sharper (I expect the same will be true for the upcoming Sony 135 1.8). But depending on what you're shooting the differences (esp. sharpness) may be trivial and even work to Canon's advantage. (Either way, it's hardly "lousy with softness.") Have you not seen the beautiful photos that have been taken with the 135 f2? Elena Shumilova, for instance, uses one for most of her photos. https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/ If I worked on a Canon assembly line for the 135 f/2 knowing that such photos could be taken with it, my morale would be rather good. Or are you being sarcastic?

Whilst I'm not taking anything away from Elena's images, which I have linked to before and think are beautiful, we have to acknowledge the fact that they are so heavily post processed that almost all the lens characteristics are buried.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

A family moment from last month, with my ancient ef 135mm f/2L.

Terrible. Just awful. There's no detail in that grass whatsoever.

 

[awair]

While I’d love to see a 135/1.4, my priority is definitely for (lens) IS, with this type of lens.

In my opinion, the 85/1.4L blows away the 1.2L for at least 98.7% of shots (approx...), if only because more of them are in focus! In fact, I made a decision to sell my 1.2 (for a loss) within 24 hours of picking up the 1.4.

The 135/2 was my first ' L' glass, and it's still great; easy to travel with, low light capability and super sharp. I've used it on my backup with the 1.4x, when the 70-200 was too big to travel with, and also on the 100D (SL1) for travel.

I've just picked up my RP, and the 135 has been firmly attached for the last 48 hours. It's a great combination, but it looks so long with the hood attached.

Although I’m happy with this purchase, I won't be switching (full-time) to mirrorless any time soon. I will be able to travel more easily with the RP, and maybe 2? Lenses. The only RF that I’m really likely to buy (apart from the rumoured 400/2 “pancake”?), is a proper pancake 35 or 40/2.8, similar to the current (EF) 40/2.8 - which also looks huge on the RP!

 

[padam]

A proper pancake 35 or 40/2.8, similar to the current (EF) 40/2.8 - which also looks huge on the RP!

You're kidding right, basically all lenses are huge? It looks pretty small to me, close to Sony's smallest 35/2.8 native mirrorless lens. (Of course it is the R, but they are close)

Of course they might make it just a little bit smaller, but it might cost 2-3 times the price and without a control ring.

 

[stevelee]

I'm not too worried about CA given how easiiy it's fixed automatically in post-processing. In fact I've thought for 20 years they should make lenses with CA and distortion from hell, and just optimize everything else, on the grounds these two flaws are trivial to address.

I believe that is what they do with the better compact cameras, the S and G series. Rather than adding a lot of optical correction, the internal software corrects the aberrations and distortions in the JPEGs and probably does some preprocessing for the RAW files, judging from how decent shots can look even before applying the profiles on the computer. The G7X II has a f/1.8-2.8 zoom lens. The pictures can turn out remarkably well. I have 13” x 19” prints hanging on my walls that show how well.

When I got my first Rebel, I got with it a 75-300 mm Canon lens for $100. Maybe it was worth that. (Or maybe its long-term value was to let me know that I really did want to spend the money on the 100-400mm II.) It has terrible CA and generally, I’ve not been that happy with shots I have made with it, even after applying Photoshop corrections. The exception has been the pictures I made of the solar eclipse with my T3i. After CA correction they look about as good as anybody else’s shots I have seen. So maybe the lesson is that to follow your lens philosophy, they should correct everything optically that cannot be fixed well in software and not sweat what can be.

 

[Michael Clark]

Speak for yourself. It's a great tool and one with a unique look when used correctly. Age has nothing to do with it. It's a great design, timeless.

I guess it all depends on whether you are more concerned with taking great images of a three dimensional world, or with taking absolutely perfect images of two-dimensional flat test charts from close distance. I have yet to see a lens with edge to edge sharpness, which requires a lot of correction for field curvature, that still renders smooth, pleasing bokeh the way lenses that leave more than a bit of field curvature uncorrected, such as the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L, EF 85mm f/1.2 L, and EF 135mm f/2 L, do.

So what if it's not the best for shooting flat test charts and doing document reproduction work? That's not what I'm going to use it to do.

As for the supposed CA of the 135/2 (which has never affected the kinds of images I've shot with my 135/2): For the most part, if you control the light properly instead of expecting your camera, your lens, and Photoshop to make up for your lack of ability to see and control light, CA becomes a non-issue the vast majority of the time.

 

[Michael Clark]

The 28-300mm is >200mm on the long end.

But the 70-200 L models aren't.

 

[Michael Clark]

I agree! It’s not that I don’t appreciate sharp lenses, but I have a hard time understanding those who crave so much for more sharpness than you can have with the EF 135L, also at f2. When you reach a certain level of sharpness, “sharp enough“ (which the 135L is) getting sharper becomes meaningless, or at least a low priority, in my opinion. I’d rather have a smaller and lighter lens, rather than a sharper one than the 135L.

The development of new lenses is being driven by those who bow to the gods of the flat test chart - even though they have no intention of shooting flat test charts with the lenses they select based on how well they perform shooting flat test charts. Who cares if all of that flat field correction makes the bokeh look like $#!+?

I don't think that's possible with a Z flange at 16mm and an RF flange at 20mm. At least not without adding glass.

It's a LOT more possible than adapting a lens with a 16mm registration distance to a camera with a 20mm flange!

But what if new one will be sharper AND maintain all the good qualities of the old 135 f2 or even improve them? Also there are some super-mega-pixel bodies these days and people who want to use them and make large prints.

I'll believe it when I see it. If "sharp" means enough flat field correction to stay sharp all the way to the edge of the frame when shooting a flat test chart at relatively close distances, current lens design methods mean that the bokeh will be harsh and busy as a consequence. But who cares what photos of a three dimensional world using it look like, as long as it scores higher when pointed at a relatively close flat test chart, right?

So Canon has decided it's great to have a smaller mirrorless camera and then just release insanely expensive and massive lenses. Yeah megabuck primes will have sales skyrocketing.

Hey it works for Sigma. How many mayonnaise jars have they sold to be hung on those cute little mirrorless cameras that are so superior to DSLRs because they are much smaller and lighter?

It would great to use RF lenses on SLR but the mirror needs to move outside the optical path for the exposure and for
a single sheet mirror this is impossible: The RF lenses leave not enough room between sensor and last lens
element (except for future tele primes maybe).

But I like the idea too and maybe a split mirror might help: Use two semi transparent mirrors where DPAF
on the sensor can do its job. The upper half of the mirror swings upwards and the lower half swings downwards.
The mirror is split from left to right.
While you have two mirrors which must be adjustet you do not have to adjust a special PD AF sensor array because
the sensor plane is the (DPAF) plane.

Add an optional EVF and you have a DSLR + mirrorless combo-camera which works in bright daylight, allows
checking the scene while turned off but also gives you an EVF for night vision, video, exposure pre-check through
a viewfinder on brighter days.

In order cover a sensor 24mm high, and reflect the light straight up, the mirror would need to sit at a 45° angle and be 34mm tall. That puts the bottom edge 24mm in front of the bottom of the sensor. That's 4mm further from the sensor than the flange is in the R mount.

Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. Nice focal length and fast AF. But big dopey aperture leaves gave angular bokeh. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.

Sharp? It was in the film era, but is outclassed now:

Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

And close it down to 2.8 and guess what is just as good? The 70-200 II again.

Yes, there are some old sharp lenses; Canon 200 1.8 and 300 2.8 and the Mamiya 300 5.6 being examples. But the mid-tier mid-90s lenses like the 135 were designed down to a budget. It's a disgrace that they're still in the catalogue.

So who's next up to defend the 200 2.8 II? Canon will still take a grand of your cash for that dinosaur.

You need to go back and try that again. I own and shoot regularly with both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the EF 135mm f/2. There's no comparison between the 135/2's creamy smooth bokeh and the 70-200/2.8's "busy" bokeh. The 70-200 is a great zoom lens and is certainly much more flexible in terms of focal length, but it is not a better lens at 135mm. If I know 135mm is the only focal length I need, I'm reaching for the "dinosaur" every single time.

Whilst I'm not taking anything away from Elena's images, which I have linked to before and think are beautiful, we have to acknowledge the fact that they are so heavily post processed that almost all the lens characteristics are buried.

Yes. Some of her images have two or more distances that are both in "sharpest" focus with intermediate distances in between much softer.