A Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM gets a mention [CR1]

[Ozarker]

But half the price and half the weight at 1.4 is very very very optimistic!..

For reals.

 

[Ozarker]

Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.

I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.

I shoot everything from weddings to portraits to real estate to events...I just don't see this lens adding $3000 worth of value to my work.



That's why I said I'm not a purist, if I'm the only one that sees the noise then my mission is accomplished. Also I know that 99% of my clients will just post the footage to their Instagram, FB, or corporate website all of which will be too low resolution to ever see the noise. Every product I look at in terms of ROI, if a $3000 lens isn't going to pay for itself I'm not going to get it.

But let’s not forget, most buyers are not professionals and don’t care at all about ROI, myself included. I do, though, fully understand and appreciate your position.

 

[herein2020]

But let’s not forget, most buyers are not professionals and don’t care at all about ROI, myself included. I do, though, fully understand and appreciate your position.

Oh I get it, I love new gear as much as the next person, I just don't like paying for it. If I weren't shooting professionally I would own a Canon Rebel with a kit lens that would probably only get used around the holidays.

 

[slclick]

I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.

I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.

I am not a fan of the 70-200 focal length range, the 70-135 fits my style so much better. I'd much rather have a zoom lens that has little to no extraneous mm's and therefore a higher quality aka IQ resembling a prime, To each their own.

More choices, what's wrong with that? How does that make me a purist? Is being a so called purist a bad thing? WTF is with these idiot labels?

(Unless you're a crabby person who complains about Canon's R&D not suiting your personal wants and needs) Not directed at you, more of a universal rant against the selfish.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

White starts at 200.

No - surely white 'starts' at 70, though it usually extends to at least 200 (70 -200)

 

[herein2020]

I am not a fan of the 70-200 focal length range, the 70-135 fits my style so much better. I'd much rather have a zoom lens that has little to no extraneous mm's and therefore a higher quality aka IQ resembling a prime, To each their own.

More choices, what's wrong with that? How does that make me a purist? Is being a so called purist a bad thing? WTF is with these idiot labels?

(Unless you're a crabby person who complains about Canon's R&D not suiting your personal wants and needs) Not directed at you, more of a universal rant against the selfish.

No offense intended I was strictly sharing my veiwpoint of a lens like this that fits squarely within the focal range of another lens with what I consider marginal improvements in IQ. In other words I have no doubt this could take sharper images within its focal length range than my current 70-200, but for my own uses I don't consider it to be $3000 worth of improvement (or even $2000).

I applaud choices, I hope Canon keeps offering us as many as they can afford to create, but for me personally lenses like these don't make sense. Every lens I currently own clearly does something the other lenses simply cannot do; this lens for me since there is already a 70-200 does not have that same value proposition. But that's also why I only own 1 prime, what I'm getting out of my zooms is good enough for my typical client.

To me purist simply means someone willing to spend whatever it takes (or they can afford) to get the best IQ. I started out that way until I realized customers do not care about silly things like DR, or IQ, or noise, or bokeh, as long as they have something to share on their social media after the shoot they are happy. I still take pride in my work but I have accepted that professional photography is a dying art.

 

[sanj]

Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.

I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.

I shoot everything from weddings to portraits to real estate to events...I just don't see this lens adding $3000 worth of value to my work.



That's why I said I'm not a purist, if I'm the only one that sees the noise then my mission is accomplished. Also I know that 99% of my clients will just post the footage to their Instagram, FB, or corporate website all of which will be too low resolution to ever see the noise. Every product I look at in terms of ROI, if a $3000 lens isn't going to pay for itself I'm not going to get it.

I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.

 

[sanj]

Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.

I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.

I shoot everything from weddings to portraits to real estate to events...I just don't see this lens adding $3000 worth of value to my work.



That's why I said I'm not a purist, if I'm the only one that sees the noise then my mission is accomplished. Also I know that 99% of my clients will just post the footage to their Instagram, FB, or corporate website all of which will be too low resolution to ever see the noise. Every product I look at in terms of ROI, if a $3000 lens isn't going to pay for itself I'm not going to get it.

I will. I am a photographer first - who photographs for the joy, not just for a client. And my clients publish in magazines and on their websites.

 

[sanj]

No - surely white 'starts' at 70, though it usually extends to at least 200 (70 -200)

I also believe white starts at 200mm.

 

[Ozarker]

I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.

I really have a lot of admiration and envy for you guys that go all over the world.

 

[sanj]

I am not a fan of the 70-200 focal length range, the 70-135 fits my style so much better. I'd much rather have a zoom lens that has little to no extraneous mm's and therefore a higher quality aka IQ resembling a prime, To each their own.

More choices, what's wrong with that? How does that make me a purist? Is being a so called purist a bad thing? WTF is with these idiot labels?

(Unless you're a crabby person who complains about Canon's R&D not suiting your personal wants and needs) Not directed at you, more of a universal rant against the selfish.

I think there is a place for both these lenses in my bag. Each is a very different lens with a very different use.
And I adore the word 'purist'. Love it. Idiot label or not.

 

[joestopper]

Continue reading...

Times have certainly changed: Months ago we heard that ten lenses would be released in 2020. While 2 lenses and and 2 extenders were announced (and might all come to market this year), it appears very unlikely that any other lenses will be released this year.
So, lets hope for 2021: Maybe 15 new lenses ...

 

[brad-man]

Times have certainly changed: Months ago we heard that ten lenses would be released in 2020. While 2 lenses and and 2 extenders were announced (and might all come to market this year), it appears very unlikely that any other lenses will be released this year.
So, lets hope for 2021: Maybe 15 new lenses ...

10? Really? Well here's the official roadmap for 2020 and it only has space for 9 lenses. Nine lenses are listed here, but I happen to know that 5 of them are fake...

 

[dslrdummy]

I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.

Love it sanjay. Better than a thousand words. Of course at the same distance and focal length the light gathering would be twice as good but the girl would be even more out of focus. Always compromises.

 

[usern4cr]

In the coming months they're going to dribble out rumored specs for this 70-135 f2 lens. I hope one of those specs is the weight without tripod foot & ring. I could see how it would be really nice to have both this and the 70-200 f2.8 as they have different uses, but for me (on a budget) I would probably only be able to justify (re. cost) buying just one of them. So knowing at least the weight of both would help in making that decision.

 

[highdesertmesa]

1. 28-70/2.0 is a normal zoom. The 28mm at F2.0 dictates a necessity for a larger front element. Not the long 70mm end.
2. 70-135 zoom range is a bit different in that vignetting is not such a huge issue as with 28mm end of 28-70
Sure. Having a large front element would improve sharpness in mid frame and extreme corners, reduce vignetting wide open

but read my statement again. Front element could be made as small as. The question remains how Canon engineers view optical quality vs size / weight issue.
i would think that 82mm front element would be adequate.

Why not go 95mm so we can use our $500 95mm CPL on all of the f/2 trinity lenses

 

[herein2020]

I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.

See that's what I love about photography....100 people can look at the same image and see 100 different things. To me that image actually reinforces my point...I don't think the noise in that image is unuseable for social media, and websites; prints of course is a different story. To the untrained eye there is no noise in that image, and if you run a denoiser in post there would be even less. I'm not even convinced that another stop of light would have removed as much noise as a denoiser in post could remove.

Of course an additional stop of light would have been nice...would I have paid $2000+ for that stop of light....just to remove some noise that can only be seen at higher resolutions than it will probably be displayed at...no. Also, for that situation I would have used my 24-70 F2.8 to get a wider FOV if that was your desire since you mentioned it was a small room (something the 70-135 could not have helped with), and I probably could have gotten that additional stop of light out of the 24-70 by shooting with a slower shutter speed since it is a shorter focal length or add a monopod to the mix for additional stability and even slower shutter speeds for about $150.

I hope Canon sells these lenses in droves, the better Canon does the more products they can make, and the more gear that I have to pick from. But in my opinion there simply is not a single scenario out there for me where this lens will make the photographer $3000.00 better than what the 70-200 F2.8 already can offer.

 

[Ozarker]

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that this lens will have a BR element like the awesome EF 35mm f/1.4L II and RF 85mm f/1.2L lenses. The only problem with the EF 135mm f/2L is the chromatic abberations, in my opinion. IS would be nice, but probably won’t happen.

 

[joestopper]

10? Really? Well here's the official roadmap for 2020 and it only has space for 9 lenses. Nine lenses are listed here, but I happen to know that 5 of them are fake...View attachment 190315

The first 4 are correct, the others are not. I thought 10 but maybe only 9.

 

[MaximPhotoStudio]

If this lens is as good as the glorious EF 135 f/2 then TAKE. MY. MONEY.