Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

Mar 26, 2014
1,443
536
I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras.

Photography equipment sales are weak, apparently some companies are limiting themselves to high profit equipment.

As for Fuji's strategy, Canon is covering small with EOS-M.

I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ? Looks like Canon's approach is to increase their bottom line rather than provide their customers with lenses that are a better form fit for their new cameras.

Yes, Canon is in the business of maximizing profit, not on making less money (or God forbid, lose any) on what customers think the revolution's purpose was to begin with.
 
Upvote 0
I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras. [...]
I am Canon user, not fan in the first place and I do not use these large, h, f ve RF lenses but the - at the moment - only small, versatile, high aperture, good IQ, excellently versatile lens, the RF 35 which is not small but compact and light!
Maybe Canon thinks that a lot of people who do NOT use heavy very expensive (RF) lenses will be satisfied with the (too easy and reliable) adapter solution. I on my own have set a limit: EOS RP below 1000 EUR and I will buy it to have the full frame option and especially to reuse my FD lenses or sell them. A very attractive offer gave me the camera WITH adapter and RF 35 for a little bit more than 1000 EUR and I must say: Extraordinary versatility due to the f/1.8 + IS and the 1:2 macro in a compact and lightweight package.

EDIT: At the moment waiting for a 100 or 135 f/2.0 IS STM (1:2) Macro lens in the RF35 style.
 
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
Why would it cost half??!!

The front element of 135 / 1.4 = 96mm or 200 / 2 = 100mm or 300 / 2.8 = 107mm isn't much different. All these lenses should cost approximately the same.
Reducing the complexity and associated cost of a lens to a single metric is unlikely to yield reliable numbers.

The Sigma 150-600 mm has a 95mm opening as well and costs a fraction of all the options you named. And we're dealing with DSLR lenses in any case. The lens being discussed here is designed with completely different constraints.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
Obviously the lens will be hailed by some and yawned at by others. What I don't understand is the vitriol directed towards what some will obviously want. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Leave everyone else alone. Ain't no gun to nobody's head either way. Buy an EF 135mm f/2L and adapt it. Be happy. Or, buy the new flavor and be happy. I'll prefer the new flavor and the lack of CA... along with the carnival glass parlor trickery. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
Why would it cost half??!!

The front element of 135 / 1.4 = 96mm or 200 / 2 = 100mm or 300 / 2.8 = 107mm isn't much different. All these lenses should cost approximately the same.

not a very strong logic. Sorry.
compare price of Sigma 150-600 C vs 150-600 S lens. 92mm front filter vs 105mm.
 
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
Photography equipment sales are weak, apparently some companies are limiting themselves to high profit equipment.

As for Fuji's strategy, Canon is covering small with EOS-M.



Yes, Canon is in the business of maximizing profit, not on making less money (or God forbid, lose any) on what customers think the revolution's purpose was to begin with.
Evolution
 
Upvote 0
US$4500-5000. Current AU price: AUD $6,800.00

In AUD, look at the MSRP for the 200mm f/2 ($7499 AUD) vs the 300mm f/2.8 ii ($8099 AUD); right around an 8% price difference. Do you really think a 135mm f/1.4, which requires the same large front elements as the 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8, brought to market 12 years later is going to be half the price? Also look at the new 400mm f/2.8 III and 600mm f/4.0 III. By your thinking the 400 should be substantially cheaper than the 600, but the prices come in at $12K and $13K respectively, also around an 8% price difference.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
In AUD, look at the MSRP for the 200mm f/2 ($7499 AUD) vs the 300mm f/2.8 ii ($8099 AUD); right around an 8% price difference. Do you really think a 135mm f/1.4, which requires the same large front elements as the 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8, brought to market 12 years later is going to be half the price? Also look at the new 400mm f/2.8 III and 600mm f/4.0 III. By your thinking the 400 should be substantially cheaper than the 600, but the prices come in at $12K and $13K respectively, also around an 8% price difference.
The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED lens has an 82mm front filter thread as compared to 105mm for the Sigma. I don't know how everyone is coming up with their pricing, but as it relates to front filter thread size... I say it is a bad way to judge price. The Sigma is $1,599 usd and the Nikon runs about $2,500 usd. All the hand wringing over what the final cost will be based on this or that lens is just sillyness. It will be fun revisiting this price arguement once the lens is released... if it ever is.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
$7000? Not a single chance.. how much is the EF 300/2.8 is II, eh? 135/1.4 would cost a half of that.
I am thinking $3,500. Not more.
I agree. The RF 28-70 f/2L is a much more complex lens and rings in at $3k. I don't know the front element size, but the filter ring is 95mm. Seems a 135mm f/1.4 would be a much simpler build no matter what the front element size is. Anyway, I never knew lenses were priced based on front element sizes. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Obviously the lens will be hailed by some and yawned at by others. What I don't understand is the vitriol directed towards what some will obviously want. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Leave everyone else alone. Ain't no gun to nobody's head either way. Buy an EF 135mm f/2L and adapt it. Be happy. Or, buy the new flavor and be happy. I'll prefer the new flavor and the lack of CA... along with the carnival glass parlor trickery. ;)
I was aiming for snarky rather than vitriol but I admit I may have over-shot the mark. I thought the carnival glass thing was pretty clever though. If Canon could just invent a lens that makes people look 20 lbs thinner.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
I was aiming for snarky rather than vitriol but I admit I may have over-shot the mark. I thought the carnival glass thing was pretty clever though. If Canon could just invent a lens that makes people look 20 lbs thinner.
I never interpreted your remarks as vitriol. There are a lot of haters here though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
I was aiming for snarky rather than vitriol but I admit I may have over-shot the mark. I thought the carnival glass thing was pretty clever though. If Canon could just invent a lens that makes people look 20 lbs thinner.

...or 20 IQ points smarter.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I for one am excited for this lens to come into fruition even if I can't see myself actually owning the lens (I am expecting it to cost close to that of the 200mm f/2) based on the fact that I don't shoot professionally and already owning the wonderful Sigma 135mm f/1.8. Who doesn't like seeing progress and what's possible in future lens design? If you're complaining about this what's obviously a specialised-use lens being too big and heavy this lens is obviously not for you.
 
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
I for one am excited for this lens to come into fruition even if I can't see myself actually owning the lens (I am expecting it to cost close to that of the 200mm f/2) based on the fact that I don't shoot professionally and already owning the wonderful Sigma 135mm f/1.8. Who doesn't like seeing progress and what's possible in future lens design? If you're complaining about this what's obviously a specialised-use lens being too big and heavy this lens is obviously not for you.
I am curious if you have used the Canon 135L in the past and how you compare the Sigma and the 1/2 stop difference plus other attributes. TIA
 
Upvote 0
I am curious if you have used the Canon 135L in the past and how you compare the Sigma and the 1/2 stop difference plus other attributes. TIA

I tried my mate's copy a long time ago and before the Sigma came out so it's hard for me to make proper comparisons unfortunately. The Sigma's obviously sharper and from memory has more of a "pop" straight out of camera; I always found what the newer Sigma lenses does well is that "micro contrast" if you like which also aids in the perception of sharpness. It's also better corrected in terms of CA. Weight wise I don't find it to be an issue whatsoever and I am a pretty average build guy (but I also handhold the Sigma 150-600 Sport and walk around for hours with just a R strap) and find it balances quite well with a decent sized body (like my 5D4). I think OOF area renders wonderfully as well. When I bought the Sigma here in Australia on launch I think the Canon at the time was still a little dearer so it was a no-brainer (but even if the Sigma was dearer I would've still gotten the Sigma).

Here is a shot I took of a friend sometime ago not even wide open at f/2.5 (so I could get both mum and bub's eyes in focus) and OOF area is still butter:

Mother and daughter by Tony, on Flickr
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED lens has an 82mm front filter thread as compared to 105mm for the Sigma. I don't know how everyone is coming up with their pricing, but as it relates to front filter thread size... I say it is a bad way to judge price. The Sigma is $1,599 usd and the Nikon runs about $2,500 usd. All the hand wringing over what the final cost will be based on this or that lens is just sillyness. It will be fun revisiting this price arguement once the lens is released... if it ever is.

I get your point, but top quality optics use top quality glass. Top quality glass is very expensive and gets more expensive in large sizes. I am not a technical guess, but at one time had a fetish for nice APO refractors. a 4" refractor may costs $2000 to $3000. An 8" refractor will cost $20,000 or more. A good portion of that difference is the cost of the raw glass,

You can buy cheaper glass of course but most are assuming if Canon were to build a lens as mentioned they will use the top shelf glass. All that being said I would vote for an MSRP around $3500.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
I get your point, but top quality optics use top quality glass. Top quality glass is very expensive and gets more expensive in large sizes. I am not a technical guess, but at one time had a fetish for nice APO refractors. a 4" refractor may costs $2000 to $3000. An 8" refractor will cost $20,000 or more. A good portion of that difference is the cost of the raw glass,

You can buy cheaper glass of course but most are assuming if Canon were to build a lens as mentioned they will use the top shelf glass. All that being said I would vote for an MSRP around $3500.
I agree to your MSRP. My point was that although the Sigma had a much larger front element the Nikon cost far more. People were saying the Canon would cost upwards of $5k to $7k. Just silly.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 12, 2015
852
298
I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras. Fuji is the only mirrorless company that has produced quality fast prime lenses that are small and relatively light. I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ? Looks like Canon's approach is to increase their bottom line rather than provide their customers with lenses that are a better form fit for their new cameras.

Don’t forget Canon M series. It is focused on size and weight, on both camera bodies and lensss. Sure, they don’t have the lens line up that compares to Fuji, but the 11-22mm and the 32 F1.4 are really fine, small and lightweight lenses, that I believe is better than Fuji‘s offerings. The 22mm f2 pancake is also worth mentioning. Sigma supplements the longer focal lengths to some degree with their new 56(?) F1.4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0