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

Kit.

EOS 7D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
740
303
We will know within 16 months as the lens release and development announcement indicates a shift on priorities,
Are you saying that brand recognition is not a priority for Canon anymore?
 

Kit.

EOS 7D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
740
303
By the time this lens arrives, I suspect Canon’s flagship R type body will be available with IBIS.
Is IBIS effective for the focal length of 135mm (not the "135mm equivalent" for a tiny sensor, but the real 135mm)?
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
201
64
Was it ever done for the EF range?
Sure, the 50mm f/1.8 "Mk I" and the 35mm f/2.0 "non-IS" are what I'm talking about. Basically, the lens might as well be as deep as the R's grip; any shallower doesn't make the system as a whole shallower. The 35mm/1.8ISMac is twice the size I'd like in an every-day lens, in part from IS and in part from macro capability I think. Though of course AF and the control ring also make it bigger. (I'm using a Leica 35/1.4 ASPH as my "always in the backpack" lens until Canon comes up with something cheaper and native.)

(I tried my 50mm f/1.8 "Mk I" on an adapter but the combined size is the size of the RF 35mm, which is twice as big as I want.)

(I also tried the 45mm and 28mm pancakes on an adapter and while the resulting size is almost right, they're still a little too big, and also for the amount of space they take up they should be a 1-1 1/3 stops brighter than they are.)
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
820
150
Is IBIS effective for the focal length of 135mm (not the "135mm equivalent" for a tiny sensor, but the real 135mm)?
This, from Sony IBIS, indicates that it is effective for long focal lengths. Of course there will be some implementation differences.

 
Mar 14, 2012
2,231
127
Sure, the 50mm f/1.8 "Mk I" and the 35mm f/2.0 "non-IS" are what I'm talking about. Basically, the lens might as well be as deep as the R's grip; any shallower doesn't make the system as a whole shallower. The 35mm/1.8ISMac is twice the size I'd like in an every-day lens, in part from IS and in part from macro capability I think. Though of course AF and the control ring also make it bigger. (I'm using a Leica 35/1.4 ASPH as my "always in the backpack" lens until Canon comes up with something cheaper and native.)

(I tried my 50mm f/1.8 "Mk I" on an adapter but the combined size is the size of the RF 35mm, which is twice as big as I want.)

(I also tried the 45mm and 28mm pancakes on an adapter and while the resulting size is almost right, they're still a little too big, and also for the amount of space they take up they should be a 1-1 1/3 stops brighter than they are.)
I don't see something that small and fast a priority for Canon. The market is shrinking, and there is a flight for the higher priced segment. Look at how Panasonic is positioning their GH5s and their FF entries, and Fuji and Olympus with their high priced bodies. The RF ecosystem won't be as a large as the EF ecosystem for that reason. A lot of consumer grade options will not be duplicated -- it'll be more enthusiast and above. So most people are looking for quality over portability with FF. Most of the people that value portability over all else often choose cell phones, which is why the whole market is shrinking.

There is a reason why Canon chose to lead the R ecosystem with expensive glass. And with the 35 f/1.8 IS macro and the 35L lens (EF version II and the eventual RF version), that focal length is pretty much covered. Maybe there will be a pancake or two, but those will be slow (f/2.8) and Canon knows that it'll sell more AF lenses than MF lenses (which can be smaller). The R with the RF 35 f/1.8 IS is not that big. Halving the lens depth does not save that much in the volume of body/lens combo. What does is a EOS M with the 22 f/2. Size is a guiding principle for Canon in how it treats the M ecosystem and why it is not a full system with many lenses at fast apertures.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

Trey T

EOS T7i
Feb 6, 2019
65
24
For that with a front element at least 200mm you may need to sell both kidneys and may be your Liver as well.
By putting the lens about 3/4" closer to the sensor (film plane), they should be able to achieve better than the current f/2.8 aperture of the 400mm lens. I think f/2.0 is doable.

In terms of pricing, it's important but not really important for this conversation. I'm more interested in the technology progression.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,831
1,006
By putting the lens about 3/4" closer to the sensor (film plane), they should be able to achieve better than the current f/2.8 aperture of the 400mm lens. I think f/2.0 is doable.
Trey, I’d like to introduce you to Physics...it appears that you haven’t met.

For any lens, the entrance pupil (which is the optical representation of the physical aperture) needs to be filled with light. For telephoto lenses, the entrance pupil is essentially at the front element, meaning you need a front element about the same size as the physical aperture, which is focal length / f-number. A 400mm f/2.0 lens would need a 200mm diameter front element. A shorter flange focal distance isn’t going to change that one bit.
 

Larsskv

Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Jun 12, 2015
739
148
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:

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.
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.
 

Trey T

EOS T7i
Feb 6, 2019
65
24
Trey, I’d like to introduce you to Physics...it appears that you haven’t met.

For any lens, the entrance pupil (which is the optica representation of the physical aperture) needs to be filled with light. For telephoto lenses, the entrance pupil is essentially at the front element, meaning you need a front element about the same size as the physical aperture, which is focal length / f-number. A 400mm f/2.0 lens would need a 200mm diameter front element. A shorter flange focal distance isn’t going to change that one bit.
But I'm talking about RF flange, larger rear aperture.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,016
586
Irving, Texas
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:

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.
I own the EF 135mm f/2L and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. In my experience the 135mm has better bokeh at f/2.8, and of course, the 70-200 is terrible at f/2. ;)