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

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,301
4,187
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.
I recall the head of Leica's optical design answering a journalist that lenses weren't developed to photograph test charts, that the quality of a lens shows in "real life", not only in MTF charts...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Feb 6, 2019
198
112
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. :rolleyes:
I thought you're trying to educate me, so I asked ... geez. Was there something inappropriate of my questions? :unsure::unsure::unsure:

Also, I mentioned about the 400mm f/2.8 and a possibility of 400mm f/2.0, not a zoom.
 
Upvote 0
Is that so?

View attachment 183452

The black lens above is ~300 g heavier than the white one.
Lol....so I guess 2 engineers around the back of their lens shed...smoking on their cigarettes....chatting...I think we'll paint this one black...and that one white. That'll confuse every one and really mess up the OCD guys.....there is no logic.....
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Lol....so I guess 2 engineers around the back of their lens shed...smoking on their cigarettes....chatting...I think we'll paint this one black...and that one white. That'll confuse every one and really mess up the OCD guys.....there is no logic.....
There used to be. Originally, white paint went on lenses with fluorite elements in them, ostensibly because fluorite is more temperature sensitive than traditional glass and the white paint keeps the lens cooler ( I say ostensibly because Nikon evidently has no trouble painting lenses with fluorite elements black, but then Nikon are also the ones who previously claimed fluorite elements were bad because they were prone to cracking).

However, certain more recent lenses without fluorite elements have been painted white, for example the 70-300L. That suggests the current rationale is based on marketing rather than technical factors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
There used to be. Originally, white paint went on lenses with fluorite elements in them, ostensibly because fluorite is more temperature sensitive than traditional glass and the white paint keeps the lens cooler ( I say ostensibly because Nikon evidently has no trouble painting lenses with fluorite elements black, but then Nikon are also the ones who previously claimed fluorite elements were bad because they were prone to cracking).

However, certain more recent lenses without fluorite elements have been painted white, for example the 70-300L. That suggests the current rationale is based on marketing rather than technical factors.

Most of the larger non-white Canon telephotos, such as the 180mm macro, are older designs without fluorite elements that have not been updated for over 20 years. In the case of the EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro, it's been unchanged since 1996. The EF 200mm f/2.8 L II has also been the same since 1996.

The EF 200mm f/1.8 L (1988) and EF 200mm f/2 L IS (2008) both have fluorite elements and are both white.

The EF 400mm f/5.6 L (1993) and EF 300mm f/4 L (1991) are both white and have "... one Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass lens element (2nd) with an optical effect similar to fluorite."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
I thought you're trying to educate me, so I asked ... geez. Was there something inappropriate of my questions? :unsure::unsure::unsure:

Also, I mentioned about the 400mm f/2.8 and a possibility of 400mm f/2.0, not a zoom.

400/2.0 lens would be a huge one. 200mm front element is a massive chunk of glass. I would imagine the weight of such a lens would be over 10kg.

183512
 
Upvote 0

Hector1970

CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,554
1,162
There used to be. Originally, white paint went on lenses with fluorite elements in them, ostensibly because fluorite is more temperature sensitive than traditional glass and the white paint keeps the lens cooler ( I say ostensibly because Nikon evidently has no trouble painting lenses with fluorite elements black, but then Nikon are also the ones who previously claimed fluorite elements were bad because they were prone to cracking).

However, certain more recent lenses without fluorite elements have been painted white, for example the 70-300L. That suggests the current rationale is based on marketing rather than technical factors.
I see a white lens and I want to paint it black
No colours any more I want to paint them black

What would happen to a flourite element if it overheated. Does it crack or distort or cloud over?
I'd agree I think its been a great marketing tool in a world of black lens.
 
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,301
4,187
I see a white lens and I want to paint it black
No colours any more I want to paint them black

What would happen to a flourite element if it overheated. Does it crack or distort or cloud over?
I'd agree I think its been a great marketing tool in a world of black lens.
I recall my July trip to Death Valley, several years ago. My cameras were black Leica R models, with an Apo Telyt 180mm lens, originally developed for the US Navy.
After a few hundred yards, I could no longer touch the cameras, and the 180mm tele had a cracked front lens (special ED glass, not fluorite).
I'm convinced this would not have happened with a white heat -reflecting paint! So, I'm quite sure that Canon -white is an advantage, though not really discreet...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
I recall my July trip to Death Valley, several years ago. My cameras were black Leica R models, with an Apo Telyt 180mm lens, originally developed for the US Navy.
After a few hundred yards, I could no longer touch the cameras, and the 180mm tele had a cracked front lens (special ED glass, not fluorite).
I'm convinced this would not have happened with a white heat -reflecting paint! So, I'm quite sure that Canon -white is an advantage, though not really discreet...
Paddlers with carbon fibre paddles (black) tend to dump them in the water to cool off before they pick them up after they have been lying in the sun. It works, but I don’t recommend it with cameras.
 
  • Like
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
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?
She's one of my favorite photographers. And yes, it is a special lens.
 
Upvote 0