Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

Aug 22, 2010
1,633
331
49
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
One of the joys of the ef 135mm f2.0 L is that it's a very small and light lens (relatively) and it's way more versatile that is obvious from it's space sheets. The problem with it is that it's an old design lens (pre-digital) and it could really do with an image stabiliser. It's not a fantastically fast lens to use, sure it has an f2.0 aperture, but due to it's focal length a min shutter speed of 1/125th is required. So it's no where near as bright to use as say an 85mm f1.2.
If Canon decides to increase the aperture to f1.4 then the front element is likely to be around the 95mm in size (currently 72mm) and that means a far larger and heavier lens.
I'd like to have a go with what ever Canon are producing here, but I suspect that it would be quite bulky.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
712
755
I disagree, a 135mm f1.4 need only have a 95mm front element, it’s not crazy like the larger than 100mm front elements on all the big whites. A 135mm f1.8 need only have a 75mm front element, or a 77mm filter thread.

Indeed the RF 28-70mm f2 has a 95mm front thread and is $3,000, I’d expect a 135mm f1.4 to be mechanically simpler, a similar size, lighter, and less costly. I’d guesstimate the $2,499 prince point. A 135mm f1.8 should be considerably cheaper than that, probably sub $2,000.
Your word in Kwanon's ear !;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy
131mm/f1.41 -> ~93mm diameter entrance pupil.
Based on the sketch (assuming it's to scale; I not sure if that's the case with patent drawings) and the given length of ~183 mm (assuming that corresponds to the dimension labeled OL on the drawing), the front element diameter is ~109mm (a bit larger than the ~105mm front element on the Sigma 105mm f1.4)

This probably puts a lens of this design closer to the EF 200mm f2L ($5700) than the RF 28-70mm F2L ($3000) from a size standpoint, which would likely put this lens in new territory price-wise for something that doesn't fit into the "big white lens" category. At 13 elements though, it's a bit simpler than the 200mm F2...

Does anyone know what the "Lp1" and "Lp2" labels mean? Asphereical elements?
 

raptor3x

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2012
573
75
State College, PA
whumber.com
Why? That doesn’t make any sense or correlate with similar sized glass Canon already make.
Which similar sized glass are you thinking it compares to? It's going to be similar in size to the 200mm f/2 which sells for around $6K. Add in the requirement of having to maintain sharpness with a faster aperture as well as the price premium we've been seeing for the high end RF lenses and I expect it would end up around $7K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,741
667
Which similar sized glass are you thinking it compares to? It's going to be similar in size to the 200mm f/2 which sells for around $6K. Add in the requirement of having to maintain sharpness with a faster aperture as well as the price premium we've been seeing for the high end RF lenses and I expect it would end up around $7K.
$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.
 

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
439
113
52
I would be absolutely shocked when this lens hits the market (if it does) that the entry price point is greater than $3K USD. I would suspect that it would be 3X - 4X or so the cost of the current EF 135mm f2.0L. I would say intro price of $2,899 or less. Right around 180mm (or so) is where you start leaning towards "super-"telephoto vs. telephoto. A 135mm lens is still considered a telephoto. Plus, I think it would be a significant stretch for Canon to introduce it for more than $3K.

Time will tell - if it comes to market (which I have no doubts that it will)...
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,419
1,064
Does it come with a free trail for the gym ;)
Weight lifting might be recommendable :ROFLMAO:

Filter size about 95 to 105 mm, lenght 162,2 mm, approx. weight 1,5 kg +
If it’s only 1,5 kg’s I wouldn’t at all consider that heavy... That’s the same as the 70-200 mk3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

MaximPhotoStudio

EOS Rx2, 15-35, 28-70, 85, 70-200
Aug 31, 2018
16
24
50
Springboro Ohio
MaximPhotoStudio.com
Does it come with a free trail for the gym ;)
Weight lifting might be recommendable :ROFLMAO:

Filter size about 95 to 105 mm, lenght 162,2 mm, approx. weight 1,5 kg +
I've been bodybuilding since 1989 in anticipation of this lens. I've been doing pre-exhaust set with my EF 200 f/2 (w/lens hood on of course) for the past 10 years. I. AM. READY.
 

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
921
332
Just playing with a DoF calculator....looking at about 1.6 inches at 10 ft and 3.7 inches at 15 ft. That actually isn't as bad as I thought it would be.
 

shawn

EOS M50
Jan 28, 2019
38
42
This could be a sign that an f/2 zoom in this range is on the horizon. An f/2 zoom in the 70-150mm range would be preferable to an 135 f/2 prime most of the time. Especially with how good Canon's RF 28-70mm is. So if they're going to do a 135mm prime an aperture of f/1.4 makes sense.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,701
2,621
Irving, Texas
This could be a sign that an f/2 zoom in this range is on the horizon. An f/2 zoom in the 70-150mm range would be preferable to an 135 f/2 prime most of the time. Especially with how good Canon's RF 28-70mm is. So if they're going to do a 135mm prime an aperture of f/1.4 makes sense.
Even a 70-135 f/2 would be great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick and pj1974

mkamelg

I'm New Here
Feb 1, 2015
22
9
Poland
Be still my beating heart! If this comes to fruition I will be one very happy guy! Please Canon. Please! A native f/2 would be fine, f/1.4 would be sublime. Wondering what the front filter thread size would be. 105mm+?
Do you remember Mitakon SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4?




■ Focal length: 135mm (35mm equivalent)
■ Focus: MF (manual focus)
■ Aperture: F1.4-F16
■ Lens configuration: 11 elements in 5 groups (3 ultra-large aperture ED lenses)
■ Aperture blades: 11
■ Shortest shooting distance: 1.6m
■ Maximum shooting magnification: 0.1 times
■ Length: 160mm
■ Diameter: Φ111mm
■ Filter diameter: 105mm
■ Weight: about 3000g
■ Exclusive hood attachment


 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,701
2,621
Irving, Texas
Do you remember Mitakon SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4?




■ Focal length: 135mm (35mm equivalent)
■ Focus: MF (manual focus)
■ Aperture: F1.4-F16
■ Lens configuration: 11 elements in 5 groups (3 ultra-large aperture ED lenses)
■ Aperture blades: 11
■ Shortest shooting distance: 1.6m
■ Maximum shooting magnification: 0.1 times
■ Length: 160mm
■ Diameter: Φ111mm
■ Filter diameter: 105mm
■ Weight: about 3000g
■ Exclusive hood attachment


No. Never heard of it. Manual focus too.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
699
323
The rear element is still big on the RF mount with a short flange, that enables them to reduce the diameter of the front element.
Official quote: "If the “back focus” distance between a lens’ rear element and the camera’s sensor is too far, the light entering the rear element is condensed and is harder to do aberration correction on. Lenses counteract this by making the front element (and whole lens) larger and bulkier. "
So it might be possible to do with a 95mm filter thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj