Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

BurningPlatform

EOS T7i
Mar 4, 2014
95
43
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?
The core of the patent seems to be the usage of two positive lenses (Lp1 Lp2) inside the focus group made of glass with anomalous partial dispersion glass to correct for chromatic aberration on all focus distances. Clever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RMac

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,696
1,388
As a long time owner of the 135L I would take a 1.8 over a 1.4 for size and price reasons. However, once I move to RF mount I doubt I will be replacing same/same. I can only foresee purchasing RF glass in focal lengths I don't own.

Thank you Canon for adapting EF to RF so well!
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
255
208
The difference between this lens and a 1.8 or 2.0 will be $5,000 and triple the weight. Assuming we only get 1 L lens at this focal length, I would be happy to see this lens never get made, because I would really like a compact and fast 135 L lens
Totally agree. I would rather have an F2 for half the weight. Thats enough DOF

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



Add AF, better sharpness and correction and you will hit 4kg :)
 
Dec 6, 2018
144
238
Love 135mm. I had Canon's and have a Zeiss.

Today, I passed a great deal on a like-new EF 135mm for $350 on Craigslist.

I was going to buy, but called the seller and told them to raise their price, because I was just going to buy and sell their lens. Maybe I should have bought it, but hearing her reason for selling, said I'd wait 24 hrs. to see if she can get a better price.
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,696
1,388
I have 6 L lenses but it's the only one I'd keep if I had to pick one. It's not the most expensive either, by a long shot. Not once did I wish it had IS, was more wide open or worried about aberrations. It's not perfect but nothing else has the color and micro contrast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Romain

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
522
356
135 F1.8 with a 77 mm filter size. F2 if they include IS. Shorten the hood while you are at it. Please do not paint it white. Who is asking for f1.4? Completely misses the point of the original lens IMO. Did Canon hire Jony Ive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdavidse and Daner

Mr Majestyk

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2016
199
79
Oh goodie another RF lens with sky-high pricing. Almost same price as a 200 f/2 and over 1.6kg. Hopefully just another patent that won’t see the light of day, and a 135 f/1.8 IS is on the cards
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,524
2,283
Irving, Texas
135 F1.8 with a 77 mm filter size. F2 if they include IS. Shorten the hood while you are at it. Please do not paint it white. Who is asking for f1.4? Completely misses the point of the original lens IMO. Did Canon hire Jony Ive?
I'll take f/1.4 any day. I could always stop down to f/2. If it is f/2 I can't open up to f/1.4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,524
2,283
Irving, Texas
Carnival glass to chase the increasingly tired and played out fad for ridiculously shallow depth of field. But that’s just my opinion. YMMV :)
If distance to subject isn't close up... then the shallow dof can be an asset... especially with busy or unattractive backgrounds. It doesn't have to be 1 eye in focus. Right? Anyway, it is all a matter of personal taste. A person can always stop down if shallow dof isn't wanted. So to answer your question from your post, "Who's asking for f/1.4?" Me. ;) I'd actually prefer a 70-135 f/2 zoom, but I'll take a 135mm f/1.4. When shooting a fashion show in low light and there is some distance, f/1.4 at that focal length would be a Godsend. 35ft at f/1.4 @ 135mm would give me a dof of 1.73ft... no flash allowed. That is a good thing. 85mm at 35ft, f/1.2 would give me a dof of 3.74 feet. Great! So there are very valid uses for fast glass other than half focused faces. :)
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,349
956
Carnival glass to chase the increasingly tired and played out fad for ridiculously shallow depth of field. But that’s just my opinion. YMMV :)
For me that’s not the point, it is to isolate subjects at a greater distance than I can with 85 f1.2. That lens is wonderful, but you have to be close to get the amazing background. With the 200 f2 I had that same separation and pop at a much greater distance. It’s truly something that has to be experienced imo.
 

Jim Corbett

Man-eater's Nightmare
Oct 11, 2019
36
68
I'd get that over any of the 70-200s in a heartbeat! If there is such thing as magical focal length, 135mm would be it.
Not a fan of zooms in general, especially those that extend.
 

Sator

EOS T7i
Oct 14, 2015
72
19
photonicshunkan.blogspot.com
The Mitakon 135mm f/1.4 was priced at $3,000, I doubt Canon would get that close.
The EF 200mm f/2 weighs about 2kg and costs about $5600. The EF 400mm f/2.8 weighs 3.8kg and costs $8000.

The Canon 135mm f/1.4 optical formula looks like it uses extra aspherical elements to reduce the weight and size of the lens as with the latest optical formulae of the recently refreshed EF great whites. That means that even with the addition of an autofocus mechanism, the weight might be able to be kept closer to 3kg (like the Mitakon 135mm f/1.4). However, as with the latest EF great white updates, the additional aspherical elements are likely to push up the cost.

The estimated price based on cost per kilogram of glass suggests that $6-7000 is a much more realistic approximation of market price.
 
Last edited:

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,349
956
The EF 200mm f/2 weighs about 2kg and costs about $5600. The EF 400mm f/2.8 weighs 3.8kg and costs $8000.

The Canon 135mm f/1.4 optical formula looks like it uses extra aspherical elements to reduce the weight and size of the lens as with the latest optical formulae of the recently refreshed EF great whites. That means that even with the addition of an autofocus mechanism, the weight might be able to be kept closer to 3kg (like the Mitakon 135mm f/1.4). However, as with the latest EF great white updates, the additional aspherical elements are likely to push up the cost.

The estimated price based on cost per kilogram of glass suggests that $6-7000 is a much more realistic approximation of market price.
Not to nitpick, but the 200 f2 in use weight is over 2,7kg.