Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
619
576
Hamburg, Germany
I like Canon going for new designs that nobody else does (well).

We hear people demanding better low light performance all the time - going for a lens that lets in more light is the easiest way to get there.

I'm not sure if Canon would release this lens if it would end up being just a show off like the 58 0.95.
 

Daner

AE-1 Program
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'm with you in principle, but the RF 15-35, 24-70, and 85 1.2 all use an 82mm filter thread, so I wouldn't mind them getting all the aperture they can out of 82 instead of being limited to 77.

I hope that they don't do what Sigma did with their 105mm f/1.4. At that focal length, it is just too big and heavy for me to consider for extended use in the wild. Funny that I had no problem carrying my EF 100-400 around, but it was a bit lighter than the Sigma, and the additional versatility made the weight well worth it.
 

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
535
378
If Canon can do a practical f1.4 at a reasonable cost then they should but that’s not what this sounds like. I’m fine with the f2 which will also benefit from IBIS. I think the subject isolation is fine and I can use it wide open without ever having to stop down.
Ultra narrow DOF is a parlor trick and those get old after a while. There is also the fact that phones, with their lens arrays, are going to be very very good at this in another generation or two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,346
244
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
And I would like to see an f/2 135 IS STM Macro (1:2 would be sufficient) for those guys who have a (1) thinner wallet, (2) would like an allround light tele and (3) have not personnel to lug around all the stuff. A very great companion to the RF 35 in my opinion.

But it is always nice to see some high end special lenses come to patents and maybe real products (I think a cine version would be a sought after lens for a lot of filmmakers).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
714
756
Totally agree. I would rather have an F2 for half the weight. Thats enough DOF




Add AF, better sharpness and correction and you will hit 4kg :)
If the Chinese-- made manual focusing Mitakon already sells for $ 3000, how much will the high-salary Japanese made Canon 1,4/135 AF cost ?
I'm sadly convinced, about as much as the 200 f2 L.:eek::cry:
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
737
496
I'm with you in principle, but the RF 15-35, 24-70, and 85 1.2 all use an 82mm filter thread, so I wouldn't mind them getting all the aperture they can out of 82 instead of being limited to 77.

I hope that they don't do what Sigma did with their 105mm f/1.4. At that focal length, it is just too big and heavy for me to consider for extended use in the wild. Funny that I had no problem carrying my EF 100-400 around, but it was a bit lighter than the Sigma, and the additional versatility made the weight well worth it.
I would call the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 'cartoonish'. The results are great, but I hated using it, way too heavy and worse: front heavy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM and Daner

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,346
244
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
One more thing: I like to see the trend in Canons lenses to use a high number of lens elements and a comparatively low number of lens groups - just like the RF 50 RF 85 and EF-M 32.
Less glass-air transitions, less reflections / flares hence better contrast.
 

Daner

AE-1 Program
I would call the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 'cartoonish'. The results are great, but I hated using it, way too heavy and worse: front heavy.
I have no criticisms of the results or the price. It is an impressive lens, but if I am going to deal with something that heavy I am going to need a different use case to motivate it and a lens with more length and/or more versatility.
 
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+?
Typical canon- one more huge bulbous lens that weighs more than the R camera body. Canon's 135 f2 lens is a light weigh killer lens, where is the need for an f 1.4 edition that weighs more and costs twice as much? This is one of the reasons that I am giving some hard thought to abandoning Canon and going with a Sony A73. Better dynamic range, and I can use my existing Canon glass with an adapter. There are also a slew of lens manufactures that make smaller, lighter lenses for the Sony system.
 
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+?
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.
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,874
1,675
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.
They aren't alone.

Still, there might just be bodies on the way which balance better
 

Attachments

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,702
2,622
Irving, Texas
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.
Who proclaimed the mirrorless purpose was smaller and lighter in all cases? The Micro 4/3 crowd? My lenses fit to form just fine for my taste. As for m4/3... I have one and the form factor sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hamoser and RGB86

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
A 1.4 might be double the cost of a 2.0 ($5000?) but it provides enough differentiation from my 70-200 f2.8 to be a consideration.

All that glass looks heavy, like the RF50 1.2
 

PerKr

EOS T7i
Jul 11, 2018
75
69
Sverige
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.
The minute people started asking for large sensors in mirrorless cameras they threw the size argument out the window. What's the point of a large sensor if you're going to use slow lenses anyway? If you want compact, you go with Fuji or m4/3 rather than a FF Sony/Nikon/Canon.
And of course Canon go for very fast and expensive RF lenses that showcase the advantages of their mount. It's a big finger at Sony, saying "any lens you can do, we can do better!". It's not like a good 135/1.8 is a small, lightweight lens either way (and comparing Sony lenses, the old A-mount 135/1.8 is only slightly heavier than the much newer E-mount version while the newer lens is large enough that the A9 with the 135/1.8 is close in size to the A900 FF DSLR with its 135/1.8)

Fuji lenses are small and light because they serve a much smaller sensor. Same goes for m4/3.
 

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
619
576
Hamburg, Germany
If the Chinese-- made manual focusing Mitakon already sells for $ 3000, how much will the high-salary Japanese made Canon 1,4/135 AF cost ?
If some Chinese guys can hit a 3k price point with a product limited to just 100 copies, Canon with their high degree of automation and top notch economies of scale could do it a lot cheaper.