Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,298
4,185
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

RMac

R6ii 5DSR 5Diii 7D M5 C300
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?
 
Upvote 0
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2014
481
147
56
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)...
 
Upvote 0

MaximPhotoStudio

EOS Rx2, 15-35, 28-70, 85, 70-200
Aug 31, 2018
20
36
54
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.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
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: 1 users
Upvote 0

mkamelg

EOS R6 Mark II
Feb 1, 2015
73
42
Poland
www.flickr.com
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:
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
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.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,042
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: 1 user
Upvote 0