This is likely Canon’s lens roadmap for 2020

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,962
2,969
Irving, Texas
Yeah.. it’s a film like. Classics.
here is Meg’s website:

http://www.megloeks.com/she is also on FB and Instagram. Reach out to her and see what transpires.
A rendition that this lens is offering is quite unique though.
Very true about the lens. I have a friend with one, but for Sony mount... so I can't use it.

I see she offers editing and color workshops. Thanks so much for the links. I absolutely love what she does.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
So true with an exception of some modern lenses that are sharp and also “pleasing”
I thoroughly regret selling this puppy here. It was way to large to be practical. In fact some of my subjects felt intimidated in front of this lens. I had to use something else instead.
I am thinking of buying the lens back in 2021 though.

https://www.myclickmagazine.com/click-pro-review-sigma-art-105mm-lens-magic-of-childhood/
If you're into that style, Elena Shumilova does pretty much the same thing with the EF 50mm f/1.2 L, EF 85mm f/1.2 L, and EF 135mm f/2 L. She also does a TON of postprocessing and even compositing. The backlit backgrounds are not always from the same frame as the front/side lit subjects. She claims to rarely if ever use flash, but analysis of a very small portion of some of her work says otherwise.
 
Last edited:

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,029
940
[
If you're into that style, Elena Shumilova does pretty much the same thing with the EF 50mm f/1.2 L, EF 85mm f/1.2 L, and EF 135mm f/2 L. She also does a TON of postprocessing and even compositing.
yup, I am familiar with what Elena is doing.
that’s way too much for my taste though.
however, see if you can find some OOC or moderately processed images taken with Sigma 105 Art on internet. See if you like it.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
Actually, one or two of the classic Leica lenses used a rare earth glass with a half-life measured in perhaps decades. Not enough to be a health threat, but enough to physically change the chemical composition and thus optics of the lens. These probably make quite different images now as element A changes to B over time. (And the reason I can be sure the optical result is different is that if the elements were the same or even similar optically, Leica would have simply used stable product B to start out with...)

And the one factor (now to argue against my broader point) that might possibly make older lenses a bit better in some cases is that nowadays, some lens materials like I believe lead are restricted, on grounds that normal disposal would put them into the environment. While I'm totally behind the safety factor, I think photography as a community would be willing to promise to throw away broken lenses as a special trash item, if it means that we get better lenses in compensation. I mean, write in an 8pt font right on the barrel: "contains leaded glass and requires special disposal to avoid health issues in your community".

But that's just one factor, and in practice the stellar results we're seeing now tell us that this worry is more academic than not.
There were far more than one or two lenses from Leica that used thorium oxide in their glass. For example, Kodak Ektar and Aero-Ektar large format lenses produced from the 1940s through the 1960s used it. Kodak also used it in the glass of some of their high end Instamatics, like the 800 and 814. Some Minolta Rokkor lenses from the 1960s used radioactive rare earth elements. So did the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 lens and the Asahi Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lenses from that era. Some Canon FL and early FD lenses, such as the FL 50/1.4 and FD 55/1.2 S.S.C. are also radioactive. Zeiss, Voigtlander, and Olympus had a few such lenses. Fujica and Yashinon had more than a few.

Here's a list of over 100 such lenses that have been recently measured with radioactivity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
992
202
Regarding Canon not duplicating lens lines, my photography teacher said one reason certain focal lengths became popular because the human mind is somehow predisposed to like the perspective created by them (I half expected him to compare it to the way people like meadows in a sunny day, a la XP default wallpaper), and went on a bit to note how close the ratio of primes' focal lengths was to 1.414, e.g. 20/14, 28/20, 35/24, 50/35, etc. I think he had a bit of numerology in his argument, and that it has more to do with photographers like focal lengths nicely spaced. E.g. People would buy either an 85mm lens or a 100mm lens, but not both. Then one might not be comfortable cropping too much, so the next reasonable prime is 135mm, not 200mm.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,570
485
Davidson, NC
There really isn't enough of a focal length difference between 85mm and 100mm to justify having both. I'm not sure why I wound up with both among my FL lenses, but I did use them differently, I think. I'm not sure whether the longer one was 100mm or 105mm, come to think of it, not that it would have made a practical difference.

I have both now in EF lenses for more obvious reasons. I have the non-L 100mm macro, but don't care for the look for portraits. So when Canon had a refurb sale, I bought an 85mm f/1.8 lens for <$300 which works great for that. So the focal lengths are close, but the lenses are very different in use. I do use the 100mm in non-macro situations sometimes, still. But with 24-105mm and the 100-400mm zooms, I have that focal length more than adequately covered.

For reasons unknown, I don't believe I ever owned a 135mm lens. I know it is a favorite for a lot of people, even for portraits. Back in my film days I got to where I tended to take the 28mm, the 85mm, and the 200mm with me as my all-purpose set.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
For reasons unknown, I don't believe I ever owned a 135mm lens. I know it is a favorite for a lot of people, even for portraits. Back in my film days I got to where I tended to take the 28mm, the 85mm, and the 200mm with me as my all-purpose set.
I'd probably get one...if there were a non-L version around.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,570
485
Davidson, NC
I'd probably get one...if there were a non-L version around.
I wouldn’t bother to carry around the 100-400mm to get the 135mm focal length. I’d just shoot at 105mm with my kit lens and crop a bit. I rarely need the whole 26MP of the 6D2. I realize that I would’t get the look of a wide open 135mm f/2 whatever I would do, but that is not something I have ever missed.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
I wouldn’t bother to carry around the 100-400mm to get the 135mm focal length. I’d just shoot at 105mm with my kit lens and crop a bit. I rarely need the whole 26MP of the 6D2. I realize that I would’t get the look of a wide open 135mm f/2 whatever I would do, but that is not something I have ever missed.
I don't use primes enough to justify truly expensive ones, but even the (relative) cheapies have a better f/number than the zooms. I do have the 85mm 1/4; 135mm would be a logical step up...again if there were a non-L, an L isn't worth it to me. (My 100mm macro is f/2.8 and I tend to use it for...macro. The relatively minor focal length difference between it and an 85 is outweighed by the 85's aperture.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
408
179
The EF 50mm f/1.2 was not primarily designed to be the sharpest lens around. It was designed to do other things, because back then most folks cared more about how the actual photos they took looked than how sharp they could take a photo of a flat test chart. Some of us still do, but the flat test chart lenses are what sell now, even if the out of focus areas don't look near as good as some of the older lenses do.
Disagree. People were as concerned with resolution then as now, and I haven't seen a comparison where the EF 50/1.2 produced a more pleasing or otherwise aesthetically preferable image to the RF 50/1.2, except for the vignetting in the RF (which is fully corrected by software should you wish). The only plus I'd give the EF's was size, but I imagine the coming RF 1.8 will be small enough. I had all the EF 50s (1.8 1.0 1.4 1.2) and was so glad to sell them once I realized how good my RF was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
I'd probably get one...if there were a non-L version around.
The EF 135mm f/2 L is generally available for well under $1,000 if you're willing to buy refurbished (when the Canon refurb store has them) or used from reputable sellers. My favorite used seller is currently Lensrentals.com's used department, lensauthority.com. They've currently got at least three listed for sale.

I got my 135/2 direct from Canon refurb for a little over $700 plus tax, but it took a long time of watching for when they had one listed in stock. I had a notification set up (I think via CPW) and missed a couple of opportunities because I didn't see the e-mail for 4-6 hours after they were listed and they were already sold out.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
408
179
I'd probably get one...if there were a non-L version around.
I agree with Michael Clark on this on. The EF 135/2L is probably #2 sharpest of the black EF's excepting the 180/3.5L Macro. If there's a 135mm for the RF mount I'm sure it will be a little sharper but not by too much. (More likely it will be a 1.8 or 1.4, and have IS, and thus a lot bigger and heavier.) Meanwhile, the rear elements of the 135 are nowhere near the mounting plate. That tells me they didn't have to compromise the natural lens design to leave room for the SLR mirror, unlike lenses 85mm and wider. That in turn 1) gives me confidence that the new freedom of the RF mount to put glass as far back as you want won't make the RF better, unlike say the 35-50mm's, and 2) that an RF 135mm would also not be a great deal more compact on camera (and in fact would probably be a bit longer just to reach the camera flange). The 2L is a very handy, portable lens so I wouldn't waste time looking at the old 135/2.8 to see if it's enough lighter or more compact to be worth it. It's not. And finally, if you buy it used on eBay or a reconditioned one, it's one of the cheapest L's you could buy now too.

The image quality is superb. It makes shots look like movie stills.

Actually one more point in favor: even if you get the 70-200/2.8L at some point, the 135/2L still brings some things to the table: an entire stop's worth more bokeh, and more sharpness. In contrast if you get the non-L 135/2.8, then you've bought something you'd never benefit from if you get the big zoom.

I've had about 24 different Canon lenses and up to 15 at once. The 135/2 was the only "favorite lens" of mine. Not the 600/4 that cost the most, not the RF50/1.2 that is the sharpest, not the 24-105/4L I use the most often. I've done tourism with the 17-35/2.8, 50/1.4, and 135/2 going back to film days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
Disagree. People were as concerned with resolution then as now, and I haven't seen a comparison where the EF 50/1.2 produced a more pleasing or otherwise aesthetically preferable image to the RF 50/1.2, except for the vignetting in the RF (which is fully corrected by software should you wish). The only plus I'd give the EF's was size, but I imagine the coming RF 1.8 will be small enough. I had all the EF 50s (1.8 1.0 1.4 1.2) and was so glad to sell them once I realized how good my RF was.
People were not as concerned about resolution back then to the degree they are now for a variety of reasons, mostly to do with the limitations of roll film. It doesn't lay perfectly flat against the back plate. The three color emulsions are at slightly different distances from the lens. Grain in the emulsion was not perfectly distributed.

For non-Macro lenses, people also were not nearly as concerned about resolution at the edge of the frame when the lens was wide open and focused optimally on the center of the frame as they were about resolution at the center of the frame back then. If they wanted edge to edge sharpness, they expected they would need to stop down a bit.

Lenses do not need to be near as sharp to exploit the limits of film or early digital sensors with well less than 10 MP of resolution as they need to be to exploit the limits of 50MP+ sensors. Why do you think Canon released so many upgrades to the "L" series lineup in the couple of years before the release of the EOS 5Ds / 5Ds R? It was because most of their lenses, including some of the top tier primes and f/2.8 zooms were not up to the challenge of a 50MP sensor if one is going to go pixel peeping with the results.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,577
2,119
120
I think people that worry about lens sharpness and resolution are in an enchanted forest and are looking at a twig on the ground.

I have seen utterly stunning images from the EF 50 f1.2, simply stunning; in contrast most of the images I see from the RF 50 f1.2 look overly ‘digital’ and clinical, like images shot with a macro lens.

The vast majority of images I find compelling do not rely on micro-contrast in the corners they are compelling because of the subject matter, the timing, the light etc etc etc.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
I have no idea what you're talking about.

We're talking about the RF 50mm f/1.2 vs. the EF 50mm f/1.2. The EF 50mm f/1.2 came out in like 2007 and you're talking film and sub-10MP sensors?

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef392.html
I have no idea what you're talking about, either.

What I actually said (which you couldn't even include to the first comma because it weakens your depiction of what you want to pretend I meant) is, " People were not as concerned about resolution back then to the degree they are now for a variety of reasons..."

I also said, "For non-Macro lenses, people also were not nearly as concerned about resolution at the edge of the frame when the lens was wide open and focused optimally on the center of the frame as they were about resolution at the center of the frame back then."

So please stop pretending I said no one cared about resolution at all without any qualifications.

The EF 50mm f/1.2 L is a classic double Gauss design that has been around for far longer than 2007, even if that is when this particular lens using it was introduced. It's basically a minor modification of the Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Series O f/2 designs from 1920. The fourth and fifth elements are a group that acts in the same way as the fourth element of the TT&H design, and the sixth and seventh elements are a group that acts in the same way that the fifth element in the TT&H design does. The only real modification is the use of a single aspherical surface in the final element.

1593025423488.png


As Roger Cicala noted in the blog entry linked above, "It’s also not surprising that each of the 50mm lenses have some characteristics in common (wickedly sharp in the center, a bit of field curvature, a bit of edge astigmatism, etc.)." If you want to argue that the EF 50mm f/1.2 L is not sharp in the center, argue with Uncle Roger.

In January of 2007 when the EF 50mm f/1.2 L was introduced, the current cameras in Canon's EOS lineup included:

8.2 MP 1D Mark II N
12.8MP 5D
8.2MP 30D
10.1MP Rebel XTi/400D
16.7MP 1Ds Mark II

The 10.1MP 1D Mark III was introduced later in 2007, as was the 10.1MP 40D.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: SwissFrank
May 31, 2019
2
0
Not a single new or updated EF lens. When I get to the point where I want an updated version of one of my EF-L lenses, and the only way to get it is to buy an RF mount version. That means I also have to buying a RF mount body. Before I do that, I will look long and hard at other camera makers systems.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,577
2,119
120
Not a single new or updated EF lens. When I get to the point where I want an updated version of one of my EF-L lenses, and the only way to get it is to buy an RF mount version. That means I also have to buying a RF mount body. Before I do that, I will look long and hard at other camera makers systems.
I’d like to see the images you are making when you feel Canon don’t make an EF lens good enough.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
408
179
Thanks for the lecture, Mikey, though we all know this. Your initial, and quite mistaken, claim wasn't about lens designs but lenses themselves. I'm kind of insulted that you think the readership of this forum would forget your initial thesis and applaud your scrambling attempt to support it, but no, we can scroll up and see what you were initially talking about. When you're caught out wrong, just admit it and learn something. Don't double down on stupid.