135mm f/1.4 full-frame lens coming from third party

[9VIII]

135f1.4 is actually only slightly thinner DOF than 85f1.2, so this shouldn't be much different from the current "Bokeh Master" lenses on the market.

I've been reading rumors of a Fuji 33mm f1.0 lens and that actually has me excited. I know it's basically the same as a 50f1.4, but just the existence of an f1.0 lens is quite out of the ordinary. Fuji has pretty high standards and it could end up being one of the best crop lenses ever made.

 

[risc32]

There is more to bokeh than fstops. I don't think f1 lenses for little baby sensor cameras are rare at all. They are generally just manual focus and they tend to underperform. I wouldn't go getting to excited about DOFs shrinking away to nothing. We aren't really breaking new ground here, my 60 yr old camera is far beyond all this. I know this might seem hard to believe but they used to use tilt-shift lenses to combat the tiny DOF. Weird right? And here I thought they were invented for the sole purpose of making things look miniature.

 

[9VIII]

There is more to bokeh than fstops.

People looking at the Fuji system can probably look forward to more lenses like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-ckE1Hi9Zs

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Mitakon typically makes tricked out lead-pipe-like f/0.95 lenses for mirrorless rigs, but check this out:

http://photorumors.com/2015/10/17/mitakon-135mm-f1-4-lens-to-be-announced-soon/

They say it will be for "Sony FE, Canon (pictures above) and most likely Nikon mounts"

The picture is clearly a solid-topped (no pop-up flash) + non-integrally gripped body, which means 5D(something) or 6D --> that's a full-frame lens.

- A

How can I hanhold and do MF to this lens at 135mm and get sharp wide-open pictures? I can't. So, this is not in my wishlist

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd be inclined to go for a 200mm f/2 L rather than try to get service on one of these.

 

[martti]

Does it come with a focus puller?

 

[Ozarker]

MF with that lens would be easy. Just carry a tall rocking chair everywhere and rock back and forth while shooting in burst mode.

That's funny! ;D

 

[9VIII]

The small size benefit of mirrorless shines here :

Actually it's really nice to be able to fit the lens in a backpack with a body attached, thus smaller bodies are great even with supertelephoto lenses.
Everything but the 1200f5.6 would probably be easier to use with a smaller body (the mule carrying it won't care if there's a 1D stuck on the end).

 

[AE-1Burnham]

Come on Canon! Do your magic with a 135 F1.8L IS!,-not that there is any pressure from this 1.4 but still..!

 

[scyrene]

The small size benefit of mirrorless shines here :

Actually it's really nice to be able to fit the lens in a backpack with a body attached, thus smaller bodies are great even with supertelephoto lenses.
Everything but the 1200f5.6 would probably be easier to use with a smaller body (the mule carrying it won't care if there's a 1D stuck on the end).

I'm not convinced.

 

[SOD]

As shallow as the depth of field in on the Canon EF 135mm f/2... I just don't know what this new third party lens could ever be used for in my life.

Exactly. F/2 is as wide as I want to go at 135mm.

 

[helpful]

135f1.4 is actually only slightly thinner DOF than 85f1.2, so this shouldn't be much different from the current "Bokeh Master" lenses on the market.

No. The depth of field of a 135mm f/1.4 is more than twice as shallow than 85mm f/1.2, assuming other factors are constant.

For example, at a randomly chosen distance (about 10 feet):
85mm f/1.2 = 2.22 inches
135mm f/1.4 = 1.03 inches

In optics you can use the lens equation to show that depth of field is differentially proportional to the inverse square of the focal length. So to compare two lenses relative amounts of depth of field at the same f/number, you simply divide the larger focal length by the smaller focal length, then square the result.

135/85 = 1.588
1.588 squared = 2.522

So the 135mm has a depth of field more than twice as shallow as the 85mm at equivalent apertures.

Note that this is measured in a differential sense, i.e., in a subject-distance-independent fashion, which is the best way of assessing overall depth of field.

 

[Ozarker]

As shallow as the depth of field in on the Canon EF 135mm f/2... I just don't know what this new third party lens could ever be used for in my life.

If you ever wanted ultra-ultra-thin depth of field while photographing planes landing at airports, now there's a lens for you!

It's not that long a focal length.

Look, I'm making fun of the realities of a 6+ pound prime lens without autofocus, but there is an opportunity for Mitakon.

If you like taking portraits with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens shot wide open, now imagine that with far creamier bokeh / far greater subject isolation. There's absolutely a market for that.

People who spoon with their 135mm f/2L lenses at night like people did with their Amiga computers when they were discontinued will understand.

People who buy sell everything they own for used copies of 200mm f/1.8L or 200mm f/2L IS lenses will understand.

I'm not buying that monster because I'm not one of those people, but call me crazy, someone on this forum will absolutely buy one of these.

- A

My 135mm f/2L is my 70-200's sister wife. That's how I spoon.