A Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM gets a mention [CR1]

derpderp

Pixel Peeper
Jan 31, 2020
167
203
Would this replace the need for RF 135mm prime? I can't see a RF 135mm f/2 prime being as popular as the EF version if the RF 70-135mm f/2 comes to market. Would this push the RF 135mm prime to a larger max aperture? f/1.4?

I anticipate a 135mm F1.2, fitting into the line up of 35mm f1.2 (soon to be released), 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2. ;)
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,799
669
See that's what I love about photography....100 people can look at the same image and see 100 different things. To me that image actually reinforces my point...I don't think the noise in that image is unuseable for social media, and websites; prints of course is a different story. To the untrained eye there is no noise in that image, and if you run a denoiser in post there would be even less. I'm not even convinced that another stop of light would have removed as much noise as a denoiser in post could remove.

Of course an additional stop of light would have been nice...would I have paid $2000+ for that stop of light....just to remove some noise that can only be seen at higher resolutions than it will probably be displayed at...no. Also, for that situation I would have used my 24-70 F2.8 to get a wider FOV if that was your desire since you mentioned it was a small room (something the 70-135 could not have helped with), and I probably could have gotten that additional stop of light out of the 24-70 by shooting with a slower shutter speed since it is a shorter focal length or add a monopod to the mix for additional stability and even slower shutter speeds for about $150.

I hope Canon sells these lenses in droves, the better Canon does the more products they can make, and the more gear that I have to pick from. But in my opinion there simply is not a single scenario out there for me where this lens will make the photographer $3000.00 better than what the 70-200 F2.8 already can offer.

This photo was taken with 1dx2 and the latest 35mm f1.4 at @ f1.4. ISO 3200. FYI
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,799
669
Love it sanjay. Better than a thousand words. Of course at the same distance and focal length the light gathering would be twice as good but the girl would be even more out of focus. Always compromises.
It was 35mm @ f1.4
 
  • Like
Reactions: dslrdummy

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,799
669
May I ask you, how much are you prepared to spend on such a lens blindly?
I would be delighted with around $1500. Buy it for $3000. Sell it for $1500 after 10 years. And create priceless photos and videos in between. CHEAP at $3000 or $3200.
 
Last edited:

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
I would be delighted with around $1500. Buy it for $3000. Sell it for $1500 after 10 years. And create priceless photos and videos in between. CHEAP at $3000 or $3200.
with 28-70/2 being RRP $2999, 70-135/2 is likely in $3,300-$3,500 territory when released. It would (extremely likely) be positioned above 70-200/2.8 price wise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,578
3,977
Irving, Texas
with 28-70/2 being RRP $2999, 70-135/2 is likely in $3,300-$3,500 territory when released. It would (extremely likely) be positioned above 70-200/2.8 price wise.
That’s what I figure. Ours is an expensive hobby when only willing to spend for high end stuff. Relatively though, I can think of much more expensive ones: ATVs, bass boats, toy haulers, 4x4s, classic car restoration, racing etc. Since this photography stuff is my single hobby, I consider it quite economical. I’ll never wear out my gear, so the only replenishibles are batteries, bulbs and cards... which are very nominal expenses. This will be my last round. These latest offerings are so dang good I don’t think I will be heavily motivated to keep adding to it all. 28-70, 85, 70-135 should do it for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Serenesunrise

derpderp

Pixel Peeper
Jan 31, 2020
167
203
That’s what I figure. Ours is an expensive hobby when only willing to spend for high end stuff. Relatively though, I can think of much more expensive ones: ATVs, bass boats, toy haulers, 4x4s, classic car restoration, racing etc. Since this photography stuff is my single hobby, I consider it quite economical. I’ll never wear out my gear, so the only replenishibles are batteries, bulbs and cards... which are very nominal expenses. This will be my last round. These latest offerings are so dang good I don’t think I will be heavily motivated to keep adding to it all. 28-70, 85, 70-135 should do it for me.

What if they made a 14-28mm F2?
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,578
3,977
Irving, Texas
What if they made a 14-28mm F2?
I don't really have a use for UWA. That could always change, but I doubt it. My EF years taught me what I really use and like. I had a lot of EF "L" lenses and even more non-L and EF-s lenses. To be honest, 28mm is wider than I need. Now, if I buy a house with some land I might consider a single super-tele for birds... probably used EF.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
That’s what I figure. Ours is an expensive hobby when only willing to spend for high end stuff. Relatively though, I can think of much more expensive ones: ATVs, bass boats, toy haulers, 4x4s, classic car restoration, racing etc. Since this photography stuff is my single hobby, I consider it quite economical. I’ll never wear out my gear, so the only replenishibles are batteries, bulbs and cards... which are very nominal expenses. This will be my last round. These latest offerings are so dang good I don’t think I will be heavily motivated to keep adding to it all. 28-70, 85, 70-135 should do it for me.
you may also consider giving your 85/1.2 a flick as 135mm at F2.8 offers an equally shallow DOF as 85mm at F1.2 does! :)

that is only provided the 70-135 is a nice lens with distortions, CA levels, vignetting, focus shift and focus transition / bokeh being well under control and worth your money.

your 28-70/2 is a completely different animal all together. and is more about ability to shoot in low light at either a lower ISO or faster shutter speed.
so.. you may as well "invest" in R5 or 70-200/2.8 as in give up your R and 85/1.2 for R5 + 70-200/2.8 :)

p.s. with IS and IBIS :D
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,578
3,977
Irving, Texas
you may also consider giving your 85/1.2 a flick as 135mm at F2.8 offers an equally shallow DOF as 85mm at F1.2 does! :)

that is only provided the 70-135 is a nice lens with distortions, CA levels, vignetting, focus shift and focus transition / bokeh being well under control and worth your money.

your 28-70/2 is a completely different animal all together. and is more about ability to shoot in low light at with either lower ISO or faster shutter speed.
so.. you may as well "invest" in R5 or 70-200/2.8 as in give up your R and 85/1.2 for R5 + 70-200/2.8 :)
Well, the 85mm has a permanent home, but you are right. I have no need for the R5 and I am done with the 70-200 focal length. I'd be more interested in an R Mark II with IBIS.

My 28-70 is all about shallow DOF and bokeh for me. I almost always use flash. Low light, yes, when shooting the grandson indoors. That's about it. I see vignetting as a benefit. Focus shift (breathing?) doesn't bother me.
 

Attachments

  • Izii 1 web.jpg
    Izii 1 web.jpg
    717.8 KB · Views: 167
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sanj and usern4cr

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,419
921
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
White starts at 200.

The EF 200mm f/2.8 is black.

White vs black is not a style decision by Canon, it's a technical decision based on reducing heating of lenses used in strong daylight.

So, it will be white if it needs to be for heat dissipation reasons, and black if not. Generally this means more complex lenses with a longer reach, but there's nothing stopping Canon putting an ultrawide lens in a white shell if they feel it's the best way to reduce heat buildup.

I also wonder whether it'd be better if pro bodies were white rather than black for the same reason.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
839
827
Scotland
The EF 200mm f/2.8 is black.

White vs black is not a style decision by Canon, it's a technical decision based on reducing heating of lenses used in strong daylight.

So, it will be white if it needs to be for heat dissipation reasons, and black if not. Generally this means more complex lenses with a longer reach, but there's nothing stopping Canon putting an ultrawide lens in a white shell if they feel it's the best way to reduce heat buildup.

I also wonder whether it'd be better if pro bodies were white rather than black for the same reason.

Form what I gathered the white was originally so they stood out against the Nikon lenses when Nikon was king. And speaking of Nikon super tele lenses are taken to the same extremes without white paint. I am sure there is something to keeping the lenses cooler in direct sunlight, but I think it is marketing thing like that distinctive red ring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,188
1,262
The EF 200mm f/2.8 is black.

White vs black is not a style decision by Canon, it's a technical decision based on reducing heating of lenses used in strong daylight.

So, it will be white if it needs to be for heat dissipation reasons, and black if not. Generally this means more complex lenses with a longer reach, but there's nothing stopping Canon putting an ultrawide lens in a white shell if they feel it's the best way to reduce heat buildup.

I also wonder whether it'd be better if pro bodies were white rather than black for the same reason.
Death Valley in August made me HATE black tele-lenses as well as black bodies !
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SteveC

DBounce

EOS RP
May 3, 2016
305
349
I already own the RF 70-200. I’ll skip this one... I have no use for a large/heavy non-stabilized zoom.
 

Etienne

EOS R
Sep 19, 2010
1,472
278
Ottawa Ontario
Surely Canon will build some modest primes for the R5, but when?
These f/1.2 primes and f/2 zooms are cool and all, but the size and weight are even more prohibitive than the price.
The only RF lens that appeals to me so far is the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I don't need many more lenses: a 16-35 f/4L and a 50 f/1.4 (yes, I'd like IS) Thats it, that's enough. I'd even run with a small 20 or 24mm f/2.8 prime instead of the 16-35.
I just can't lug around all the weight anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr