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

[Shane]

I would love this. I am loving the RF28-70 for weddings and 135 is probably long enough for most indoor wedding work. It will have to be heavy. If it arrives before gyms open its real winner and I can just carry this all day and scrap the gym haha.

 

[Maximilian]

In the UK, gyms could be among the last places to reopen ...

No matter how long it takes, I hope the best to all of you and us and that the politicians listen as least as much to the scientists than to the lobbyists.
Reality seems to suggest the opposite

 

[richperson]

1. 28-70/2.0 is a normal zoom. The 28mm at F2.0 dictates a necessity for a larger front element. Not the long 70mm end.
2. 70-135 zoom range is a bit different in that vignetting is not such a huge issue as with 28mm end of 28-70
Sure. Having a large front element would improve sharpness in mid frame and extreme corners, reduce vignetting wide open

but read my statement again. Front element could be made as small as. The question remains how Canon engineers view optical quality vs size / weight issue.
i would think that 82mm front element would be adequate.

Given the EF 135mm f/2, the RF 50mm f/1.2 and the RF 85mm f/1.2 all have front elements equal to, or less than 82mm, that would seem reasonable.

 

[Andy Westwood]

All those monster lenses are mega and shows the true potential of the new RF mount, however please Canon give us some small, compact primes, a pancake would be nice or short range lightweight zooms, we only have the 35mm 1.8 so far.

After all, one of the most appealing features of mirrorless cameras is compact and lightweight so let’s have some more glass to support this.

Anyway, nice to hear more RF lenses are on their way.

 

[AJ]

The Sigma 50-100/1.8 is for APSc and it's 1.5 kg. Scaled up to 70-135 FF means it will very likely be HEAVY, even for mirrorless.

This Sigma is said to cover the full image circle for APS-H

 

[Del Paso]

Bad bad news...for my bank account.
I'm starting to consider selling Canon, to buy a cripple-hammered Soni.
Their lenses are not really tempting or mouthwateringly exotic, could save me from an expensive divorce or from insolvency...

 

[Architect1776]

Continue reading...

Canon crushing the competition again.
2020 is proving to be interesting for Canon users and sour grapes for Sony fanboys.

 

[Ozarker]

As much as I am heavily salivating, I will have to wait to purchase a small mortgage on a small house first. This is my dream lens. I’ll really be looking forward to see and read all about this one.

 

[richperson]

All those monster lenses are mega and shows the true potential of the new RF mount, however please Canon give us some small, compact primes, a pancake would be nice or short range lightweight zooms, we only have the 35mm 1.8 so far.

I'm looking forward to an RF 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4. I have yet to own a 50mm and don't want to pay >$2k for one.

 

[Tom W]

This has every indications of being a very sweet lens - absolutely top-notch like its 28-70 cousin.

Not likely that I'll be buying it, but you never know. I seem to have a strong liking for the longer lenses these days. Plus, funds are not unlimited.

But who knows - it might grab my attention some day.

 

[Random Orbits]

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?

 

[Ozarker]

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?

That’s an interesting question. I think there will eventually be a wide aperture prime, but f/2 @ 135mm is already awesome. I am hoping it renders as nicely as the EF 135mm f/2. That will be hard to match. I’d imagine the zoom will be optimized for 135mm if I had to guess.

 

[koenkooi]

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 bet that an RF 135mm f/2 prime would be a fraction of the cost and weight of that zoom. Now, an f/1.8 or f/1.4 version however....

 

[slclick]

That’s an interesting question. I think there will eventually be a wide aperture prime, but f/2 @ 135mm is already awesome. I am hoping it renders as nicely as the EF 135mm f/2. That will be hard to match. I’d imagine the zoom will be optimized for 135mm if I had to guess.

My god man, do you know what you have done? Now those 3 guys who own the Sigma 135 will come out of their quarantine woodwork and lay down the smack about how the Siggy blows the Canon out of the water so hard you so just smash yours with a hammer from shame. Because how dare they use a lens designed before they were born!

 

[DrToast]

I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.

 

[Ozarker]

My god man, do you know what you have done? Now those 3 guys who own the Sigma 135 will come out of their quarantine woodwork and lay down the smack about how the Siggy blows the Canon out of the water so hard you so just smash yours with a hammer from shame. Because how dare they use a lens designed before they were born!

This zoom is gonna be groovy, man.

 

[Ozarker]

I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.

Having owned the EF 135mm f/2L and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I can assure you that there is a huge difference at 135mm between the two, both in bokeh and rendering. Must see and use to appreciate. In fact the benefit of f/2 will be even more pronounced at 70-135 than it is at 28-70.

 

[DrToast]

Having owned the EF 135mm f/2L and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I can assure you that there is a huge difference at 135mm between the two, both in bokeh and rendering. Must see and use to appreciate.

No, I'm talking about comparing 70mm to 135m. I can totally understand buying a 135mm f/2. But I don't see a need for a 70-135 f/2.

 

[padam]

I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.

The difference is always there. There will be no zoom that will render like a 70-135/2, against primes I don't think it is fair, they are different to use.

And based on the earlier lens patents, it is likely that the RF 70-135/2L will accept a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter and it will probably remain very sharp sharp as well.
The RF 70-200/2.8L IS is the smaller, lighter cheaper, more popular one, but it won't accept teleconverters.

 

[slclick]

I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.

A great deal of folks thought the same about the Sigma 24-35 but it's really 3 primes in one. A wonderful lens.