I bought the EF version if the Sigma $135 1.8 for about $1,200. I doubt the an RF 1.8 would be $1,500 more. I would guess $1,700-$1,900, and not sure about an f1.4 (
Upvote
0
Canon Applies for 135mm f/2 Patent
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
I'm more interested in the f/stop, whether it has IS, size, weight and optical characteristics than price. Surely it couldn't be higher than say $1799 USD, right? The EF version has a following like very few other lenses and it would be a shame to come out with a pedestrian RF model. The Sigma version never interested me, sharpness isn't everything.
Upvote
0
This one has wonderful bokeh and contrast. Color we wouldn't know at this stage (which depends on glass, coatings AND in-camera WB).It is clear to me that Canon is putting a big mark-up on everything they announce these days - no matter if R&D, and production or margin is the main reason for that.
But imagine the price, if it was a full step or at least half a step brighter
It is as it is and we are the consumers...
Edit: And IQ is not only about resolution and distortion. Contrast, color and bokeh are more important to some...
Upvote
0
I guess my hopes weren't based upon the patents and optics listed but a general desire for an RF version. Hell, I'd take the same EF optical formula, throw in IS and be good.
Upvote
0
Please excuse me while I get the paper towels and change my underwear. Mesmerized. 
However, where the heck is the f/1.8?
I have the EF 135mm f/2L, so I guess this new lens will be rented first.
However, where the heck is the f/1.8?I have the EF 135mm f/2L, so I guess this new lens will be rented first.
Upvote
0
I did read that prices for Canon lenses were going up 10% in Japan. I don’t know if that means it will go up everywhere. But we are going to see inflation likely everywhere. So valid point.
Upvote
0
That's quite the leap but why not have both? It's not as if one can really fund the other, plus, film is such a different animal.
Enjoy!
Upvote
0
Based on my experiences with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, EF 135mm f/2 L, and EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro:
The Macro is optimized for close focus and has a high degree of flat field correction which tends to render less than pleasing bokeh of deep background objects when using it at longer than macro subject distances.
The 70-200/2.8 II & III also are more optimized for imaging flat test charts (because that is what everyone seems to base lens buying decisions on these days, even when the purpose for which a lens is bought is not 2D object reproduction).
The 135/2, on the other hand, has less flat field correction and much more pleasing out of focus areas, which is what one tends to desire in a "portrait" lens.
It remains to be seen if Canon will optimize the RF 135/2 or 135/1.8 for pleasing bokeh when making portraits in a 3D environment or if they will instead bow at the alter of the Gods of the Flat Test Chart.
Based on the design of the most recent EF 85mm f/1.4 L, I'm not holding my breath for Canon to give us a lens that takes better wide aperture portraits instead of a lens that will sell better based on its flat test chart performance.
Upvote
0
Only if you define "quality" as the ability to reproduce a 2D flat test chart. If I know I can get by with only 135mm when shooting images of the 3D world, my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II stays in the bag every time. The 70-200/2.8 is a remarkable lens and one of my workhorses, but it can't do at 135mm what the EF 135mm f/2 L can, even when the prime is stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower.
It's a subjective difference in quality comparable to, say, images shot on run-of-the-mill drugstore ASA 200 film, developed using an automatic minilab, and printed on standard resin coated paper versus images shot on Ektachrome that is custom developed and then reversed and printed on laminated Endura paper. They just look different.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You are not really going to see much in patent itself. you need to put in the glass data etc into a simulation/design software like Zemax then you'll get a result, where you'll get all those MTFs and aberrations.
Unfortunately the softwares are too expensive for me so I don't really know how to use them.
Upvote
0
It's much better than assumption because manufactures uses the same software when they design something. I assume they wouldn't bother building a test lens if the result looks bad even on paper (to save cost of development). Simulation results of 'real lenses' seem consistent with their shooting performance too.
And result like bokeh is pretty straightforward I think.
↑ A example: Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 on Tele end
You just need to set your own reference lens for "good", "acceptable" and "bad" performance.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
