Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L DS USM optical formula

rwvaughn

Live in the moment.
Mar 22, 2016
49
25
Southern Indiana, USA
Would rather see lenses like the new Tamron 35-150.

A 24-105mm f/2-2.8
A 24-150 f/2.8-4

A 20mm L prime that isn’t $3K and 2Kg
I really agree with this. but I'd like to see an RF 50-150 f/2-2.8. As long as Sony is Tamron's principal stockholder, I think it's going to be a while before we see Tamron making any RF glass especially as they have to keep Sony happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,924
2,283
No matter whether most of us do not need (or can afford) such a lens, I am convinced Canon have made the right decision.
To produce some exceptional lenses no one else has. Sigma, Zeiss, Samyang and Sony all have F 2-1,8/135mm teles. Why shouldn't Canon differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack?
There are certainly enough pros ready to invest $$$ in such an exceptional lens. I do not need it, but I am not the one this lens has been developed for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Berowne

... they sparkle still the right Promethean fire.
Jun 7, 2014
430
360
The Sigma 135 1.8 is nearly 400g heavier than the Canon f/2....just imagine the heft of a 1.4. The size of the Canon (not to mention the 200 f/2.8L) was part of it's appeal. I'll just continue to adapt.
I am now using the EF 200/2.8L II USM for nearly ten years and since i have the new R6 it shines even more wih sharpness and contrast. So this is a beautiful well-priced lens , fast, sharp, robust - a nice peace of glass and heavy metal. But sometimes it produces a strange rendering, with unnatural dark or bright contrast-lines as one can see in this photo: R6 & EF 200/2.8L II, f.2.8, ISO 160 1/2000sec. ooc ca. 100% crop. _A1A0878.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,039
And any idea whether IS is being considered? That was the only shortcoming of the EF 135mm f:2, adding IS would be doable within a $1,000 price tag.Built-in extending lens hood would be another, last seen on lenses like the FD 300 f:2.8L and other of that generation.
I have a hard time thinking that something that does not have technology which did not exist at it's time of manufacturing is a shortcoming. Maybe I'm just older and used to having to shoot without a crutch or computer kicking in but if you like just adapt and then it's not shortcomed. Hell, it is f/2, not once did I think I needed stabilization for it in the past 20 odd years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

danfaz

RFIVE
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2015
202
163
www.1fineklick.com
I have a hard time thinking that something that does not have technology which did not exist at it's time of manufacturing is a shortcoming. Maybe I'm just older and used to having to shoot without a crutch or computer kicking in but if you like just adapt and then it's not shortcomed. Hell, it is f/2, not once did I think I needed stabilization for it in the past 20 odd years.
Yep. And if you do want IS, use an R3/5/6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
My daughter is a professional wedding photographer and her top two lenses are the 35 and the 85. She has been using Nikon 750's for several years but they are beaten to crap now. She's decided to migrate to Canon mirrorless and a few days ago she purchased a Canon R5 but very much needs a pro-level RF 35 1.4 or 1.2. For the interim, she bought the RF 35mm f1.8 macro. Why in the name of tarnation is not Canon getting off its backside and releasing an RF35 1.2 or 1.4!!!!
 
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Long live the Oligarchy!
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,611
2,064
USA
My daughter is a professional wedding photographer and her top two lenses are the 35 and the 85. She has been using Nikon 750's for several years but they are beaten to crap now. She's decided to migrate to Canon mirrorless and a few days ago she purchased a Canon R5 but very much needs a pro-level RF 35 1.4 or 1.2. For the interim, she bought the RF 35mm f1.8 macro. Why in the name of tarnation is not Canon getting off its backside and releasing an RF35 1.2 or 1.4!!!!
The EF 35mm f/1.4L II works beautifully on the R5/R6. Ergonomics are very good. Unless there is some shortcoming with video, I can't imagine anybody not being 100% happy with it on mirrorless.

Note: B&H says more on the way, 2-4 weeks. They also have a used one rated 10, which is a rare rating for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,114
I don't know where this fascination with supremely big and heavy and very expensive prime lenses will end but...

The RF 50 f1.2 weighs over 2 lbs, is 3.5 inches fat and 4.5 inches long, and costs $2,300. It has a 77mm front filter element.

The RF 85 f1.2 weighs close to 3 lbs, is over 4 inches fat and close to 5 inches long. It takes an 82mm front filter. It has a theoretical entrance pupil diameter of 71mm.

An RF 135 f1.4 would need a theoretical entrance pupil of 96mm. That makes the front element nearly twice as massive as the 85mm f1.2. So you are probably looking at a lens that weighs 5 lbs, is 5.5 inches fat, 6.5 inches long, takes a 105mm front filter and costs $3,799.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,877
7,939
An RF 135 f1.4 would need a theoretical entrance pupil of 96mm. That makes the front element nearly twice as massive as the 85mm f1.2. So you are probably looking at a lens that weighs 5 lbs, is 5.5 inches fat, 6.5 inches long, takes a 105mm front filter and costs $3,799.
Sold.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 7 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,947
5,089
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
...Why in the name of tarnation is not Canon getting off its backside and releasing an RF35 1.2 or 1.4!!!!
They may have the peculiar idea that they need to be able to project a return on their investment before committing to developing and manufacturing a lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,039
They may have the peculiar idea that they need to be able to project a return on their investment before committing to developing and manufacturing a lens.
Maybe Canon has decided the old 35 is not the new 35. We do cling to older ideas and formulas much more than other crafts.(Sunny 16 much?)
I personally am more comfortable at 40mm.

Where's my freaking RF pancake Canon?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,813
4,235
The Ozarks
I really agree with this. but I'd like to see an RF 50-150 f/2-2.8. As long as Sony is Tamron's principal stockholder, I think it's going to be a while before we see Tamron making any RF glass especially as they have to keep Sony happy.
It's about profit. Period. It is not about keeping anyone happy except shareholders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,039
It's about profit. Period. It is not about keeping anyone happy except shareholders.
But..but....but...do you mean they don't actually read our comments back at Canon? Because there's 3 or 4 people who want an RF7 or a non L 50.

Let's storm the Tokyo HQ, I'll wear the mankini with bison horns.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0