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

[Nemorino]

Would be interested to see if DS really even makes all that much of a difference at 24mm. I can't imagine the bokeh is *that* much better.

There are some aspects of this patent which are interesting. First, why is Canon designing such a wide DS lens? What is a use case?

Second the lens design is more simple and looks like a Zeiss Planar. You can find the diagram of the patent here:

Home | CanonNews

CanonNews.com provides up to date canon news and canon rumors about products including Canon Cameras, Lenses, Flashes and more.

www.canonnews.com

And the planar at wikipedia:

Many comments about Sigma's stellar with sharpness 135 but do any owners/users experience that Siggy 'sticker look'? It's what kept me away from certain Art lenses.

Maybe this is the reason why Canon's R&D is designing this kind of DS lenses.

And at last (as canonnews writes) the 24mm and 50mm are EF designs.

 

[Ceeb]

Not a fan of the DS look myself, either. To me, it looks too much like the faked computational "bokeh" of cell phone cameras' portrait mode. I much prefer the standard version...

For me, sharp bokeh is unnatural. We are used to see sharp bokeh produced by the lens for decades and think that that is natural. Even we are okay with different shapes of bokeh (circle, lemon shape, pentagon shape) which are produced by lens blades, because we are used to them for years. While foreground object is in focus, background should be blurry, even the bokeh should be blurry. That is more natural. So DS means natural bokeh and we all eventually will get used to it too in years.

 

[twoheadedboy]

Many comments about Sigma's stellar with sharpness 135 but do any owners/users experience that Siggy 'sticker look'? It's what kept me away from certain Art lenses.

I'm not sure what that means...are you talking about the lens itself, or the IQ of the pictures it generates?

 

[slclick]

I'm not sure what that means...are you talking about the lens itself, or the IQ of the pictures it generates?

Look it up, it will be easier to understand than my description which will be corrected here at least 4 times by more savvy techies.

 

[twoheadedboy]

Look it up, it will be easier to understand than my description which will be corrected here at least 4 times by more savvy techies.

I tried and I failed to find a single link on Google about "sticker look" pertaining to Sigma lenses.

 

[slclick]

The computer generated mtf charts of the Canon RF 50 (which unfortunately is my best source of information) indicates that it is better at f1.2 than either the Sigma 50 ART or the Zeiss 50 Milvus are at f1.4 (as measured by lens rentals).

The comparison tool at the digital picture shows they are close, but the difference in resolution in the comparison tool makes it hard to tell.

Roger Cicala states at the RF 50 L product page;

“Take a Zeiss Otus, make it accurately autofocus, and improve its optics a little. That’s how good it is.”

In my opinion the size/weight increase of the RF compared the ART and the Milvus is very small considering the half stop faster lens, indicating advantages to the RF mount.

Having owned the 50ART and owning the RF50, my opinion is that the RF 50 plays in a league of it’s own. Not necessarily in terms of sharpness, but especially in terms of bokeh and subject rendering. The RF 50 L gives me images that is razor sharp, with a look and feel to them that I would compare to the EF 50 L and EF 85 LII (which I love.)

The Sigma 50 ART images has a “sticker look to them. The subject that is in focus will often look like a sticker that has been added on a soft background. I couldn’t stand it and sold the Sigma after a couple of weeks after getting it.

Right here in our own backyard. I'm not making this shit up

 

[M. D. Vaden of Oregon]

Why do I use an EF-RF adapter on my R6?

135 f/2L This is a lens which many have attempted to better but sharpness isn't everything (looking at you Siggy) and it may well be the last EF lens I will own if I replace all the rest with RF versions. (Oh and it makes a great 2 lens combo with the RF 35)

One reason I like the EF 135mm so much is the light weight.

I used to have a Zeiss Apo Sonnar 135mm and may replace it again, but that's just manual. For for AF, I skipped the Sigma Art due to weight and got another Canon 135mm f/2 lens for my R6, EOS R and 5DS R. It's sharp enough and enables lovely photos.

My kit also includes the RF 85mm 1.2 but due to its weight, I also bought another Tamron 85mm 1.8 for an extra lighter weight option. So I keep two 85mm.

 

[tron]

Ego says they have to do better than the Sigma 135 art (f/1.8) . If Canon can make that lens with very little coma, it will sell like hotcakes in the astro world.

Title says DS. A DS lens for astrophotography? I do not think so. 85mm DS loses 2 stops or so. A non DS f/2 lens would be better for astro. Portrait photography is another matter of course.

 

[Ozarker]

And since Sony is the principal shareholder they do indeed have to keep Sony happy.

Let's not confuse Sony's second place, 12% stake in Tamron, as a raging controlling interest. Think again if you believe Sony being happy means Tamron not making a profit. Pray tell, why would Sony tell Tamron: "Don't produce RF, there might be money in it." Especially because Sony is also in it for the dinero.

Sony is not "THE" principal shareholder. Sony is one of, not the only, principal shareholder.*

*Principal shareholder = Any party that owns a 10% or more share." Don't forget that the other 88% (the stake of the other shareholders and their proxy votes) can have their way with Sony... if they choose to do so. You'd have a point if Sony had a 51% controlling interest. That isn't near the same as a principal interest. Mainly because of that word "controlling".

However, this does explain why Tamron has Sony's mount info... and why Tamron does not have Canon's. Up until now, it has been "Sony is altruistic" by allowing lens mfgs. to have their mount info. The flip side of that has always been: "Canon is mean," rather than Tamron hasn't reverse engineered it yet (the truth). Dang... virtue signalling in the camera world. hahaha

Looks to me like Sony is keeping Tamron, and the other 88% of shareholders, happy.

 

[max]

we just need a RF 135 f/2 with no shenanigans

 

[SNJ Ops]

Why do I use an EF-RF adapter on my R6?

135 f/2L This is a lens which many have attempted to better but sharpness isn't everything (looking at you Siggy) and it may well be the last EF lens I will own if I replace all the rest with RF versions. (Oh and it makes a great 2 lens combo with the RF 35)

- a rare comparison between the 135 L and 135 GM

Be nice to see mirrorless versions of 100/105mm f1.4 glass on all big three platforms. The Sigma Art while being stellar optically needs a redesign.

 

[Dragon]

Title says DS. A DS lens for astrophotography? I do not think so. 85mm DS loses 2 stops or so. A non DS f/2 lens would be better for astro. Portrait photography is another matter of course.

Hence one with DS and one without just like the 85.

 

[danfaz]

85mm DS loses 2 stops or so.

Well...a stop and a third, not 2.

 

[beckstoy]

Holy Bokeh, Batman!
I'm gonna start saving now.

 

[Larsskv]

Right here in our own backyard. I'm not making this shit up

This is a mine field debating, and many people deny it or are unable to see it. But after 5 or 6 years being aware of this issue, I still think there are significant differences between the look of lenses, and I still cant stand the Sigma 50ART. I believe the “sticker look” vs depth/“3D-rendering” is caused by differences between how in and out of focus areas are rendered - the transition zone.

I don’t agree with everything in this article, but it is a good attempt to describe that the sticker look is a real phenomenon. Well worth a read:

https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

 

[Larsskv]

I tried and I failed to find a single link on Google about "sticker look" pertaining to Sigma lenses.

see my comment above, and also this article:

https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

 

[tron]

Well...a stop and a third, not 2.

Or up to 1.5 to be even more precise?

Canon Training Articles - Tips & Tricks | Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Looking for training articles on Canon Products? Join us here for articles ranging from beginning to advanced on all the best tips & tricks.

www.usa.canon.com

Reduced light transmittance:
The Defocus Smoothing coatings in the 85mm F1.2 L DS lens will reduce actual light transmission by up to 1.5 stops, when the lens is at its widest aperture.

 

[PhotoGenerous]

see my comment above, and also this article:

https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I wish the article used the same subject and conditions while comparing different lenses to illustrate the point.

"Notice how the this way bigger nose, and this other way bigger nose in profile shot from a different distance both in outdoor directional and higher contrast natural light are 3D compared to these two indoor lit noses show straight on with one clearly smaller and a different shape than the others?"

I suppose? Maybe? But I don't know that it's because of the lenses and a sticker effect.

(I haven't actually read the full article, and studied the diagrams, but the examples seem clearly flawed.)

 

[Ozarker]

What would you use a lens like this for? I can't think of many times I've been out with my 70-200 and thought "let me zoom this in halfway..."

So, you are saying you'd be better off with a 70,200 and not a 70-200?

 

[Larsskv]

I wish the article used the same subject and conditions while comparing different lenses to illustrate the point.

"Notice how the this way bigger nose, and this other way bigger nose in profile shot from a different distance both in outdoor directional and higher contrast natural light are 3D compared to these two indoor lit noses show straight on with one clearly smaller and a different shape than the others?"

I suppose? Maybe? But I don't know that it's because of the lenses and a sticker effect.

(I haven't actually read the full article, and studied the diagrams, but the examples seem clearly flawed.)

I agree - a side by side comparison would be much more helpful.

From my own experience though, I prefer images from my 35L, ower the 35LII, because of the 3D-effect I see in the 35L Images. The 35LII isn’t bad, as the Sigma 50ART is, but its not great.

And with regards to old vs modern lenses. I do believe that correcting aberrations may cause a loss of depth rendering, but the recent Canon RF lenses proves that depth rendering /3D effect can remain alongside with correction of aberrations. I haven’t found that any of my RF lenses is bad in that regard.