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

SNJ Ops

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 27, 2021
52
37
And since Sony is the principal shareholder they do indeed have to keep Sony happy.
Keeping Sony happy largely involves selling more lenses. Sony would more than welcome Tamron being able to sell RF mount lenses. Very recently Nikon came out with a 28-75mm f2.8 which is very strongly suspected to be a rebadged Tamron G1 that was released on emount. If that is true more revenue for both Tamron and Sony.
 
  • Love
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Nemorino

EOS R5
Aug 29, 2020
279
573
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:
And the planar at wikipedia:
Planar_50-1.4.png



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.
 
Jan 3, 2022
1
3
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

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
268
369
Kenosha, WI
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

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,647
3,048
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
 
Dec 6, 2018
196
311
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,005
1,371
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.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,699
4,132
Irving, Texas
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.
 
Last edited:

SNJ Ops

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 27, 2021
52
37
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
540
544
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.
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
852
295
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:

 

PhotoGenerous

R5/R6 + GAS
CR Pro
Apr 11, 2017
66
90
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.)