Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

BurningPlatform

EOS 90D
Mar 4, 2014
144
97
131mm/f1.41 -> ~93mm diameter entrance pupil.
Based on the sketch (assuming it's to scale; I not sure if that's the case with patent drawings) and the given length of ~183 mm (assuming that corresponds to the dimension labeled OL on the drawing), the front element diameter is ~109mm (a bit larger than the ~105mm front element on the Sigma 105mm f1.4)

This probably puts a lens of this design closer to the EF 200mm f2L ($5700) than the RF 28-70mm F2L ($3000) from a size standpoint, which would likely put this lens in new territory price-wise for something that doesn't fit into the "big white lens" category. At 13 elements though, it's a bit simpler than the 200mm F2...

Does anyone know what the "Lp1" and "Lp2" labels mean? Asphereical elements?
The core of the patent seems to be the usage of two positive lenses (Lp1 Lp2) inside the focus group made of glass with anomalous partial dispersion glass to correct for chromatic aberration on all focus distances. Clever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sep 17, 2014
804
1,060
The difference between this lens and a 1.8 or 2.0 will be $5,000 and triple the weight. Assuming we only get 1 L lens at this focal length, I would be happy to see this lens never get made, because I would really like a compact and fast 135 L lens

Totally agree. I would rather have an F2 for half the weight. Thats enough DOF

Do you remember Mitakon SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4?




■ Focal length: 135mm (35mm equivalent)
■ Focus: MF (manual focus)
■ Aperture: F1.4-F16
■ Lens configuration: 11 elements in 5 groups (3 ultra-large aperture ED lenses)
■ Aperture blades: 11
■ Shortest shooting distance: 1.6m
■ Maximum shooting magnification: 0.1 times
■ Length: 160mm
■ Diameter: Φ111mm
■ Filter diameter: 105mm
■ Weight: about 3000g
■ Exclusive hood attachment




Add AF, better sharpness and correction and you will hit 4kg :)
 
Upvote 0
Love 135mm. I had Canon's and have a Zeiss.

Today, I passed a great deal on a like-new EF 135mm for $350 on Craigslist.

I was going to buy, but called the seller and told them to raise their price, because I was just going to buy and sell their lens. Maybe I should have bought it, but hearing her reason for selling, said I'd wait 24 hrs. to see if she can get a better price.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,813
4,235
The Ozarks
135 F1.8 with a 77 mm filter size. F2 if they include IS. Shorten the hood while you are at it. Please do not paint it white. Who is asking for f1.4? Completely misses the point of the original lens IMO. Did Canon hire Jony Ive?
I'll take f/1.4 any day. I could always stop down to f/2. If it is f/2 I can't open up to f/1.4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,813
4,235
The Ozarks
Carnival glass to chase the increasingly tired and played out fad for ridiculously shallow depth of field. But that’s just my opinion. YMMV :)
If distance to subject isn't close up... then the shallow dof can be an asset... especially with busy or unattractive backgrounds. It doesn't have to be 1 eye in focus. Right? Anyway, it is all a matter of personal taste. A person can always stop down if shallow dof isn't wanted. So to answer your question from your post, "Who's asking for f/1.4?" Me. ;) I'd actually prefer a 70-135 f/2 zoom, but I'll take a 135mm f/1.4. When shooting a fashion show in low light and there is some distance, f/1.4 at that focal length would be a Godsend. 35ft at f/1.4 @ 135mm would give me a dof of 1.73ft... no flash allowed. That is a good thing. 85mm at 35ft, f/1.2 would give me a dof of 3.74 feet. Great! So there are very valid uses for fast glass other than half focused faces. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,888
1,547
Carnival glass to chase the increasingly tired and played out fad for ridiculously shallow depth of field. But that’s just my opinion. YMMV :)
For me that’s not the point, it is to isolate subjects at a greater distance than I can with 85 f1.2. That lens is wonderful, but you have to be close to get the amazing background. With the 200 f2 I had that same separation and pop at a much greater distance. It’s truly something that has to be experienced imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The Mitakon 135mm f/1.4 was priced at $3,000, I doubt Canon would get that close.

The EF 200mm f/2 weighs about 2kg and costs about $5600. The EF 400mm f/2.8 weighs 3.8kg and costs $8000.

The Canon 135mm f/1.4 optical formula looks like it uses extra aspherical elements to reduce the weight and size of the lens as with the latest optical formulae of the recently refreshed EF great whites. That means that even with the addition of an autofocus mechanism, the weight might be able to be kept closer to 3kg (like the Mitakon 135mm f/1.4). However, as with the latest EF great white updates, the additional aspherical elements are likely to push up the cost.

The estimated price based on cost per kilogram of glass suggests that $6-7000 is a much more realistic approximation of market price.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,888
1,547
The EF 200mm f/2 weighs about 2kg and costs about $5600. The EF 400mm f/2.8 weighs 3.8kg and costs $8000.

The Canon 135mm f/1.4 optical formula looks like it uses extra aspherical elements to reduce the weight and size of the lens as with the latest optical formulae of the recently refreshed EF great whites. That means that even with the addition of an autofocus mechanism, the weight might be able to be kept closer to 3kg (like the Mitakon 135mm f/1.4). However, as with the latest EF great white updates, the additional aspherical elements are likely to push up the cost.

The estimated price based on cost per kilogram of glass suggests that $6-7000 is a much more realistic approximation of market price.
Not to nitpick, but the 200 f2 in use weight is over 2,7kg.
 
Upvote 0