Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,100
281
I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras.
Photography equipment sales are weak, apparently some companies are limiting themselves to high profit equipment.

As for Fuji's strategy, Canon is covering small with EOS-M.

I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ? Looks like Canon's approach is to increase their bottom line rather than provide their customers with lenses that are a better form fit for their new cameras.
Yes, Canon is in the business of maximizing profit, not on making less money (or God forbid, lose any) on what customers think the revolution's purpose was to begin with.
 

mb66energy

EOS R
Dec 18, 2011
1,443
322
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras. [...]
I am Canon user, not fan in the first place and I do not use these large, h, f ve RF lenses but the - at the moment - only small, versatile, high aperture, good IQ, excellently versatile lens, the RF 35 which is not small but compact and light!
Maybe Canon thinks that a lot of people who do NOT use heavy very expensive (RF) lenses will be satisfied with the (too easy and reliable) adapter solution. I on my own have set a limit: EOS RP below 1000 EUR and I will buy it to have the full frame option and especially to reuse my FD lenses or sell them. A very attractive offer gave me the camera WITH adapter and RF 35 for a little bit more than 1000 EUR and I must say: Extraordinary versatility due to the f/1.8 + IS and the 1:2 macro in a compact and lightweight package.

EDIT: At the moment waiting for a 100 or 135 f/2.0 IS STM (1:2) Macro lens in the RF35 style.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
450
200
I don't know which RF lenses you are talking about being smaller (70-200?), but every RF lens I have is a monster compared to EF. However, I like that. ;)
I think the most comperable ones are the 24-105/4IS and I think the 35/1.8IS macro (which doesn't have an exact parallel but the RF seems smaller than the parallel would probably be) and finally, sure, why not the 70-200, possibly the most-used professional lens? Granted both systems have a 50/1.2, but they're utterly dissimilar, with the RF formula being something like 10x the resolution by area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
450
200
$7000? Not a single chance.. how much is the EF 300/2.8 is II, eh? 135/1.4 would cost a half of that.
I am thinking $3,500. Not more.
Why would it cost half??!!

The aperture (not f-stop), or entrance pupil, of 135 / 1.4 = 96mm or 200 / 2 = 100mm or 300 / 2.8 = 107mm isn't much different. All these lenses should cost approximately the same.

[ EDIT: I thought it was totally obvious that I was comparing similar lenses (short-medium telephotos) of a single product line (EF L) of a single manufacturer, but more than one person jumped to the conclusion I was making some blanket statement about all lenses. Also for the record, I think my comparison of price to aperture works well for telephotos of similar construction. It's not going to make a 85/1.2 and 135/2, both with a comperable 72mm aperture or so, cost anywhere near the same when the 85 is a modified double gaussian, for instance.]
 
Last edited:

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
450
200
What I REALLY want to see is a 135/1, with a 135mm front element...

... that gives perfectly round highlights when stopped down to 1.4. In essence it'd be designed to shoot at 1.4 but since that requires a far bigger front element to get circular highlights with, we let you open it up to 1.0 if you want.

... that also has a DS-type filter cutting transmission down to T/2.0 toT/2.8 or so, and this filter is push-button activated. Or, it'd be a drop-in filter something like the ones ones on the big telephotos.

The lens would be about US$10k or so.
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,107
1,247
Hamburg, Germany
Why would it cost half??!!

The front element of 135 / 1.4 = 96mm or 200 / 2 = 100mm or 300 / 2.8 = 107mm isn't much different. All these lenses should cost approximately the same.
Reducing the complexity and associated cost of a lens to a single metric is unlikely to yield reliable numbers.

The Sigma 150-600 mm has a 95mm opening as well and costs a fraction of all the options you named. And we're dealing with DSLR lenses in any case. The lens being discussed here is designed with completely different constraints.
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,167
3,338
Irving, Texas
Obviously the lens will be hailed by some and yawned at by others. What I don't understand is the vitriol directed towards what some will obviously want. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Leave everyone else alone. Ain't no gun to nobody's head either way. Buy an EF 135mm f/2L and adapt it. Be happy. Or, buy the new flavor and be happy. I'll prefer the new flavor and the lack of CA... along with the carnival glass parlor trickery. ;)
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
450
200
Reducing the complexity and associated cost of a lens to a single metric is unlikely to yield reliable numbers.
I'm not. There are clearly other factors in my comparison such as all being medium-long telephoto primes, etc. I'm hardly talking about zooms and your counterexample seems like you're trying to just annoy me rather than help anyone. Go bother someone else.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,375
1,244
Why would it cost half??!!

The front element of 135 / 1.4 = 96mm or 200 / 2 = 100mm or 300 / 2.8 = 107mm isn't much different. All these lenses should cost approximately the same.
not a very strong logic. Sorry.
compare price of Sigma 150-600 C vs 150-600 S lens. 92mm front filter vs 105mm.
 

slclick

Pinhole
Dec 17, 2013
4,189
2,196
Photography equipment sales are weak, apparently some companies are limiting themselves to high profit equipment.

As for Fuji's strategy, Canon is covering small with EOS-M.



Yes, Canon is in the business of maximizing profit, not on making less money (or God forbid, lose any) on what customers think the revolution's purpose was to begin with.
Evolution
 

raptor3x

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2012
597
90
State College, PA
whumber.com
US$4500-5000. Current AU price: AUD $6,800.00
In AUD, look at the MSRP for the 200mm f/2 ($7499 AUD) vs the 300mm f/2.8 ii ($8099 AUD); right around an 8% price difference. Do you really think a 135mm f/1.4, which requires the same large front elements as the 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8, brought to market 12 years later is going to be half the price? Also look at the new 400mm f/2.8 III and 600mm f/4.0 III. By your thinking the 400 should be substantially cheaper than the 600, but the prices come in at $12K and $13K respectively, also around an 8% price difference.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,167
3,338
Irving, Texas
In AUD, look at the MSRP for the 200mm f/2 ($7499 AUD) vs the 300mm f/2.8 ii ($8099 AUD); right around an 8% price difference. Do you really think a 135mm f/1.4, which requires the same large front elements as the 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8, brought to market 12 years later is going to be half the price? Also look at the new 400mm f/2.8 III and 600mm f/4.0 III. By your thinking the 400 should be substantially cheaper than the 600, but the prices come in at $12K and $13K respectively, also around an 8% price difference.
The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED lens has an 82mm front filter thread as compared to 105mm for the Sigma. I don't know how everyone is coming up with their pricing, but as it relates to front filter thread size... I say it is a bad way to judge price. The Sigma is $1,599 usd and the Nikon runs about $2,500 usd. All the hand wringing over what the final cost will be based on this or that lens is just sillyness. It will be fun revisiting this price arguement once the lens is released... if it ever is.
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,167
3,338
Irving, Texas
$7000? Not a single chance.. how much is the EF 300/2.8 is II, eh? 135/1.4 would cost a half of that.
I am thinking $3,500. Not more.
I agree. The RF 28-70 f/2L is a much more complex lens and rings in at $3k. I don't know the front element size, but the filter ring is 95mm. Seems a 135mm f/1.4 would be a much simpler build no matter what the front element size is. Anyway, I never knew lenses were priced based on front element sizes. ;)
 
Nov 3, 2014
698
507
Obviously the lens will be hailed by some and yawned at by others. What I don't understand is the vitriol directed towards what some will obviously want. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Leave everyone else alone. Ain't no gun to nobody's head either way. Buy an EF 135mm f/2L and adapt it. Be happy. Or, buy the new flavor and be happy. I'll prefer the new flavor and the lack of CA... along with the carnival glass parlor trickery. ;)
I was aiming for snarky rather than vitriol but I admit I may have over-shot the mark. I thought the carnival glass thing was pretty clever though. If Canon could just invent a lens that makes people look 20 lbs thinner.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy
Jul 12, 2017
152
179
I for one am excited for this lens to come into fruition even if I can't see myself actually owning the lens (I am expecting it to cost close to that of the 200mm f/2) based on the fact that I don't shoot professionally and already owning the wonderful Sigma 135mm f/1.8. Who doesn't like seeing progress and what's possible in future lens design? If you're complaining about this what's obviously a specialised-use lens being too big and heavy this lens is obviously not for you.
 

slclick

Pinhole
Dec 17, 2013
4,189
2,196
I for one am excited for this lens to come into fruition even if I can't see myself actually owning the lens (I am expecting it to cost close to that of the 200mm f/2) based on the fact that I don't shoot professionally and already owning the wonderful Sigma 135mm f/1.8. Who doesn't like seeing progress and what's possible in future lens design? If you're complaining about this what's obviously a specialised-use lens being too big and heavy this lens is obviously not for you.
I am curious if you have used the Canon 135L in the past and how you compare the Sigma and the 1/2 stop difference plus other attributes. TIA
 
Jul 12, 2017
152
179
I am curious if you have used the Canon 135L in the past and how you compare the Sigma and the 1/2 stop difference plus other attributes. TIA
I tried my mate's copy a long time ago and before the Sigma came out so it's hard for me to make proper comparisons unfortunately. The Sigma's obviously sharper and from memory has more of a "pop" straight out of camera; I always found what the newer Sigma lenses does well is that "micro contrast" if you like which also aids in the perception of sharpness. It's also better corrected in terms of CA. Weight wise I don't find it to be an issue whatsoever and I am a pretty average build guy (but I also handhold the Sigma 150-600 Sport and walk around for hours with just a R strap) and find it balances quite well with a decent sized body (like my 5D4). I think OOF area renders wonderfully as well. When I bought the Sigma here in Australia on launch I think the Canon at the time was still a little dearer so it was a no-brainer (but even if the Sigma was dearer I would've still gotten the Sigma).

Here is a shot I took of a friend sometime ago not even wide open at f/2.5 (so I could get both mum and bub's eyes in focus) and OOF area is still butter:

Mother and daughter by Tony, on Flickr