Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

[privatebydesign]

Consider always, two different apertures is not in any way shape or form the only differentiating factor. Comparing the 85 L IS to the RF85 and simply use f1.4 is close enough to f1.2 as the reason for the price difference is misleading.

Otherwise I agree with the first part, and that is why the 200 f2.0 is such a tough sale and the wild prices for them used, not enough people get the difference it really is.

The 300's are a better example, 300 f4 L IS @ $1,349, the 300 f2.8 L IS costs $6,099. Even when the two were the same generation the 300 cost 4 times the one stop slower f4.

 

[Viggo]

The 300's are a better example, 300 f4 L IS @ $1,349, the 300 f2.8 L IS costs $6,099. Even when the two were the same generation the 300 cost 4 times the one stop slower f4.

Yes, but anyone who thinks the price difference is solely based on the aperture is mistaken pretty badly they are pretty different beasts all together. And that’s my point, one can never judge ”if it’s worth it” based on aperture alone.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes, but anyone who thinks the price difference is solely based on the aperture is mistaken pretty badly they are pretty different beasts all together. And that’s my point, one can never judge ”if it’s worth it” based on aperture alone.

Why? I've used both and own the f2.8, build is comparable as is IQ and feature set the only real separator is the aperture, sure you don't get a case with the f4 but come on, does that cost Canon more than a few dollars to make?

If you compared the 85mm f1.8 and f1.2 the case could be made for build quality etc making the difference in price, but that really isn't true with the 300's.

 

[raptor3x]

As for the notion that a 135mm f/1.4 will sell like hotcakes, I am rather sceptical. I own the Canon 200mm f/2.0 and it tends to be a studio lens. It's rather too heavy to be able to carry around with you all that much. I couldn't imagine a wedding photographer carrying it around all day instead of, or in addition to, a 70-200mm f/2.8. I was seduced by the thought of the f/2.0 aperture but it's a lot less practical than I thought.

For me the strength of the 200mm f/2.0 was always indoor sports and/or outdoor portraiture. For regular indoor work it's definitely an extremely awkward lens.

 

[beckstoy]

I've stuck with EF (EOS) bodies lately (5DMIV) because mirrorless isn't blowing me away (yet), but this lens alone will drive my 5DMIV's into retirement! This lens, with true pro-level mirrorless, is gonna be amazing!!

2020/2021 is going to be fun!

...and expensive...

 

[Franklyok]

Take can patent all they want just for the sake of patenting and not release anything.

Probably another 5 kg lens, death on arrival because of weight and price complaining photographers.

 

[Sator]

I think the starry-eyed optimists need to start a GoFundMe page to collect deposits ($1000 perhaps) for the 135mm f/1.4 with a guaranteed maximum ceiling price of $3500 USD. If it is any more expensive the person who owns the page gets to pay out the difference.

 

[sulla]

Then you need to change your thinking, f2 - f2.8 is the same as f2.8 - f4, or twice as much light, would you value an f4 zoom the same as an f2.8 zoom? An f2 135mm prime would be smaller lighter and cheaper than a 70-200 f2.8 zoom and let in twice the light thus giving shallower dof and or faster shutter speeds.

I agree that too many people don’t really value the difference and consider the numbers too close, f2 f2.8 does sound too similar! I also agree that for many, despite the tradition of 135mm lenses giving a very complimentary perspective to facial features particularly if the subject has a larger nose, find the focal length a bit long. Though that is countered by the fact that most people use a 70-200 in its place and are often at the 200 end!

Personally I never really bought into the f1.2’s, I just never found a compelling use for the shallow dof, I used to own an FDn 50 1.2L but would far rather have the EF 85 f1.4 than pay so much more for the EF f1.2.

I do indeed understand the difference between f/2.8 and f/2, between f/2 and f/1.4. Its just that I concluded for myself that a difference of "only" one stop is not enough to justify the expenditure of a separate lens, so besides 2.8 zoom I am also not so fond of 1.8 primes, when there is a 1.4 available as well. I like low-light, so it's really about the light gathering. Thus 85 f/1.2 trumps 135 f/2 als well.

From many reviews I read, quite a few people also rather seldomly use their 135 f/2 besides their 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[Sator]

Except that the weight vs cost theory of yours is turned on it's head by the recent RF heavy glass pricing. Weight/cost is not a linear equation. Canon lenses aren't sold by the pound like pork chops. The lens won't be inexpensive, but it also won't prices into the heights of the super-tele or even EF 200mm f/2L.

So show us an example of a top notch Canon L lens that weighs 2.5-3kg and costs around $3500 USD?????? It exists in the same same unicorns and rainbows fairy world as this fantasy $3500 135mm f/1.4 lens.

 

[Viggo]

Why? I've used both and own the f2.8, build is comparable as is IQ and feature set the only real separator is the aperture, sure you don't get a case with the f4 but come on, does that cost Canon more than a few dollars to make?

If you compared the 85mm f1.8 and f1.2 the case could be made for build quality etc making the difference in price, but that really isn't true with the 300's.

After owning both I have to respectfully disagree, they aren’t even close in build and IQ, and the AF of the f4 is good, but the 2.8 is insane. The f4 isn’t weathersealed properly and also uses the very old IS unit.

what you seem to say is that you get everything but the stop of light. Bump the iso and the 300 f2.8 and f4 is the same, which isn’t true

same as with the RF85 and the 85 L IS. And even more so with the 200 f2.8 and the 200 f2

whether one cares about the rest of the differences or is neither here nor there.

 

[SecureGSM]

So show us an example of a top notch Canon L lens that weighs 2.5-3kg and costs around $3500 USD?????? It exists in the same same unicorns and rainbows fairy world as this fantasy $3500 135mm f/1.4 lens.

do you expect the Canon 135/1.4 lens to weigh 2.5-3.0kg ? I suggest it would weigh around 1.5-1.6kg instead.
400/2.8 III lens is around 2.8kg. right?

 

[Ozarker]

So show us an example of a top notch Canon L lens that weighs 2.5-3kg and costs around $3500 USD?????? It exists in the same same unicorns and rainbows fairy world as this fantasy $3500 135mm f/1.4 lens.

Sure, just as soon as you prove how you get your imaginary weight for this lens. It's a 135mm prime for gosh sake. Even the complex RF 28-70 f/2L zoom with a 95mm front filter thread weighs in at 1.406 kiliograms. The RF 85mm f/1.2L weighs 1.195kg and has an 82mm front element.

Anyway, until you people can prove your imaginary unicorn and fairies rainbow guesstimates there is no reason for the more level headed to prove theirs. This ain't no 400mm lens. It ain't no great white either.

BTW: It won't cost $3,500-$4,000, but even if it does... ahhhhma buyer.

 

[RunAndGun]

Maybe this will help better guesstimate the weight.

Tokina makes a Cine 135mm T1.5 and it weighs 3.07kg/6.77lbs. And costs $9K...

Their Cine 85mm T1.5 is 2.23kg/4.92lbs.

Canon’s still 85mm f/1.2 is 1.025kg/2.3lbs and their Cine version(85mm T1.3) is 1.3kg/2.9lbs.

So I’m gonna guess that those saying a Canon 135mm f/1.4 still lens would be around 1.5kg/3.3lbs to 2kg/4.4lbs are probably right.

 

[Gazwas]

The RF mount will be totally drool worthy if this and other recent patents come to fruition. We just need some solid news of quality primes like macro, wide and TS-E to broaden the lens range as its all very potrait/social photographer based at this moment. Oh and of course better cameras.

 

[Ozarker]

Maybe this will help better guesstimate the weight.

Tokina Cine 85mm T1.5 is 2.23kg/4.92lbs.

Canon Cinema Prime CN-E 85mm T1.3 L F (EF Mount) Lens = 2.87lbs

So there's that. 2 lbs lighter for the Canon and for a faster lens. Right?

There's a big difference in materials and construction between a Cine and a regular old FF stills lens. Brand to brand differences are also huge sometimes. Comparing Tokina vs Canon just doesn't fly too well.

 

[RunAndGun]

Canon Cinema Prime CN-E 85mm T1.3 L F (EF Mount) Lens = 2.87lbs

So there's that. 2 lbs lighter for the Canon and for a faster lens. Right?

There's a big difference in materials and construction between a Cine and a regular old FF stills lens. Brand to brand differences are also huge sometimes. Comparing Tokina vs Canon just doesn't fly too well.

Exactly, but I think you’re missing the point. I’m showing just how heavy a comparable Cine 135 is to show that a stills version will be/should be much lighter. Especially when you compare even just the Cine versions of two similar lenses between the two manufacturers.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

Be still my beating heart! If this comes to fruition I will be one very happy guy! Please Canon. Please! A native f/2 would be fine, f/1.4 would be sublime. Wondering what the front filter thread size would be. 105mm+?

Roughlt the same as the 300 2,8

 

[noncho]

My Sigma 135 1.8 is nearly perfect(picture quality), the AF is good enough to use it also for indoor sports. The size and weight are good for 5D/1D bodies. The only thing that can be improved can be done with ... IBIS.
135 1.4 can't have faster focus than 1.8/2.0 due the big elements. It will be also heavy, big and expensive. I'ts too much for me. I would appreciate more for example more compact 180/2.0 (not big and heavy white style as 200/2 please).

 

[Ozarker]

No, just as the 135/2 and 200/2.8 are practically the same lens, the 135/1.4 and 200/2 will be too. Canon's clearly prioritizing light weight in the big tele's now, so the 135/1.4 may weigh a lot less than the old EF 200/2, but will be approx the same as the next 200/2 we see from Canon whether EF or RF.

And likewise, I agree Canon's trying to get a bit of a premium on the RF lenses in general, and for an RF lens that's a show-stopper (f/2 zoom, or the sharpness of the 50/1.2) there's also a "show-stopper premium." Any manufacturer charges more for the latest greatest and discounts old items a bit. And finally sales figures are evaporating meaning that whatever IS made will have its R&D amortized over far fewer units.

Throw all that together and I'd be comfortable betting you or anyone a beer that an RF 135/1.4 is going to initially be at least US$500 more than the EF 200/2.

I'll take that bet.

 

[Del Paso]

Wouldn't it be nice to fit it with extenders?
1,4 X Ext + 1,4/135: 190mm f2
2 X Ext + 1,4/135: 270mm f2,8