Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

RunAndGun

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 16, 2011
475
163
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Busted Knuckles

Enjoy this breath and the next
Oct 2, 2013
226
2
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

EOS RP
Jan 10, 2012
304
17
www.NonchoILiev.com
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).
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
743
404
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.
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.
 

CanonFanBoy

Planet FUBAR.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,719
4,153
A lab in the Ozarks.
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. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,625
1,875
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
743
404
1,4 X Ext + 1,4/135: 190mm f2
2 X Ext + 1,4/135: 270mm f2,8

Exactly, and that's why I'm shocked people are saying, oh no, the 135/1.4 will be MUCH cheaper than a 200/2 or 300/2.8.

No it bloody won't, because as you point out, it IS a 200/2 or 300/2.8, at least with a relatively cheap TC...
 

Dexter75

EOS M6 Mark II
Dec 18, 2019
60
49
This thing is going to weigh 3 pounds and cost $3500. No thanks, I’ll stick with my EF 135 f/2 I picked up for $600. Where are the affordable RF primes? It’s going on two years now....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
743
404
Where are the affordable RF primes? It’s going on two years now....
I'm waiting, not for "affordable" but at least "always-in-the-backpack portable". That said, takes years to engineer an entire outfit that's all things to all people.

Had they started with the 35/2 and 50/1.8 you can get for any system in the last 60 years, it wouldn't have people rushing to the new system like the f/2 zoom or 10x sharper 50/1.2 did. So I don't fault them starting with the lenses they did.

I also wouldn't pull the "going on two years thing" if it's only been 15 months (correct me if I'm wrong). Two years is 60% longer than what I calculate it's been. Ten lenses in 15 months is almost bewildering. A lens every six weeks for over a year? Granted the EF rollout had 13 lens + 1 TC in 1987, but there was no adapter to use older lenses.

I will make one critique of the RF release and that's probably that they could have or should have made it a complete system for SOMEBODY from the get-go. That could be sport, nature, portraiture, wedding, but the obvious category would be reportage, with the trinity zooms from day one. Nearly all shooters in other categories will have one or more of these zooms.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
743
404
This thing is going to weigh 3 pounds and cost $3500. No thanks, I’ll stick with my EF 135 f/2 I picked up for $600. Where are the affordable RF primes? It’s going on two years now....
BTW, if you can cope with manual focus, a Chinese brand Kipon has a line of f/2.4 primes: 24 28 35 50 75 90. Bic Camera in Tokyo doesn't stock them in the store, they're web-shop only, and web-shop doesn't do returns, but in principle its an interesting option. I'm shooting my Leica 35/1.4 on my RF and could see a 90/2.4 giving me a reasonable vacation/beach outfit.
 

BigShooter

I'm New Here
May 10, 2016
14
19
This plus a sports worthy R-series body would likely be enough to bring me back to Canon. I would fully expect this lens to be in the $6-8K range though.
Absolute guff. You can buy 2 x 200mm f/2 IS USM L lenses for 8k. Your pricing is in fantasy land. The 135 focal length is a bread and butter lens for prime shooters, with a wide target market. These would sell by the bucketload, bringing the price a lot lower than your crazy fantasy pricing!
 

raptor3x

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2012
631
114
State College, PA
whumber.com
Absolute guff. You can buy 2 x 200mm f/2 IS USM L lenses for 8k. Your pricing is in fantasy land. The 135 focal length is a bread and butter lens for prime shooters, with a wide target market. These would sell by the bucketload, bringing the price a lot lower than your crazy fantasy pricing!

Unless you're looking at beaters on the used market you absolutely cannot buy 2x 200mm f/2 IS for $8K. The 200mm f/2 IS was released at $5700 in 2008. In a similar timeframe, 2011-2018, the 400 2.8 IS MK2 to 400 2.8 IS MK3 saw a price increase of 20% from $10K to $12K. A similar price increase compared to the 200mm f/2, since it's a lens with similar entrance pupil requirements, would put the price somewhere around $7K.
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,882
1,539
Unless you're looking at beaters on the used market you absolutely cannot buy 2x 200mm f/2 IS for $8K. The 200mm f/2 IS was released at $5700 in 2008. In a similar timeframe, 2011-2018, the 400 2.8 IS MK2 to 400 2.8 IS MK3 saw a price increase of 20% from $10K to $12K. A similar price increase compared to the 200mm f/2, since it's a lens with similar entrance pupil requirements, would put the price somewhere around $7K.
I’ve bought two of them in absolute mint condition for around $2900 a piece, and that includes our 25% VAT. It’s probably one the cheapest lenses to buy used vs new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

CanonFanBoy

Planet FUBAR.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,719
4,153
A lab in the Ozarks.
F/1.4 is unacceptible. Must be f/1.2. Must be. I don't care about all the stupid "you can't tell thje difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4" arguements. I don't care. Do I need it? Hell no! So what? That's what I want, by God! :cry: So don't care about strangers telling me what I need or don't need. Need does not factor in. I want. That's enough. :ROFLMAO: