The Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS will be available globally on January 26, 2023
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
This is perfect! Almost my exact planned setup. I have the RF 50mm 1.2L and plan to add the 135 to complement this for closer portraits (50 is great for mostly full body but for upper torso/headshots, it's too wide in my opinion.
I use a 24-105 F4L for studio work instead, since I don't go below F8-9 then and the 105mm focal length is much more valuable to me than the extra stop of light I don't use.
I sold my other lenses (except for the 50mm 1.8 which lives on my RP for casual photos) to prioritize quality over quantity.
Absolutely lovely seeing this "trinity" before it's on my own shelf!
Upvote
0
both cheaper in practice in Japan! The stores here don't charge shipping and prices include tax. I think B&H includes neither shipping nor tax. I paid US$2340 but this is the first RF gear I've bought that wasn't substantially cheaper than the US price.
Upvote
0
I shot with the EF135 a little with extenders but resolution was horrible. I did a few vacations with the 28-70/2.8, 135L, and a 2.0x. Today I'd take the 24-105/4, and just crop 105mm for any tele shots I needed.
Actually, non-compatibility with extenders totally put the RF70-200 out of mind. I used the various EF70-200/2.8's for 23 years but to me the 70-200/2.8 was only useful if you also had the extenders (at which point it was great). So for RF I went with 100-500 and to me it is basically a 70-200/2.8, with 1.4x attached, that seamlessly morphs into a 70-200 with a 2.5x attached, but also with a lot better image quality.
Upvote
0
Those are FANTASTIC photos. I'd be proud to have taken almost any of them.Today a review of this lens model was published on a South Korean portal known to some photographers:
캐논 RF135mm F1.8L IS USM 리뷰 / 사용기 (Canon RF135mm Review)
캐논의 2023년은 최정예 EOS R 시스템과 렌즈군을 탄탄하게 구축하는 시기가 될 것이다. 이미 풀프레임 APS-C 바디 라인업을 갖워놨으며 하이 아마추어, 프로 촬영가, 스포츠 촬영가 들을 모두 아우르는 폭넓은 타깃..www.popco.net
The photos published there speak for themselves. If you have something to photograph with a lens of this focal length, it is definitely worth buying this lens model. It will be money very well spent.
The EF 135/2.0 can almost take these photos, though.
The RF 135 may be about 8x sharper by area (it's 30lp/mm line on the MTF is nearly equal with the 10lp/mm line for the EF) but I don't think you can see that at resolutions that fit on a computer screen. (A 1000x1500 image on a computer screen only shows 20lp/mm:1500/36mm/2, 2 because it's a pair of lines) You need either a fine art-quality print or a massive crop for this to start to be important in practice.
The author provided some f/1.8 vs. f/2.0 comparisons and I think in practice there is practically no difference there.
The RF's IS means the ISO for the low light shots is about 8-16x lower than it would be for the EF, so I would say that the biggest difference you can spot in these posed pictures is probably the noise, actually, in the low-light shots. In brighter light I don't think you would be able to see a difference at typical web resolutions of 1000x1500. But when the RF has to shoot at ISO 5000, the EF would be at 40,000 and that is basically the reason I decided to get the RF.
Upvote
0
Well-spotted on the misinformational summary of the EF135/2. Great lens it was, but round-apertured and weatherproof it wasn't!
Totally off-subject but curious why the f/2.8 AND f/4 zooms? At least on the wide end I can't imagine why one would have both. I only shot professionally a few years in the 90s but given how little I earned I wouldn't have gotten the 2.8 primes if was trying to make a living today. (Maybe you're just a lot better than me!) If I were trying to work as a photog today I'd try to work f/4 zooms, plus fast primes when I just absolutely couldn't sell an image unless I had more bokeh. I had f/2.8 in the 90s of course, when I needed it for AF, and when saving even a stop of film speed was visible in a small print or film scan. (ISO 800 shots looked like crap even when publisher was only printing something 3"/7.5cm wide.) But even then, I also got a lot of shots I couldn't sell due to bad DOF exacerbating slightly-inaccurate focus and lower resolution at f/2.8 at least with the lenses of that era.
Upvote
0
Simply put, complicated purchasing strategy and finding deals I couldn’t pass up.
Short version: the f/2.8 are my main workhorse lenses and the f/4 lenses play a key role for real estate, travel, and as a ready to go backup at all times.
Long version: the RF 24-105 came in a kit with my original EOS R. I learned my lesson from the past that the 24-105 will always remain in my kit because it’s far too useful. In EF mount, I always had both as well. In 2020 (yes, a job during COVID!!) I was using the EF 24-70 at that time and made a bad call on a job in California where I packed the RF 24-105 instead. Sure enough, I found myself indoors and in darkly lit situations on several days. Seeing that I was on the road in California and didn’t have my selection of primes on hand, an f/2.8 zoom was helpful - particularly with wide angle low light. My friend and creative director for the job lent me his RF 24-70 f/2.8 and I was entirely shocked with how great it was - especially its minimum focusing distance. Some of my absolute best shots from that day came from that lens. The plan was always to progressively transition over to the RF mount and sell my EF lenses, but I was more eager to do so after the performance I experienced. After I got home, I located one in like new condition for less than $1800 with the original box. Had to get it. I use both regularly for different jobs and they have different roles.
The RF 14-35 was preordered and I promptly sold my EF 16-35 f/2.8L III after it arrived. I don’t exactly remember why I bought the 15-35, but my records also indicate a seriously good used price in like new condition with box for $1800 as well. I didn’t use f/2.8 very often with an ultra-wide lens, but that has absolutely changed. I now use the 15-35 and a 50mm or another prime as my combo when I cruise the pits with 2 cameras. Day or night, the combination works great. The 14-35 is a great lens, but I may end up selling that one at some point. It’s currently relegated to exclusively being a real estate lens for me. That area makes me a lot of money so, for now, I can justify having both. Plus if something happens to my 14-35 (which balances on a gimbal) at a listing, I need to be able run home and grab an ultra-wide to shoot a listing immediately after on the same day or the next day. (Unfortunately, I can’t use Fuji to shoot real estate or automotive as a main camera when using strobes and remotes.)
Nearly all the events (primarily races) I cover span the course of an entire day. Having zooms that can gather the most light make everything better. It’s a single stop but, in practice, it means a lot more. It men’s flexibility in shutter speeds, cleaner noise without processing time, sharper overall images stopped down working with strobes, the list goes on. The secondary reason is always having zooms ready to go for work. I’m a CPS Platinum member and even with overnighting repairs and loaners, that doesn’t always work with travel and tight schedules between jobs. I will often fly home on a Monday and be flying back out on a Wednesday. Or, in the case of last September, I was home for a total of 6 days. Not a chance I could have or would want to deal with the repair and loaner process then.
Upvote
0
I ordered the 31st from Bic Camera's website and "they'd deliver it when it was available." Got a mail today (2nd) saying it will come Saturday (4th). Yodobashi camera's website was claiming one month wait so that was what I was predicting.
I paid USD2340, after points. (Technically paid USD2600 but got points worth USD260). I see Adorama and B&H have prices around USD2099 but do most states now require internet vendors to charge sales tax? And what is shipping in the US?
My EF depreciated 50% in 25 years I think. If the RF does the same, it will cost about $46/year to own. If I didn't swap, the old one losing half its remaining value would be $5/year over the same period, so I think this upgrade is basically costing me $40/year or so.
I want to compare mine against my 135/2.0 and I'm not in a huge hurry to sell, but do you guys think the EF price will crater? Or actually stay pretty firm? In other words should I sell as fast as possible to avoid a declining price?
I paid USD2340, after points. (Technically paid USD2600 but got points worth USD260). I see Adorama and B&H have prices around USD2099 but do most states now require internet vendors to charge sales tax? And what is shipping in the US?
My EF depreciated 50% in 25 years I think. If the RF does the same, it will cost about $46/year to own. If I didn't swap, the old one losing half its remaining value would be $5/year over the same period, so I think this upgrade is basically costing me $40/year or so.
I want to compare mine against my 135/2.0 and I'm not in a huge hurry to sell, but do you guys think the EF price will crater? Or actually stay pretty firm? In other words should I sell as fast as possible to avoid a declining price?
Upvote
0
You've resisted buying it all four days it's been on the market?!!? Well, you outlasted me I guess. I wasn't even thinking about it until day two but had an order placed by sundown.
Upvote
0
I loved my 135/2 but I did do some travel with the 24-70 (or maybe it was 28-70 back then?), 135, and a 2.0x and was shocked at how bad the resolution was with TC. The Canon book called I think "Lens Work" might have been the only source of MTF data back in the mid-90s and I recall their charts also showed it'd be horrible. On today's hi-res, lo-noise R5 I think you might be better just cropping the 135/2 images than using the TC.
Upvote
0
I only used it with a 1.4X and had excellent results. I did own a 2X for a while but the results were unsatisfactory even with the sharpest lenses and a R5.
B&H does not charge shipping for orders over 50. If you use their branded credit card, you don't pay tax either.
I'd speculate prices for the EF 135 will be pretty stable. I think it is a real bargain on the used market. It's also about 75% less than the RF so there should be a good market for it at current prices.
Upvote
0
Preorders started quite a while back.
I still may buy one, at some point. My storage cases are all full, and I don’t have room for the RF 100-400 I recently bought. So I ordered another case (Pelican Storm im2300 with padded dividers), so I have space for several more lenses. Perhaps the 100-400 will get lonely and want a friend.
Upvote
0
I ordered on Jan 31 and got it on Feb 4.
There's no way it's hand-holdable at the claimed 8 stops of IS, which would be 1 second (if you think the 135mm is normally hand-holdable at 1/250 without IS). I DID get one sharp photo at 1 sec out of ten attempts, but at 1/250 handheld I'd have gotten 9 out of 10 I think.
I'm going to do a series of tripod shots vs. ten hand-held, at each speed from 1 to 1/500, and ascertain the actual IS ability, and do the same with my 135/2 before selling it. That would also produce a resolution comparison as a free side benefit.
Also might as well do some side-by-side comparisons of bokeh both wide open and stopped down (the 135/2 diaphragm isn't great). I suspect the new lens will be just slightly superior.
The final thing to check is resolution improvement. Since I shoot just for hobby, I do 1500x1000 edits of most photos I keep, but also do a few things with full resolution:
1) for 1500x1000 edit, that means I'm using 1500/36/2 = 20.8 line pairs per mm, call it 20. I think the contrast will be about 90% on the new lens vs. 80% on the old and be borderline visible improvement.
2) for full resolution the R5 has 228 pix/mm. That could get 114lp/mm, but only if the edge of the lines on the target were perfectly aligned with the borders between pixels. Instead, to guarantee that each line results in one totally black pixel regardless of alignment, I need two-pixel-thick lines with two-pixel-thick spaces between lines. That means 57lp/mm is the sharpest feature that can be reliably tested.
There's no way it's hand-holdable at the claimed 8 stops of IS, which would be 1 second (if you think the 135mm is normally hand-holdable at 1/250 without IS). I DID get one sharp photo at 1 sec out of ten attempts, but at 1/250 handheld I'd have gotten 9 out of 10 I think.
I'm going to do a series of tripod shots vs. ten hand-held, at each speed from 1 to 1/500, and ascertain the actual IS ability, and do the same with my 135/2 before selling it. That would also produce a resolution comparison as a free side benefit.
Also might as well do some side-by-side comparisons of bokeh both wide open and stopped down (the 135/2 diaphragm isn't great). I suspect the new lens will be just slightly superior.
The final thing to check is resolution improvement. Since I shoot just for hobby, I do 1500x1000 edits of most photos I keep, but also do a few things with full resolution:
1) for 1500x1000 edit, that means I'm using 1500/36/2 = 20.8 line pairs per mm, call it 20. I think the contrast will be about 90% on the new lens vs. 80% on the old and be borderline visible improvement.
2) for full resolution the R5 has 228 pix/mm. That could get 114lp/mm, but only if the edge of the lines on the target were perfectly aligned with the borders between pixels. Instead, to guarantee that each line results in one totally black pixel regardless of alignment, I need two-pixel-thick lines with two-pixel-thick spaces between lines. That means 57lp/mm is the sharpest feature that can be reliably tested.
Upvote
0
Those lines are 55lp/mm, basically the smallest possible that you can test this way, given the R5's 227 pixel/mm sensor. (Each black line has to be just over 2 pixels tall on the sensor to assure you get one entire pixel on the sensor that's looking only at black.)
Note the Rt's vignetting correction is on, but no image sharpening.
I'll be doing a similar test with 20lp/mm, which would be one-pixel-tall lines on a 1500x1000 reduction, a size I use a lot. My theory is that the RF 135/1.8 is actually no better image quality at all at that resolution than the EF 135/2.0.
1 pixel = 1 pixel
Here's the actual shot showing the resolution chart: the line pairs are between the red dots lower left. Note the bokeh circles on chrome guitar amp knobs on the right, slightly bigger in the new RF f/1.8 than the old EF f/2.0. That is still over 3m away.
Note the Rt's vignetting correction is on, but no image sharpening.
I'll be doing a similar test with 20lp/mm, which would be one-pixel-tall lines on a 1500x1000 reduction, a size I use a lot. My theory is that the RF 135/1.8 is actually no better image quality at all at that resolution than the EF 135/2.0.
1 pixel = 1 pixel
Here's the actual shot showing the resolution chart: the line pairs are between the red dots lower left. Note the bokeh circles on chrome guitar amp knobs on the right, slightly bigger in the new RF f/1.8 than the old EF f/2.0. That is still over 3m away.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
