The Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS will be available globally on January 26, 2023

[SwissFrank]

Still no proper reviews from Gordon or Jared or anyone?

The first question is, you either want an ultrafast long portrait lens or not.

If you do the second question is, which one. If you wish to stick with Canon, see my above post for resolution: I'd rank it 10/10, giving high contrast two-pixel-tall lines in the corners on an R5 at f/1.8. The RF is clearly better than the EF, slightly so in the center and almost unfairly so in the corner.

Comparison of EF+convertor, vs. RF, basically the same weight (925g vs. 1060g), same length, with RF slightly larger girth. This is actually a surprising result, as EF lenses tend to be very different size than the RFs: the 50/1.2 seems to have doubled in size while the 24-105/4 shrank 30%.

For me the only other two factors to weigh are AF time and accuracy, and how many stops of IS. I can report the RF135 is nowhere near the advertised 8 stops, but just thinking about it I'm sure it's at least a stop or two better than the EF. Likewise the EF focuses fast, but RF seems faster, though I haven't tested.

I admit I'd like to see the spherical aberration back to back, but I think most people can already make a decision on resolution, size, and personal finances.

 

[Viggo]

The first question is, you either want an ultrafast long portrait lens or not.

If you do the second question is, which one. If you wish to stick with Canon, see my above post for resolution: I'd rank it 10/10, giving high contrast two-pixel-tall lines in the corners on an R5 at f/1.8. The RF is clearly better than the EF, slightly so in the center and almost unfairly so in the corner.

Comparison of EF+convertor, vs. RF, basically the same weight (925g vs. 1060g), same length, with RF slightly larger girth. This is actually a surprising result, as EF lenses tend to be very different size than the RFs: the 50/1.2 seems to have doubled in size while the 24-105/4 shrank 30%.

For me the only other two factors to weigh are AF time and accuracy, and how many stops of IS. I can report the RF135 is nowhere near the advertised 8 stops, but just thinking about it I'm sure it's at least a stop or two better than the EF. Likewise the EF focuses fast, but RF seems faster, though I haven't tested.

I admit I'd like to see the spherical aberration back to back, but I think most people can already make a decision on resolution, size, and personal finances.

Well, mostly to kill the wait is why I asked. But, also to see how fast the AF is (compared to the 85). And if the conclusion would´ve been that the 85 is just as fast, I wouldn´t buy the 135. I like to do some research and not take Canons fluff too seriously. I can still cancel my order if it´s not the upgrade I wanted.

 

[SwissFrank]

Well, mostly to kill the wait is why I asked. But, also to see how fast the AF is (compared to the 85). And if the conclusion would´ve been that the 85 is just as fast, I wouldn´t buy the 135. I like to do some research and not take Canons fluff too seriously. I can still cancel my order if it´s not the upgrade I wanted.

Understandable! I ordered mine from Bic Camera I think Jan 31st and expected a month wait, only took 4 days. With tax and free shipping, and deducting the cash value of the store points the purchase gave, it was still like $100 more than the B&H website price but I think tax and shipping are extra on that. Whatever, not sure when I'll be in the US again.
OK, so yeah, an 85/1.2 has a 72mm aperture. Crop the center 62% out of your photo and you'll almost the exact bokeh of a 135/2, and on our R5s we'd still have 18MP left which is pretty professional. I totally get that "crop to zoom" mentality, and of course you can simply get nearer and not crop.

I decided to get the 135/1.8 instead of the 85/1.2 though because the EF135/2 I shot since '96 wasn't used a lot yet resulted in so many killer photos (wife and son photo). The EF85/1.2MkI I hardly ever shot at all. I dunno why that is. The 135 is actually kind of a hard focal length to use, as you're often just outside comfortable chatting range. I think this is the main reason I went for the 135/1.8.

I think I heard its AF is a LOT faster than the RF85/1.2 but don't quote me or base a buying decision on this from me, I might be mistaken. And IS is definitely better.

Finally a pleasant surprise is that I always considered my 135/2 my sharpest lens except maybe the 180/3.5 and 600/4. But WIDE OPEN, the RF CORNERS are sharper than the EF CENTER. It's somewhere between stunning and scary how clearly it can render two-pixel-tall lines (55lp/mm) in the very corners.


Back to you Viggo: how do you rate the RF85/1.2 sharpness to the corners? The EF was really astigmatic but it still took great pctures. Oh, and one idea for you or anyone is to pick up one of the 135/2's that will pelting down on eBay. $500 or something for a good one, you can't go wrong.




135/2 wide open:


EF85/1.2MkI, Tri-X scan

 

[Viggo]

Understandable! I ordered mine from Bic Camera I think Jan 31st and expected a month wait, only took 4 days. With tax and free shipping, and deducting the cash value of the store points the purchase gave, it was still like $100 more than the B&H website price but I think tax and shipping are extra on that. Whatever, not sure when I'll be in the US again.
OK, so yeah, an 85/1.2 has a 72mm aperture. Crop the center 62% out of your photo and you'll almost the exact bokeh of a 135/2, and on our R5s we'd still have 18MP left which is pretty professional. I totally get that "crop to zoom" mentality, and of course you can simply get nearer and not crop.

I decided to get the 135/1.8 instead of the 85/1.2 though because the EF135/2 I shot since '96 wasn't used a lot yet resulted in so many killer photos (wife and son photo). The EF85/1.2MkI I hardly ever shot at all. I dunno why that is. The 135 is actually kind of a hard focal length to use, as you're often just outside comfortable chatting range. I think this is the main reason I went for the 135/1.8.

I think I heard its AF is a LOT faster than the RF85/1.2 but don't quote me or base a buying decision on this from me, I might be mistaken. And IS is definitely better.

Finally a pleasant surprise is that I always considered my 135/2 my sharpest lens except maybe the 180/3.5 and 600/4. But WIDE OPEN, the RF CORNERS are sharper than the EF CENTER. It's somewhere between stunning and scary how clearly it can render two-pixel-tall lines (55lp/mm) in the very corners.


Back to you Viggo: how do you rate the RF85/1.2 sharpness to the corners? The EF was really astigmatic but it still took great pctures. Oh, and one idea for you or anyone is to pick up one of the 135/2's that will pelting down on eBay. $500 or something for a good one, you can't go wrong.




135/2 wide open:
View attachment 207619View attachment 207618

EF85/1.2MkI, Tri-X scan

View attachment 207620

I’ve always been very, very picky about lenses, but always put aperture above pure IQ. Fortunately for me they often go hand in hand. Except the 200 f2 I think the RF 85 L is the best lens I’ve ever used, in every way except AF. I’ve shot with it 97% wide open and composed with extreme corners as the focal point and never thought it wasn’t sharp enough. It’s basically theoretic perfection to my eyes. To me 135 and 85 can be used for the same shots without any issues, but the slightly longer reach is appealing for some shots and AF is the big deal for me.

 

[SwissFrank]

I’ve always been very, very picky about lenses, but always put aperture above pure IQ. Fortunately for me they often go hand in hand. Except the 200 f2 I think the RF 85 L is the best lens I’ve ever used, in every way except AF. I’ve shot with it 97% wide open and composed with extreme corners as the focal point and never thought it wasn’t sharp enough. It’s basically theoretic perfection to my eyes. To me 135 and 85 can be used for the same shots without any issues, but the slightly longer reach is appealing for some shots and AF is the big deal for me.

Do you have the DS? If not did you try the DS or was it really not a consideration? For me the only downside I see of the 135/1.8 is that the out-of-focus highlight circles in the corners of the shot are slightly more "cat's eye" or "American football" than the 135/2 wide open (see my previous comparison of that). But if I stopped down to f/2 on both, maybe it wouldn't be. My dream lens would be a 135 DS with a huge aperture that nonetheless gave perfect circles all the way to the corners.

 

[Viggo]

Do you have the DS? If not did you try the DS or was it really not a consideration? For me the only downside I see of the 135/1.8 is that the out-of-focus highlight circles in the corners of the shot are slightly more "cat's eye" or "American football" than the 135/2 wide open (see my previous comparison of that). But if I stopped down to f/2 on both, maybe it wouldn't be. My dream lens would be a 135 DS with a huge aperture that nonetheless gave perfect circles all the way to the corners.

It was the regular version, I didn’t want the DS, as I like more blur instead of “better” blur, which was kind of moot as the normal 85 was gorgeous as it is.

 

[Sporgon]

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.

This comment has made me curious as I thought RF focused as well at f/4 as it does at 2.8. So I presume that with what you were shooting you could get away with minimal Dof all the time ?

 

[Sporgon]

EF85/1.2MkI, Tri-X scan

View attachment 207620

Nice to see a scan that hasn’t been spoilt with too much sharpening !

 

[danfaz]

Still no proper reviews from Gordon or Jared or anyone?

Chris Frost has one now:

And Irene Rudnyk:

 

[Viggo]

Chris Frost has one now:

And Irene Rudnyk:

Thanks! I saw them yesterday it looks pretty spectacular especially corners at f1,8. And as one who mostly shoots wide open and subject towards corners that’s excellent news. And the AF looks superb, can’t wait to shoot my cat

 

[SwissFrank]

it looks pretty spectacular especially corners at f1,8

I may have shared this before but can't remember where. On tripod, it seems sharper wide-open in the corner than the 135/2 was in the center... and the 135/2 was probably my sharpest of 15 lenses back in 1998... This is 1:1 zoom showing 55lp/mm, my textured wallpaper, and some text that was on my target that I only realized was itself a good test once I had shot the shots.

I don't think the IS is anywhere near the clamed 8 stops, which would allow hand-holding 1 sec. Though I did get 1 out of 10 exposures quite sharp at 1 sec! I intend to do a test of IS ability and will share on this chat when I do.

 

[Viggo]

I may have shared this before but can't remember where. On tripod, it seems sharper wide-open in the corner than the 135/2 was in the center... and the 135/2 was probably my sharpest of 15 lenses back in 1998... This is 1:1 zoom showing 55lp/mm, my textured wallpaper, and some text that was on my target that I only realized was itself a good test once I had shot the shots.

I don't think the IS is anywhere near the clamed 8 stops, which would allow hand-holding 1 sec. Though I did get 1 out of 10 exposures quite sharp at 1 sec! I intend to do a test of IS ability and will share on this chat when I do.

View attachment 207648

Yeah, that looks very impressive indeed! Regarding IS, how do you conclude 1 second is 8 stops? I couldn’t really hold the RF 85 at 1/80s , need at least 1/125s , usually 1/160s, and I could hold it at 1/4 with IBIS engaged. If I get close to 1/4 with the 135 I’ll be shocked

 

[koenkooi]

[…]

I don't think the IS is anywhere near the clamed 8 stops, which would allow hand-holding 1 sec. Though I did get 1 out of 10 exposures quite sharp at 1 sec! I intend to do a test of IS ability and will share on this chat when I do. […]

Canon uses the numbers they get from the CIPA test for stabilization. Like the battery test, that is likely not how you or I use a camera
The methodology is published on the CIPA website if you’re curious about what CIPA thinks 8 stops of improvement mean.

 

[Rivermist]

The first question is, you either want an ultrafast long portrait lens or not.

If you do the second question is, which one. If you wish to stick with Canon, see my above post for resolution: I'd rank it 10/10, giving high contrast two-pixel-tall lines in the corners on an R5 at f/1.8. The RF is clearly better than the EF, slightly so in the center and almost unfairly so in the corner.

Comparison of EF+convertor, vs. RF, basically the same weight (925g vs. 1060g), same length, with RF slightly larger girth. This is actually a surprising result, as EF lenses tend to be very different size than the RFs: the 50/1.2 seems to have doubled in size while the 24-105/4 shrank 30%.

For me the only other two factors to weigh are AF time and accuracy, and how many stops of IS. I can report the RF135 is nowhere near the advertised 8 stops, but just thinking about it I'm sure it's at least a stop or two better than the EF. Likewise the EF focuses fast, but RF seems faster, though I haven't tested.

I admit I'd like to see the spherical aberration back to back, but I think most people can already make a decision on resolution, size, and personal finances.

Am I misunderstanding when you compare the IS? The EF 135 f:2 does not have IS (in fact practically no EF L prime lens before the 85mm f:1.4 had IS except the big white telephotos). The 135 f:2 is interesting now because we have IBIS bodies which, while no match for a combined IS + IBIS in the RF system, at least helps some towards using lower shutter speeds.

 

[danfaz]

Here's a bokeh comparison (I have one comparing the 50/85/135 in another thread) between the 135 and the 70-200, both at widest apertures. The 70-200 is zoomed to 135mm. This object is 5 feet away from camera.

 

[SwissFrank]

Am I misunderstanding when you compare the IS? The EF 135 f:2 does not have IS (in fact practically no EF L prime lens before the 85mm f:1.4 had IS except the big white telephotos). The 135 f:2 is interesting now because we have IBIS bodies which, while no match for a combined IS + IBIS in the RF system, at least helps some towards using lower shutter speeds.

> Am I misunderstanding when you compare the IS? The EF 135 f:2 does not have IS

To be clear I meant, compare in-body IS on the 135/2 vs. the in-body plus in-lens IS on the 135/1.8. I actually bought the first IS lens in '96 or '97.

I've come up with I think, an excellent test methodology for these tests, really better than I've seen anywhere else, and will publish results today or tomorrow.

But early result is that 1/15th with the 135/1.8 for ten shots, nine are excellent and one is still very good. For 1/8th, six are excellent, two good, but two are poor. And it's all relative: even the poor ones still show detail my old 1DsMkI couldn't capture on a tripod.

 

[Viggo]

Here's a bokeh comparison (I have one comparing the 50/85/135 in another thread) between the 135 and the 70-200, both at widest apertures. The 70-200 is zoomed to 135mm. This object is 5 feet away from camera.

View attachment 207671View attachment 207672

Thanks for sharing! I remember testing the 135 f2 against the 70-200 mk2, and although to some it might not be a lot of difference, it’s exactly the difference that sets the 135 shots apart. It just has that look I can’t get in the same way at 2.8. I’m getting impatient with receiving the 135 now

 

[SwissFrank]

Thanks for sharing! I remember testing the 135 f2 against the 70-200 mk2, and although to some it might not be a lot of difference, it’s exactly the difference that sets the 135 shots apart. It just has that look I can’t get in the same way at 2.8. I’m getting impatient with receiving the 135 now

Get excited. By my tests the 135/1.8 wide open, in the CORNERS, is sharper than the 135/2 wide open in the CENTER. In the 90s my 135/2 was my sharpest lens until I got the 180/3.5... I'm also seeing IS to be reliably excellent (90%+ keepers) down to 1/30 or so.

 

[roby17269]

Finally, yesterday I have got mine!
I have bought it from Adorama... ordered the first day of the announcement, but not super early because of a card issue. They charged my card monday and shipped it tuesday.
It is more svelte than the 85 1.2 and lighter, but longer. As you all know.
I have taken 2 random images just to prove it works. I was planning to use it this weekend but I have come down with a flu so I am not sure I will be able to

 

[danfaz]

Finally, yesterday I have got mine!

Congrats!
Too bad you're getting sick