The Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L USM is coming in Q4 of 2022 [CR3]

[vjlex]

It's not the first time you're talking about an RF 135mm f/1.8L. Last time was in May 2019 and it was supposed to be announced by February 2020. It was ranked [CR2].

Three new RF prime lenses coming in early 2020 [CR2]

We were told that three new fast L primes will be announced for the RF mount in early 2020. They include an RF 24mm f/1.4L USM and an RF 135mm f/1.8L along with

www.canonrumors.com

I still don't quite understand why people don't want to give CR Guy the benefit of any doubt. Especially regarding any rumors around the 2020-2021 'lost years'. Just because rumors aren't promises doesn't mean they're lies.

 

[AccipiterQ]

What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.

It’s the classic headshot portrait focal length.

 

[Sporgon]

What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.

As neuro says, classic tight head portrait as at 135 it’s safely inside the 100mm threshold for a flattering perspective (on FF), but not so long as to be difficult to handle. The 135L also has slight pincushion distortion which again is flattering for all but the skinniest people. However, personally I prefer the 200mm focal length for various reasons.

 

[roby17269]

It’s the classic headshot portrait focal length.

I also had it and loved it for kids photography: great distance for when they roam around to play

 

[camerone]

What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.

The EF 135/2 could be used for indoor sports too if you really need to minimize ISO. personally I use mine for pets and cars.

honestly I just love using it, period. A 70-200/2.8 is more practical and gets you like 85-90% of the way to the 135/2 at 135mm but that last 10%... Also, I prefer primes, I think they make me a better photographer, and I don't think I'm alone in that

 

[Colorado]

honestly I just love using it, period. A 70-200/2.8 is more practical and gets you like 85-90% of the way to the 135/2 at 135mm but that last 10%... Also, I prefer primes, I think they make me a better photographer, and I don't think I'm alone in that

Yeah I agree and I don't know exactly why. I had the EF70-200 (f4 but still) and the EF135 f2 and I just vastly preferred the pics and the shooting experience with the 135. It was, again for unexplainable reasons, the lens I would nature walk with especially for fall colors. It forced me to not just take 24mm landscapes but instead focus in on an interesting composition while at the same time letting me photograph things close to me. I've been selling off my EF lenses but the the 135 (with an EF->RF converter) will be the last one I sell.

That said I don't know when that would be. The RF version would have to be vastly superior to tempt me as there are many other RF lenses that I would want first.

 

[max]

I would prefer 1.2 or at least 1.4.

The 2.0 is 500gr lens! It is a bliss to use. If you want a 1.4 or 1.2 you will have to buy bigger more expensive lenses.

This to me is all I want! It is the lens that is keeping me from jumping to EOS R series.

 

[Sporgon]

It’s remarkable how many here wax lyrical about the 135L but use the past tense.

 

[max]

2000 EUROS would be great, but in my thoughts Canon will place it at atl least 2500-2600 Euros. If you add the Ucraine-war-and-oil-and-gas-is-missing crisis to the calculation 2999 Euroe could come true. I hope, I´m not right

wow! I was not expecting close to 2.500.... The original EF goes for less than 1.000

 

[jdavidse]

Come to daddy
So sad about no news for the 35L though that one feels more needed... for me.

For me, the EF 35L II is hard to fault. Better other lenses are prioritized for a while.

 

[SNJ Ops]

2000 EUROS would be great, but in my thoughts Canon will place it at atl least 2500-2600 Euros. If you add the Ucraine-war-and-oil-and-gas-is-missing crisis to the calculation 2999 Euroe could come true. I hope, I´m not right

$2500-$2600 would be an insane price but you might be right. $2000-$2200 would be reasonable. Shame Samyang stopped making RF glass because their new 135mm f1.8 absolutely stellar and matches the Sony GM equivalent in IQ but for half the price.

 

[Blue Zurich]

As long as it's 'magickal' and not Sigma clinical. Not a fan of the sticker look.

Similar to Nuero's take, although I never felt as he did with any of the EF versions, I am smitten by the RF 70-200 f/4 and no longer feel the compulsion to buy a RF 135 with that on my R6.

 

[Skux]

f/1.8 is fine, once you get past 100mm your backgrounds are going to blur out at maximum aperture anyway. Even my old Takumar 135mm f/3.5 produces lovely bokeh.

The only catch is the more expensive and narrower it gets, the more it competes with Canon's own 70-200. Unless you are doing headshots all day I think most people would choose the versatility of the zoom.

 

[SebastiaoSal]

No, no, no, I want the RF 70-135mm F/2L instead

 

[Act444]

Personally, I’m very meh on the prospect of a 135/1.8. I had the 135/2, and while I found it to be a very good lens for portraits, I also found that the 70-200/2.8 was better. The zoom range offers more flexibility, and the same subject isolation as 135/2 can be achieved at 160/2.8 (or 170/2.8 for 135/1.8).

I am as well. I also had the EF 135 f2 and while it was great for low-light action back when I was using APS-C DSLRs, since going 100% FF it sat unused until I finally let it go. Not quite long enough to provide sufficient reach for faraway subjects, and I tend to prefer a less compressed look for portraiture (100mm or wider). Additionally, for me the 70-200 2.8 (and occasionally the 70-300 L) cover any 135mm needs just fine.

That said - offering a fast 135mm option is good for the RF system as a whole. Personally I'm interested to see if a 100 or 105mm f1.4 ever shows up...

 

[danfaz]

It’s remarkable how many here wax lyrical about the 135L but use the past tense.

Yep, I'm one of them. LOL

 

[navastronia]

Good to hear it's not supposed to be f/1.4.
I've bought and sold the EF version at least 5 times. I hope I don't do that again if I end up buying this. LOL

. . . . 5?! Seems like you would have learned to keep it/sell it after like, maybe 3 times. But who am I to talk, I've certainly bought and returned lots of gear in the past.

 

[navastronia]

Finally, a good rumor lol

 

[melgross]

However Canon us doing it, they’re increasing their RF lens count nicely.