The Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L USM is coming in Q4 of 2022 [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Yes, the 70/200 is more versatile.
But it's much longer, heavier and, being white, far more visible for candid shots. Ii just shouts "did you see me ?"...
I often use my 135mm in cities for "stolen"portraits, even for "macros" of larger flowers (dahlias) at F2. The only reason for me to buy the RF version would improved close-up abilities.
But it's much longer, heavier and, being white, far more visible for candid shots. Ii just shouts "did you see me ?"...
I often use my 135mm in cities for "stolen"portraits, even for "macros" of larger flowers (dahlias) at F2. The only reason for me to buy the RF version would improved close-up abilities.
Upvote
0
On one hand, this would take me down to only 2 EF lenses in my bag - the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS and the Sigma 28mm f/1.4. On the other hand, as others have mentioned, my existing Sigma 135 f/1.8 is superb, and if the RF is "priced premium", it begs the question as to whether it makes more sense to get the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 instead... A lens I was resisting due to the fact that I have that 85, a 24 - 105 f/4, a 100 - 500, and I don't shoot a lot of sports limited to 200 (else I would have chosen it over the 100 - 500 to begin with). Being unable to use TC's with it makes it very narrow in purpose for me.
Filter thread size is also a concern; everything in my bag is 77mm or less, except the 15-35 and that Sigma 135mm which are both 82mm, so I have standardized on 82mm filters. I would love to be at 77mm instead, but I got the 15-35 before the 14-35 was available, and in retrospect I love being able to get down to 15, have f/2.8, have IS, and have minimal optical distortion compared to other Canon RF ultrawides; it's literally the lens I use most. If this lens would be bigger than 77mm but not 82mm, I'm out.
Filter thread size is also a concern; everything in my bag is 77mm or less, except the 15-35 and that Sigma 135mm which are both 82mm, so I have standardized on 82mm filters. I would love to be at 77mm instead, but I got the 15-35 before the 14-35 was available, and in retrospect I love being able to get down to 15, have f/2.8, have IS, and have minimal optical distortion compared to other Canon RF ultrawides; it's literally the lens I use most. If this lens would be bigger than 77mm but not 82mm, I'm out.
Upvote
0
davidcl0nel
Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
If you use the same view with the 85 1.2 you get the same blurry background yes, but on the more distance view of the 135L you have a little bit more depth of field for the subject. The EF 135 was more easy to focus, because the whole person is in the depth of field - but with eye AF its no matter anymore. (i never used a 85 1.2 on a R yet)
With the distance to the subject you can more easily take pictures of children, they are playing undisturbed.
And so the EF135 (along with the TSE17) stays forever, because both replacements would be more than double the cost... this price I used for the camera or an additional lens (the 70-200 f/4 was expensive, but worth it, because its so tiny and now ALWAYS in my backpack)
I have an R5, which has 3 wheels, so I don't need a 4th on the lens... it works well. Maybe for a R or RP or the upcoming replacements (which I don't think will come soon, because Canon will stay in the number scheme now) it was a good idea with the ring. I would buy a cheaper L-lens without the ring, because I wouldn't use it as like the rotating distance scale on EF lenses. Relict of the analogue era...
Upvote
0
I am sure it is, but I am not going to spend non-trivial money on EF lenses now. And I am not going to buy the RF 35mm 1.8 since I know that I'd buy the 35L when it will be available and I wouldn't be using the 1.8 anymore after that
Upvote
0
I used the EF 135mm f2 for hockey coverage indoors. I opted to leave the 70-200mm f2.8 at home in exchange for a lighter package. I shot an entire day of coverage with this one lens. I used this lens for event photography and got outstanding results.
Upvote
0
^^This.
My oldest Is starting high school this fall, and will be on the field in the evening with typical high school lighting. A 300/2.8 would be ideal for that, but I’m not going to buy the EF version at this point. If Canon launches an RF version, I will pre-order it.
Upvote
0
I’m actually a little disappointed with this news because I was planning on replacing a Sigma 135 1.8 but could live with the 1.8 on that lens. But if they fail to make the rumored 35mm 1.2 I’ll be pissed. I’ve been holding out for that lens for a long time and the fast 1.2 on a 35 is important for my needs.
Upvote
0
Don’t forget as a native lens it would likely acquire focus faster as well. So a good upgrade
Upvote
0
Maybe stop thinking in terms of which *subjects* the lens is suitable for, as it can be used for almost anything...
Instead, I'd recommend thinking in terms of *how* a lens of this focal length can be used to enhance the subjects that you normally shoot - i.e. take advantage of the compressed perspective, subject isolation and reduced depth of field to add variety to your images
Upvote
0
In defence of the 85mm 1.2, I agree it’s slow focusing , it’s easy to miss focus . However it takes absolutely beautiful portraits, mine is incredibly sharp stepped down (when used in studio with flash - the detail on a 5DSR is shocking). I often shoot it at 1.2 , I love how it looks, very complimentary. Well worth the focusing effort. 70-200mm is the most reliable portrait lens and also is brilliant fit portraits. 200mm F2 is beautiful but heavy (I’d prefer a 135mm F2 rather than a heavier F1.8 but I could see Canon making it a differentiation point. For me for head shots the EF 300mm 2.8 II is my favourite, so sharp but complimentary. I’ve a big collection of Canon lens and I’d rate it as the best, great for sport, wildlife and portraits.
Upvote
0
The 85 1.2 ii on a R series camera is magical. Yes, focusing is not fastest, but with eye AF I am able to get sharp portraits of my kids running around. The dreaded cut off bokeh balls due to mirrorbox is resolved and sharpness wide open is actually quite decent. Some chromatic abberation does reduce apparent sharpness and contrast, but if one pixel peep they can still count the eyelash hairs and skin pores. Because of that though, it renders skin imperfections a bit more forgivingly than the new RF version.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
