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

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,769
4,195
The Ozarks
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.
Well, if you like it on an EF camera, you'd have a near orgasmic experience with it on an R series camera... thanks to the eye AF. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,805
2,105
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
699
448
Unless the 135mm f/1.8 is compatible with the 2x teleconferter, I don’t see a reason to buy it over the Sigma EF 135 since that lens is already so optically beautiful and will likely be half the price.
Unless one wants the control ring etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
289
423
Kenosha, WI
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.
 

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
197
66
Berlin
www.flickr.com
Me too. Out of 15 EF lenses, the only one left is the 135/2.0. I love it. It can blur a background even when subject is full-body in a landscape frame, which that background is far less magnified and thus more recognizable than the 200/2.8 (or 70-200/2.8). Meanwhile, the 85/1.2 spec-wise should also be able to do that
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...
 

roby17269

R5 + RF & EF L glass
Feb 26, 2014
81
60
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
For me, the EF 35L II is hard to fault. Better other lenses are prioritized for a while.
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Atlasman

EOS R5
CR Pro
May 14, 2020
91
98
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,550
7,332
I am sure it is, but I am not going to spend non-trivial money on EF lenses now.
^^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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Juangrande

EOS RP
Mar 6, 2017
237
308
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.
F1.8 is plenty, no need to make the lens 3kg.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Juangrande

EOS RP
Mar 6, 2017
237
308
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.
portraiture
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,805
2,105
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.
For almost everything!
(Landscapes, people, cities, flowers, portraits, dogs, children, sports and so much more !)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,216
1,480
UK
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.
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 :giggle:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,462
958
Me too. Out of 15 EF lenses, the only one left is the 135/2.0. I love it. It can blur a background even when subject is full-body in a landscape frame, which that background is far less magnified and thus more recognizable than the 200/2.8 (or 70-200/2.8). Meanwhile, the 85/1.2 spec-wise should also be able to do that, but it was one of the worst lenses in the EF catalog, with huge light fall-off into the corners, poor OOF highlight circles into the corners, very slow AF, heavy and ackward, and hard to avoid touching the rear element when mounting and unmounting. And not great sharpness either. All that said, I'd switch in a second to an RF were the RF demonstrably better.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
73
114
Me too. Out of 15 EF lenses, the only one left is the 135/2.0. I love it. It can blur a background even when subject is full-body in a landscape frame, which that background is far less magnified and thus more recognizable than the 200/2.8 (or 70-200/2.8). Meanwhile, the 85/1.2 spec-wise should also be able to do that, but it was one of the worst lenses in the EF catalog, with huge light fall-off into the corners, poor OOF highlight circles into the corners, very slow AF, heavy and ackward, and hard to avoid touching the rear element when mounting and unmounting. And not great sharpness either. All that said, I'd switch in a second to an RF were the RF demonstrably better.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users