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.
The Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L USM is coming in Q4 of 2022 [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
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.
With some of the L lenses, they're putting in accelerometers, which contribute to IBIS effectiveness, even if the lens itself doesn't itself have IS. For instance, the RF 85 f/1.2 (non-IS) shows 8 stops of IBIS with a camera that claims around 5 stops of IBIS.
That they haven't done this more has been surprising and a little disappointing. I'd probably sell something to get the new 135 f/1.8 if it accomplished something similar.
I do have to say that my Sigma glass (including - for now - the 135mm f/1.8) has all vastly improved now that I'm shooting with IBIS. Used to be its biggest disadvantage.
Last edited:
It's heavier than you'd like, but I picked up an original EF 300 f/2.8 mark I for some obscure use cases (mostly woodcock at dusk). It's ugly, but the glass is great, and I got it for about $800. The newer versions are all noticeably better image quality wise, but the original is no slouch. If you're OK with a monopod, you'd likely be able to buy it until the RF version came out, and then sell it for just about the same price after.
The most interesting of these lenses is IMO the 28-70 f/2, one of the first four lenses of the RF. Years before the first bodies with IBIS have been released.
Canon marketing says the extra stops are due to the image circle being a lot bigger than the sensor on those lenses.
Hopefulle there is a new title just before announcement:
from RF 135mm f/1.8L USM is coming
to RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM is coming
for my EOS RP.
If not maybe I will buy one because I really liked the 135mm focal length
(with Canon EF camera + FD 2.5 135 S.C.) and maybe a better
capital investment as other things with enhanced fun factor!
from RF 135mm f/1.8L USM is coming
to RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM is coming
for my EOS RP.
If not maybe I will buy one because I really liked the 135mm focal length
(with Canon EF camera + FD 2.5 135 S.C.) and maybe a better
capital investment as other things with enhanced fun factor!
There is still a need for a Canon:
Canon want their $$$$$ share !
But agree a 70-135 would be fine, yet horribly expensive...
It's not clear to me it'd be more than a 70-200/2.8. Both would have a 72mm maximum aperture, and the construction of the EF 135/2 and 200/2.8 was nearly identical, so would be approximately the same amount of glass.
Last edited:
I hope you're right, but since this will be a "special" lens without any competition from the generalists, I'm afraid the pricing could be a bit higher...
And, designing a wide open zoom could result in the use of expensive glass types.
Last edited:
There's a lot of ways that have been well described above, I'll point out that it's one of my best lenses and I find ways to use it. I also as more of a duffer with children getting older am less in need of reporting/catching every event vs getting hopefully one or two great shots to remember them by. I'd much prefer a wide open shot with the 135/2 then a zoom shot with a more distracting background. If I can't move around I miss some shots, but it's light and amazing when I can use it. I'll usually bring the 135 and the EF-S 55-250 to any play or sporting event, and if I have the space I'll bring two bodies, that whole set costs less than an L zoom 70-200 2.8.
Seems I’m in the minority, but I’m disappointed this will be f1.8. The lens roadmap has been mostly accurate to date and I’ve been excitedly waiting -- for what feels like years now -- for a 135mm f1.4.
Sigma, Sony and Samyang already make excellent 135 f1.8s and I can’t see this Canon lens being much better. Making yet another 135mm f1.8 just seems to lack ambition. Sure, it will fill a gap in the RF system, but Canon had a real opportunity here to make an “ultimate portrait lens” which could have attracted people from other systems.
If Canon weren’t so hostile to 3rd party manufacturers then I’m sure Sigma/Samyang could have provided an excellent/affordable RF 135mm option, leaving Canon to focus on something that would have pushed the envelope. I had thought that the RF 28-70 f2 was a statement of intent from Canon that they planned to make more unique and ambitious lens designs, but sadly that lens appears to be a one-off.
I sincerely hope the RF 35L doesn’t disappoint.
Sigma, Sony and Samyang already make excellent 135 f1.8s and I can’t see this Canon lens being much better. Making yet another 135mm f1.8 just seems to lack ambition. Sure, it will fill a gap in the RF system, but Canon had a real opportunity here to make an “ultimate portrait lens” which could have attracted people from other systems.
If Canon weren’t so hostile to 3rd party manufacturers then I’m sure Sigma/Samyang could have provided an excellent/affordable RF 135mm option, leaving Canon to focus on something that would have pushed the envelope. I had thought that the RF 28-70 f2 was a statement of intent from Canon that they planned to make more unique and ambitious lens designs, but sadly that lens appears to be a one-off.
I sincerely hope the RF 35L doesn’t disappoint.
That’ll be 3k ff lens… I’d prefer this too even if I cant’t afford it. /sarc
May be L grade RF-s counterpart : 45 - 90 F/2 would be 1500$ and affordable.
It might be a one off, like that blog post from lensrentals mentioned:
Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens
There is a lot of online discussion about why a manufacturer made this lens when they so obviously needed to make that other lens. Or why this manufacturer’s design is better than that manufacturer’s magical solutions. So, I thought I’d share the second-hand information I have about the process...
www.lensrentals.com
"Manufacturers will usually prioritize a show-off lens or two in their lineup, a loss leader that says ‘we did this thing no one else does so you can see how good we are’. Think Canon RF 28-70mm f/2..."
I was thinking that too. I was hoping for some more really innovative lenses but that really isn't what Canon is doing.It might be a one off, like that blog post from lensrentals mentioned:
Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens
There is a lot of online discussion about why a manufacturer made this lens when they so obviously needed to make that other lens. Or why this manufacturer’s design is better than that manufacturer’s magical solutions. So, I thought I’d share the second-hand information I have about the process...www.lensrentals.com
"Manufacturers will usually prioritize a show-off lens or two in their lineup, a loss leader that says ‘we did this thing no one else does so you can see how good we are’. Think Canon RF 28-70mm f/2..."
We've discussed numerous times the virtues and deficiencies of both the ef 85mm f1.2 II and the ef 135mm f2.0. Both are amazing portraiture lenses which we are both very familiar with. Both sit in my wedding lens bag and both get heavy usage. Most of the 85 f1.2's deficiencies are addressed in the new RF version in every area except sizer and weight. However, I can't see a RF 135mm f1.8 (non IS) fixing ANY of the 135L's current deficiencies. The current lens takes tele converters really well. Every RF tele prime lens so far has been substantially bigger and heavier than their EF counter parts. A heavier 135 isn't going to be a benefit. The extra 1/3 stop is pretty much useless unless it's matched with a light weight IS unit. if I shoot an 85 f1.2 at a wedding I can assume say 1/80th sec at f1.2 @ iso 400. The shutter speed is matched to the focal length and the image will be relatively noise free and sharp. However, under the same light levels, I have to shoot the 135mm at 150th sec (focal length to shutter speed rule) and I loose over a stop at f2.0. So my exposure becomes 150th sec at f2.0 at iso 1600....that's a lot more noisy that the results I would get from the 85.
The problem with fixing the 135L deficiencies is that it competes against the 70-200 f2.8 LIS capabilities.
Y'all just buy the Sigma already then! So confident, don't wait, just buy it. Oh what's that? You always end up buying the Canon anyways? Then yes, it will cost way more than it should. It's what I'll be buying. All the forum folks always talk a big talk on 3rd party parity, but somehow always end up with the native version.
Similar threads
