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

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,450
931
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
56
89
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

[email protected]

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
843
824
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
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.

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:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

[email protected]

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
843
824
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
^^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.

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.
 

Nemorino

EOS R5
Aug 29, 2020
392
1,034
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,101
2,121
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. [..]
Canon marketing says the extra stops are due to the image circle being a lot bigger than the sensor on those lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

mb66energy

EOS 5D Mark IV
Dec 18, 2011
1,544
397
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
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!
 

Quackator

EOS RP
Jul 19, 2011
392
241
Since the Sigma 135mm ART is exceptionally good, there's no need for a Canon equivalent anymore.
I'd rather love to see a 2.0/70-135mm come to life.

Sigma ART or Canon RF L - I don't mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,683
1,922
Since the Sigma 135mm ART is exceptionally good, there's no need for a Canon equivalent anymore.
I'd rather love to see a 2.0/70-135mm come to life.

Sigma ART or Canon RF L - I don't mind.
There is still a need for a Canon:
Canon want their $$$$$ share !
But agree a 70-135 would be fine, yet horribly expensive...
 

SwissFrank

1N 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
777
430
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:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,683
1,922
It's not clear to me it'd be more than a 70-200/2.8. Both would have a 72mm maximum aperture so would be approximately the same amount of glass.
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:

illadvisedhammer

buggin out
CR Pro
Aug 19, 2015
31
13
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jun 26, 2022
1
1
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

danfaz

RFIVE
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2015
147
111
www.1fineklick.com
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.

It might be a one off, like that blog post from lensrentals mentioned:

"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..."
 

neurorx

EOS RP
May 12, 2015
214
162
I wonder what price point the lens will be at given its not an f2 in the RF mount? $2300-2500?
 

neurorx

EOS RP
May 12, 2015
214
162
It might be a one off, like that blog post from lensrentals mentioned:

"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.
 

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,714
437
51
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
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.
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.
 

SHAMwow

EOS R5
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
97
141
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.
 
Oct 24, 2018
172
63
Finland
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.
RF is closed , no native Sigma. EF adapter? Might as well buy EF 135L.