USD pricing for the Canon EOS R6 Mark II and Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM has leaked ahead of the imminent announcement

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
573
139
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
Is it from old 6D2 or Rp?
if it from 6d2...god help them - the camera will get buried on photo sites. That sensor sucks, with the DR equivalent of newspaper. Its rare that photo reviewers say 'you have no flexiblity' with a sensor...especially a full frame one.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
30,937
12,642
if it from 6d2...god help them - the camera will get buried on photo sites. That sensor sucks, with the DR equivalent of newspaper. Its rare that photo reviewers say 'you have no flexiblity' with a sensor...especially a full frame one.
Yes, well clearly Canon didn’t need help from anyone to sell plenty of the 6DII. Sensor measurebation doesn’t mean all that much to people outside of forums. We don’t represent the market.
 
Upvote 0

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
219
95
Berlin
www.flickr.com
$2100 is a tempting price, but I sold my EF 135L long ago when I realized the 70-200/2.8 II was much more useful to me. I have the RF 70-200/2.8 so I don’t plan to pick up the RF 135L.
The EF135 was always good for lightweight. 750g instead of 1500+ as the EF 70-200 2.8. If you only pickup body and one lense, the 135 was a good choice.

Now this is no more a reason. RF135 is at 935g with 82mm filter
There the RF 70-200 2.8 is only a slightly bit heavier, and its not bigger (as the EF with internal zoom).

But the price is ok, I expected more from Canon as the other L prime lenses are more with 3000€...
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
EF 135/2 been in my radar for many years but never really had a chance to get it. I have RF 70-200/2.8 and Samyang 85/1.4. I shoot mostly portrait of my daughter/newphew and niece. Do you think EF 135/2 is worth it on top of those 2 lenses?

I have both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the EF 135mm f/2 L. The 70-200/2.8 is a workhorse and I use it quit often.

If I know I can get away with only 135mm and will not be standing on a moving or vibrating platform, I'm grabbing the 135/2 every time. Even when stopped down to f/2.8, the out of focus areas are so much smoother with the prime that it's not hard at all to tell which lens was used. It's the closest thing to a magic lens as I've ever used.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
I think you will find the difference between 135 and the 70-200 at the same focal length to be minimal. 70-200 is more flexible so you can zoom in or out better on the kids.

The only reason I have 135 is because i got it for $460usd and I personally prefer using lighter primes than zooms (the EF 70-200 is 2x the weight). The RF 70-200 is only 25% heavier (with adapter taken into account) so it is a lot better in that sense.

I rotate between 35, 50, 85, and 135 L primes, use just one lens per outing with kids and try to get good compositions given the fov limitations. Keeps gear light, mind sharp, and body active with the foot zooms.

Do you regularly shoot with both the EF 135/2 and the EF 70-200/2.8 II, III or RF 70-200/2.8?
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
I don't get why so many people are convinced it can't be the stacked sensor from the R3. Surely once the development of the sensor is done it is cheaper for canon to use it as many times as possible as opposed to developing a new sensor that isn't stacked just for a cheaper camera.

I don't get why all cars do not have Ferrari V12 engines in them, since Ferrari has already spent the development costs and it would be cheaper for all car companies to just use it instead of spending more money developing new inline 4-cylinder engines with massively fewer parts, massively fewer assembly steps, and significantly lower tolerances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
The R6 has an identical sensor to Canon's flagship 1DXiii so using the R3 sensor for the R6ii isn't out of the question and would make the R6ii much more competitive . Once the sensor is developed then the production costs may well be not much higher than FSI non stacked.
Perhaps Canon plan to use BSI stacked sensors on all their mid to high end bodies from now on ?

Or maybe the difference in production costs is actually significant enough that its more than the R&D savings from not having to develop a new FSI or BSI (but not stacked) sensor would be over the number of units they expect to sell?
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Why? Because they can sell plenty more $4.5k cameras than they do $6k. People around the interwebs (unrealistically) wishing the R6ii have a stacked sensor shows there's a market appetite for a cheaper stacked sensor camera that's not at $6k. Canon can meet them halfway at the $4.5k price point.

As long as every one they make sells as soon as it is listed somewhere, they can't sell any more than they are selling now at $6K if they lowered the price to $1.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
there are tests @ optical limits site - EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is not that great @ borders wide open or close to wide open on 21mp sensor ( see how border fare vs center) while RF one does well @ 30mp (the same see how borders fare vs center)

Who buys an 85mm f/1.2 to take photos of flat test charts? Or to do document reproduction? That's what you need flat field performance to do.

Giving a lens such flat field performance tends to make the bokeh less attractive. Bokeh is what most folks by an 85/1.2 to get. But they're too lazy to learn the design used to get that "edge to edge sharpness" negatively impacts out of focus areas when imaging a three-dimensional world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Agreed the EF is still a worthy lens, but the lack of weather resistance and IS are significant weaknesses. I imagine the optics will be improved after 26 years, too, so I will be sorely tempted to pick one up.

The EF 135mm f/2 L doesn't totally lack weather resistance, it just has a little less of it than other lenses than have a little more. It's not built like an open truss Newtonian telescope or something. The lens elements, aperture diaphragm, AF motor, etc. are all inside the lens barrel. Neither the front nor rear elements move at all when the focus position is changed. So what if it doesn't have a little rubber ring on the outside of the flange? Most of the rubber rings on my L lenses that do have one have been pretty much flattened over the years.

It's not like "weather sealed" lenses (which Canon doesn't usually claim for lenses, they usually only say things like "more weather sealing" or "improved weather sealing" in product descriptions) can be fully immersed in water and less weather resistant lenses will explode if exposed to direct sunlight, one drop of water, or one speck of dust.

IS would be nice, but the things I use the 135/2 for require a Tv shorter than 1/125 or 1/150 most of the time, anyway. YMMV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
192
271
Do you regularly shoot with both the EF 135/2 and the EF 70-200/2.8 II, III or RF 70-200/2.8?
I use the EF 135 regularly. For times when I need zoom now I use the RF 100-400. I used the 70-200 ii but the bulk and weight was getting to me as I do get sporadically active while shooting (ie running and jumping to keep up with kids). Much easier holding onto a small prime or zoom than trying to protect big white.
 
Upvote 0

SwissFrank

1N 3 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
494
332
The 85 DS does not count as a different lens in my book.
It's different enough that people pay hugely more for it, and theoretically a professional might even own both. They wouldn't do so if it were "the same." It's been listed as a different lens on every Canon lens list I've ever seen, as well. You're welcome to count all RF lenses made as "the same lens" if you want but it doesn't really affect how the rest of the planet counts them.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,183
1,816
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
I don't get why all cars do not have Ferrari V12 engines in them, since Ferrari has already spent the development costs and it would be cheaper for all car companies to just use it instead of spending more money developing new inline 4-cylinder engines with massively fewer parts, massively fewer assembly steps, and significantly lower tolerances.
While your point is extreme, what you are suggesting does in fact happen. New and expensive tech eventually trickles down into consumer products. In cars and in cameras because of the economics of scale. So my point stands. While in this case the sensor obviously did not get used, eventually ALL cameras with ES will have stacked sensors. It is just a matter of time
 
Upvote 0

danfaz

Coffee Fiend
Jul 14, 2015
867
1,600
www.1fineklick.com
The EF 135mm f/2 L doesn't totally lack weather resistance, it just has a little less of it than other lenses than have a little more. It's not built like an open truss Newtonian telescope or something. The lens elements, aperture diaphragm, AF motor, etc. are all inside the lens barrel. Neither the front nor rear elements move at all when the focus position is changed. So what if it doesn't have a little rubber ring on the outside of the flange?
Well, it was not promoted as having any, and was promoted as an "indoor sports" lens.
I'm sure you know the weather sealing is not just a rubber ring at the mount. Take the RF 85mm 1.2 for example. The lens elements, aperture diaphragm, AF motor, etc. are all inside the lens barrel, as well. Even with all that, Canon added the rubber ring and seals in many other places to make it weather-resistant (see attached pic). Hopefully the RF 135 will get this same treatment.
The question is, would you feel confident taking your lens out in the rain/snow/dust knowing your lens had no advertised weather sealing?
I was too chicken to use my EF 135 during inclement weather, but will not be so much with the RF version.

1669547940487.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Well, it was not promoted as having any, and was promoted as an "indoor sports" lens.
I'm sure you know the weather sealing is not just a rubber ring at the mount. Take the RF 85mm 1.2 for example. The lens elements, aperture diaphragm, AF motor, etc. are all inside the lens barrel, as well. Even with all that, Canon added the rubber ring and seals in many other places to make it weather-resistant (see attached pic). Hopefully the RF 135 will get this same treatment.
The question is, would you feel confident taking your lens out in the rain/snow/dust knowing your lens had no advertised weather sealing?
I was too chicken to use my EF 135 during inclement weather, but will not be so much with the RF version.

View attachment 206518

Are you saying the EF 135mm f/2 L has no seals anywhere? If it was introduced as a new lens today instead of in the 1990s, when most all of us had sense enough to put covers over our cameras and lenses when shooting in the rain, I'm sure Canon would print up a nice diagram showing where they are in that lens as well. They might not be as robust or extensive as the seals on newer lenses such as the RF 85mm f/1.2 L, but there are seals in many of the cracks between pieces of the barrel of the older 135/2.

On the other hand, every time I've gotten my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, which is supposed to be a "weather sealed" lens, back from CPS I've had to reapply my own tape over the access holes in the metal zoom and focus rings located beneath the rubber covers.

In the words of Roger Cicala from a lensrentals blog titled:

Assumptions, Expectations, and Plastic Mounts


"As long as we’re on the subject of catchwords, it’s probably worth tackling ‘Weather Sealed’ or ‘Weather Resistant’ next. Many people seem to believe that means ‘waterproof’. When you take lenses apart all day you find out it usually means ‘we put a strip of foam rubber behind the front and rear elements and scotch tape over the access holes under the rubber rings’."

"It’s better than no weather sealing, certainly. And some (but not all) ‘weather sealed’ lenses also have internal gaskets around barrel joints and other added bits seals. But I haven’t seen one manufacturer yet tell us exactly what weather their lens is sealed against. Snow? Rain? Sunshine? Wind? Well, it can’t be wind because the lenses we spend the most time taking dust out of are mostly ‘weather sealed’."

"It’s very different with different manufacturers. You can assume whatever you like, but when you send your lens in for repair, ‘weather sealed’ still means ‘the warranty doesn’t cover water damage’."

"The truth is, terms like Professional Grade and Weather Resistant are nearly as vague as ‘innovative technology’ and ‘stylish design’."
 
Upvote 0