Canon Applies for 135mm f/2 Patent

[Juangrande]

I love my EF 135 f/2. I don't really need an RF version, but I hope they make one in the unlikely event i need to replace mine in the future. I think an RF 135 F/2 would be $1500-1700. That's about a 30% premium to what the EF was going for if I recall correctly (which I may not be). A 1.4 would be around $4k. a 1.8 probably $2500-2700. So that's a factor as well.

Brian

I bought the EF version if the Sigma $135 1.8 for about $1,200. I doubt the an RF 1.8 would be $1,500 more. I would guess $1,700-$1,900, and not sure about an f1.4 (

 

[Juangrande]

I bought the EF version if the Sigma $135 1.8 for about $1,200. I doubt the an RF 1.8 would be $1,500 more. I would guess $1,700-$1,900, and not sure about an f1.4 (which I’m holding out for ) I imagine it would be similar or slightly more than the RF 85 f1.2. Hopefully.

 

[bbasiaga]

I bought the EF version if the Sigma $135 1.8 for about $1,200. I doubt the an RF 1.8 would be $1,500 more. I would guess $1,700-$1,900, and not sure about an f1.4 (

I hope you're right. Canon's pricing in light of parts shortages and inflation has been very high.

 

[Blue Zurich]

I'm more interested in the f/stop, whether it has IS, size, weight and optical characteristics than price. Surely it couldn't be higher than say $1799 USD, right? The EF version has a following like very few other lenses and it would be a shame to come out with a pedestrian RF model. The Sigma version never interested me, sharpness isn't everything.

 

[Fischer]

135mm F/2 RF and camera with built in image stabilization = Canon for the win! The old one was lovely, can't wait to see what a new one would bring to the table.

 

[f119a]

It is clear to me that Canon is putting a big mark-up on everything they announce these days - no matter if R&D, and production or margin is the main reason for that.
But imagine the price, if it was a full step or at least half a step brighter
It is as it is and we are the consumers...

Edit: And IQ is not only about resolution and distortion. Contrast, color and bokeh are more important to some...

This one has wonderful bokeh and contrast. Color we wouldn't know at this stage (which depends on glass, coatings AND in-camera WB).

 

[f119a]

I'm more interested in the f/stop, whether it has IS, size, weight and optical characteristics than price. Surely it couldn't be higher than say $1799 USD, right? The EF version has a following like very few other lenses and it would be a shame to come out with a pedestrian RF model. The Sigma version never interested me, sharpness isn't everything.

The 4th design uses too many expensive lenses and it wouldn't be $1799 even if it were built one day. I'd say 2x$1799 is a more realistic goal comparing to similar lenses in the market...

 

[Blue Zurich]

The 4th design uses too many expensive lenses and it wouldn't be $1799 even if it were built one day. I'd say 2x$1799 is a more realistic goal comparing to similar lenses in the market...

I guess my hopes weren't based upon the patents and optics listed but a general desire for an RF version. Hell, I'd take the same EF optical formula, throw in IS and be good.

 

[Ozarker]

Please excuse me while I get the paper towels and change my underwear. Mesmerized. However, where the heck is the f/1.8?

I have the EF 135mm f/2L, so I guess this new lens will be rented first.

 

[Ozarker]

135mm F/2 RF and camera with built in image stabilization = Canon for the win! The old one was lovely, can't wait to see what a new one would bring to the table.

Image stabilization is a go for me.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Image stabilization is a go for me.

Wondering when you'd chime in

 

[Juangrande]

I hope you're right. Canon's pricing in light of parts shortages and inflation has been very high.

I did read that prices for Canon lenses were going up 10% in Japan. I don’t know if that means it will go up everywhere. But we are going to see inflation likely everywhere. So valid point.

 

[max]

when this lens is released I will change to RF.
I will miss my EOS 3 with EF50mm

 

[Blue Zurich]

when this lens is released I will change to RF.
I will miss my EOS 3 with EF50mm

That's quite the leap but why not have both? It's not as if one can really fund the other, plus, film is such a different animal.
Enjoy!

 

[Maximilian]

This one has wonderful bokeh and contrast. ...

Please give me some advice, how you can read this out of the patent charts.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Michael Clark]

I am wondering how this would compare with the RF 70-200 F2.8 at 135mm (f2 vs f2.8 aside). At least for my use case, I find that the IQ of the 70-200 f2.8 is not that different from the RF100mm f2.8. So apart from the latter's micro capability, the zoom can serve as well in most of my situations. I imagine the 135 f2 to be mainly used as a portrait lens, but not sure (yet) if using the 70-200 could be good enough.

Based on my experiences with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, EF 135mm f/2 L, and EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro:

The Macro is optimized for close focus and has a high degree of flat field correction which tends to render less than pleasing bokeh of deep background objects when using it at longer than macro subject distances.

The 70-200/2.8 II & III also are more optimized for imaging flat test charts (because that is what everyone seems to base lens buying decisions on these days, even when the purpose for which a lens is bought is not 2D object reproduction).

The 135/2, on the other hand, has less flat field correction and much more pleasing out of focus areas, which is what one tends to desire in a "portrait" lens.

It remains to be seen if Canon will optimize the RF 135/2 or 135/1.8 for pleasing bokeh when making portraits in a 3D environment or if they will instead bow at the alter of the Gods of the Flat Test Chart.

Based on the design of the most recent EF 85mm f/1.4 L, I'm not holding my breath for Canon to give us a lens that takes better wide aperture portraits instead of a lens that will sell better based on its flat test chart performance.

 

[Michael Clark]

I think back in the day, when the prime was expected to be significantly sharper and one stop brighter, you might think of the zoom as a wedding photographer or journalist's lens, where the 135 was a professional portraitist's tool. The quality increase in the zooms has made that quite a gray area now.

Only if you define "quality" as the ability to reproduce a 2D flat test chart. If I know I can get by with only 135mm when shooting images of the 3D world, my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II stays in the bag every time. The 70-200/2.8 is a remarkable lens and one of my workhorses, but it can't do at 135mm what the EF 135mm f/2 L can, even when the prime is stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower.

It's a subjective difference in quality comparable to, say, images shot on run-of-the-mill drugstore ASA 200 film, developed using an automatic minilab, and printed on standard resin coated paper versus images shot on Ektachrome that is custom developed and then reversed and printed on laminated Endura paper. They just look different.

 

[f119a]

Please give me some advice, how you can read this out of the patent charts.
Thanks in advance.

You are not really going to see much in patent itself. you need to put in the glass data etc into a simulation/design software like Zemax then you'll get a result, where you'll get all those MTFs and aberrations.
Unfortunately the softwares are too expensive for me so I don't really know how to use them.

 

[Maximilian]

You are not really going to see much in patent itself. you need to put in the glass data etc into a simulation/design software like Zemax then you'll get a result, where you'll get all those MTFs and aberrations.
Unfortunately the softwares are too expensive for me so I don't really know how to use them.

So this means you just make assumptions?
Not much more then than I do - knowing what Canon did in the past.
So maybe you and I better wait for the "real" glass, shouldn't we?

 

[f119a]

So this means you just make assumptions?
Not much more then than I do - knowing what Canon did in the past.
So maybe you and I better wait for the "real" glass, shouldn't we?

It's much better than assumption because manufactures uses the same software when they design something. I assume they wouldn't bother building a test lens if the result looks bad even on paper (to save cost of development). Simulation results of 'real lenses' seem consistent with their shooting performance too.
And result like bokeh is pretty straightforward I think.

↑ A example: Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 on Tele end
You just need to set your own reference lens for "good", "acceptable" and "bad" performance.