# Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L DS USM optical formula



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 29, 2021)

> More optical formulas for large aperture RF mount prime lenses have appeared. This new patent showcases some RF mount prime lenses that utilize Defocus Smoothing, which first appeared in the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS.
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.4L USM DS
> 
> Focal length: 24.55mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 29, 2021)

I won't be surprised at all if the 135mm F/1.4 also gets released as a DS option.

Someone mentioned sequential lens IDs in certifications are often variants of the same lens, right? Canon could be gearing up to announce the 135mm f/1.4 and its DS counterpart as "two" lenses.

I do feel like we need a fast 35mm before we get another portrait lens, but this will be one heck of a statement lens with DS at that aperture and focal length.

Would be interested to see if DS really even makes all that much of a difference at 24mm. I can't imagine the bokeh is *that* much better.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 29, 2021)

So many beautiful new lenses.
So little money...


----------



## InchMetric (Dec 29, 2021)

Put a 2x TC on it and you get a 270mm f2.8 that obviates a 300 2.8. This could be a $6000 lens.


----------



## RyanGauper (Dec 29, 2021)

DS sucks! Please release a non DS version, pleaaaaaase.


----------



## Famateur (Dec 29, 2021)

RyanGauper said:


> DS sucks! Please release a non DS version, pleaaaaaase.


Not a fan of the DS look myself, either. To me, it looks too much like the faked computational "bokeh" of cell phone cameras' portrait mode. I much prefer the standard version...


----------



## Dragon (Dec 29, 2021)

A 135mm f/1.4 sounds delightful (DS or no DS), but that will be an expensive piece of glass. For reference compare an EF 200 f/2.8 with a 200 f/2 (think 10x the price). Definitely need a 135mm f/2 for the rest of us.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 29, 2021)

Interesting designs, but

135/1,4 = at least 96 mm front element.
Too big and too heavy - not to talk about the expected price of about 2,5 to 3k $/£/€ or even more.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 29, 2021)

Dragon said:


> A 135mm f/1.4 sounds delightful …Definitely need a 135mm f/2 for the rest of us.


So true


----------



## Etienne (Dec 29, 2021)

I'm so glad that I had the foresight to hire a full-time Sherpa to carry my new lightweight mirrorless gear.


----------



## AJ (Dec 29, 2021)

The Mitakon speedmaster 135/1.4 costs $3000. A Canon version will cost twice that.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 29, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> Interesting designs, but
> 
> 135/1,4 = at least 96 mm front element.
> Too big and too heavy - not to talk about the expected price of about 2,5 to 3k $/£/€ or even more.


I'm thinking more like $5k, but with IQ similar to the EF 200mm f/2.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 29, 2021)

As the owner of a Canon EF 135 f/2 for 15 years, I can't think of a single instance where f/1.4 would have been a great advantage, especially if the cost of the f/1.4 lens is $5000+.


----------



## slclick (Dec 29, 2021)

Why do I use an EF-RF adapter on my R6?

135 f/2L This is a lens which many have attempted to better but sharpness isn't everything (looking at you Siggy) and it may well be the last EF lens I will own if I replace all the rest with RF versions. (Oh and it makes a great 2 lens combo with the RF 35)


----------



## Bogashot (Dec 29, 2021)

If it performs like or better than 135 f2 L it would be an instant pick up for me for astrophotography and portraits,


----------



## Dragon (Dec 29, 2021)

Bogashot said:


> If it performs like or better than 135 f2 L it would be an instant pick up for me for astrophotography and portraits,


Ego says they have to do better than the Sigma 135 art (f/1.8) . If Canon can make that lens with very little coma, it will sell like hotcakes in the astro world.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 29, 2021)

Another 2kg/$3000 lens.


----------



## Chig (Dec 29, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> As the owner of a Canon EF 135 f/2 for 15 years, I can't think of a single instance where f/1.4 would have been a great advantage, especially if the cost of the f/1.4 lens is $5000+.


I'll stick with my EF 135mm f/2.8 soft focus lens which cost me USD 240 (NZD 370) including shipping and sales tax on eBay.
It's super light and an amazing lens for the money (and the soft focus feature is fun to play with)


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Put a 2x TC on it and you get a 270mm f2.8 that obviates a 300 2.8. This could be a $6000 lens.


Assuming it will take a tele-converter.


----------



## lnz (Dec 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> So many beautiful new lenses.
> So little money...


You should do like me, make your kids illegally work, they'll hate me later, but i have all rf glasses thx to them! i can take some sharp shot of them


----------



## lnz (Dec 29, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Another 2kg/$3000 lens.


when you love you doesn't count!


----------



## esglord (Dec 29, 2021)

Seeing f/1.4L after 50mm is encouraging even though I’m not interested in the DS part. Cool tech but not for me. Hopefully, these are released alongside non-DS counterparts.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Dec 30, 2021)

What would you use a lens like this for? I can't think of many times I've been out with my 70-200 and thought "let me zoom this in halfway..."


----------



## slclick (Dec 30, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> What would you use a lens like this for? I can't think of many times I've been out with my 70-200 and thought "let me zoom this in halfway..."


Oh that was rich.....please do share more of your plan for ridding the world of prime lenses and their woke apertures. And as for your hypocrisy while turning your 70-200 into a 200 and 70 pair of primes....


----------



## danfaz (Dec 30, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> What would you use a lens like this for? I can't think of many times I've been out with my 70-200 and thought "let me zoom this in halfway..."


Mainly portraits, but also (with the EF version), for indoor sports and events. I actually found little use for a 70-200 when I paired the 135 with a 24-70.


----------



## Finn (Dec 30, 2021)

Would rather see see lenses like the new Tamron 35-150.

A 24-105mm f/2-2.8
A 24-150 f/2.8-4

A 20mm L prime that isn’t $3K and 2Kg


----------



## 2Cents (Dec 30, 2021)

The 24 1.4 is the only lens here that caught my eye. I need that in my bag


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 30, 2021)

I appreciate that Canon is "swinging for the fences" with a 135mm f/1.4L....but, being realistic, that lens is going to be way too large and expensive to be something I'm going to consider. It's already over 7-inches long, according to the patent, and the math for the front element is 96mm...I think I'll pass. I really want a new f/1.8 or f/2 variation with fast autofocus for sports like what made the original 135L such a legend. It wasn't the aperture and focal length - it was the size/weight/price/performance/AF Speed.


----------



## MartinVLC (Dec 30, 2021)

I would love a 135mm f/1.8 or f/2 for 1200-1500 $/€ but I´m afraid it will turn out to be a f/1.4 for 3500-4500 $/€ and therefore totally out of reach... and so big and heavy that I wouldn´t want it even if I could afford it.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 30, 2021)

Likely to be too much $$ but one of the EF-135s is probably at the top of my "next time I have bad GAS" list (and if it isn't, it will be right below the 180mm macro).


----------



## slclick (Dec 30, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Likely to be too much $$ but one of the EF-135s is probably at the top of my "next time I have bad GAS" list (and if it isn't, it will be right below the 180mm macro).


It's almost always available refurbed at a great price


----------



## gmaxwell (Dec 30, 2021)

If they do make the 50mm f/1.4 DS I hope they make the front element big enough to eliminate the oval vignetting of out of focus point sources. It's silly to lose all that light to get nice soft gaussian spots but still get a harder cutoff away from the center of the frame. On non-DS lenses you can stop down to reduce the cats eye bokeh, but on DS lenses they really need to address it wide open.

It's still pretty limiting that the the DS part of the lens is effectively fixed aperture. It would be nice if they achieved the apodization with something like a filter wheel, so you could stop down a bit and preserve the full effect.


----------



## MiJax (Dec 30, 2021)

It will be massive and it will be uber expensive, but it will also make images that can't be duplicated. I just hope that it isn't a DS only lens. The look is fine, but the light-loss is too much to bear. Buying a 1.4 to shoot with light levels of a 2.2+ just doesn't seem to make sense. However, I do think it will be an unmatched portrait lens when the scene allows for a 135mm. 

Curiously, I wonder if this optical formula would lend itself well to a DO design. The marginal loss of sharpness wouldn't be slammed by the portrait bunch, but the lighter overall construction would undoubtedly be loved.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 30, 2021)

I'm not sure a 135mm f/1.4 makes sense.

With Mitakon making an EF 135mm f/1.4, an RF 135mm f/1.4 isn't going to be a halo lens. Its also going to be expensive, big and heavy, making it less attractive, especially to carry around. In a studio, I doubt it would make a big difference. As noted above, with a 2x TC it would compete with the 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8

Seems to me an f/1.8 or f/2 would make more sense.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 30, 2021)

Etienne said:


> I'm so glad that I had the foresight to hire a full-time Sherpa to carry my new lightweight mirrorless gear.


I would rather suggest a Unimog or a Humvee...


----------



## slclick (Dec 30, 2021)

The Sigma 135 1.8 is nearly 400g heavier than the Canon f/2....just imagine the heft of a 1.4. The size of the Canon (not to mention the 200 f/2.8L) was part of it's appeal. I'll just continue to adapt.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Dec 31, 2021)

slclick said:


> The Sigma 135 1.8 is nearly 400g heavier than the Canon f/2....just imagine the heft of a 1.4. The size of the Canon (not to mention the 200 f/2.8L) was part of it's appeal. I'll just continue to adapt.


I have a feeling Canon will come out with a 135mm f1.4 to try and 1 up the 135mm f1.8 GM which is not only one of the sharpest lenses on any system but also has AF performance that makes it usable for sport and wildlife too. Be interesting to see what approach Canon takes.

As a side note many of us suspect Canon’s RF 35mm L prime will be an f1.2, if this happens I wonder what the price will be as Sigma have the 35mm f1.2 Art DG DN available for E and L mount which while is largely irrelevant to RF shooters but if its significantly more expensive I wonder how RF shooters would feel about that?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 31, 2021)

I'm so glad that the 135mm f/2L was one of the handful of EF mount lenses I've kept! Works and feels great with an adapter. No problem.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 31, 2021)

What a shame. Canon has been scared of making a good 50 1.4 non-L for about 30 years or so.. whatever happened to the 50 mm IS EF? Talk about trying to protect the L lenses from a design thats 'good enough'. Bet that would make a nice story.

I'm glad my 35 f2is will serve me for many years to come, but the 50 mm situation for canon has been nonsense for a long time.


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 31, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> I would love a 135mm f/1.8 or f/2 for 1200-1500 $/€ but I´m afraid it will turn out to be a f/1.4 for 3500-4500 $/€ and therefore totally out of reach... and so big and heavy that I wouldn´t want it even if I could afford it.


And any idea whether IS is being considered? That was the only shortcoming of the EF 135mm f:2, adding IS would be doable within a $1,000 price tag.Built-in extending lens hood would be another, last seen on lenses like the FD 300 f:2.8L and other of that generation.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 31, 2021)

Finn said:


> Would rather see see lenses like the new Tamron 35-150.
> ...
> A 20mm L prime that isn’t $3K and 2Kg



Canon made one 20mm lens for the EF mount. It wasn't an L, and never got a mkII. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an L class RF 20mm lens.


----------



## rwvaughn (Dec 31, 2021)

Finn said:


> Would rather see lenses like the new Tamron 35-150.
> 
> A 24-105mm f/2-2.8
> A 24-150 f/2.8-4
> ...


I really agree with this. but I'd like to see an RF 50-150 f/2-2.8. As long as Sony is Tamron's principal stockholder, I think it's going to be a while before we see Tamron making any RF glass especially as they have to keep Sony happy.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 31, 2021)

No matter whether most of us do not need (or can afford) such a lens, I am convinced Canon have made the right decision.
To produce some exceptional lenses no one else has. Sigma, Zeiss, Samyang and Sony all have F 2-1,8/135mm teles. Why shouldn't Canon differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack?
There are certainly enough pros ready to invest $$$ in such an exceptional lens. I do not need it, but I am not the one this lens has been developed for.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 31, 2021)

slclick said:


> The Sigma 135 1.8 is nearly 400g heavier than the Canon f/2....just imagine the heft of a 1.4. The size of the Canon (not to mention the 200 f/2.8L) was part of it's appeal. I'll just continue to adapt.


I am now using the EF 200/2.8L II USM for nearly ten years and since i have the new R6 it shines even more wih sharpness and contrast. So this is a beautiful well-priced lens , fast, sharp, robust - a nice peace of glass and heavy metal. But sometimes it produces a strange rendering, with unnatural dark or bright contrast-lines as one can see in this photo: R6 & EF 200/2.8L II, f.2.8, ISO 160 1/2000sec. ooc ca. 100% crop.


----------



## slclick (Dec 31, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> And any idea whether IS is being considered? That was the only shortcoming of the EF 135mm f:2, adding IS would be doable within a $1,000 price tag.Built-in extending lens hood would be another, last seen on lenses like the FD 300 f:2.8L and other of that generation.


I have a hard time thinking that something that does not have technology which did not exist at it's time of manufacturing is a shortcoming. Maybe I'm just older and used to having to shoot without a crutch or computer kicking in but if you like just adapt and then it's not shortcomed. Hell, it is f/2, not once did I think I needed stabilization for it in the past 20 odd years.


----------



## danfaz (Dec 31, 2021)

slclick said:


> I have a hard time thinking that something that does not have technology which did not exist at it's time of manufacturing is a shortcoming. Maybe I'm just older and used to having to shoot without a crutch or computer kicking in but if you like just adapt and then it's not shortcomed. Hell, it is f/2, not once did I think I needed stabilization for it in the past 20 odd years.


Yep. And if you do want IS, use an R3/5/6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2021)

danfaz said:


> Yep. And if you do want IS, use an R3/5/6.


The IBIS of the R3 made my decision to get the 28-70/2 over the 24-70/2.8 IS easier.


----------



## KirkD (Dec 31, 2021)

My daughter is a professional wedding photographer and her top two lenses are the 35 and the 85. She has been using Nikon 750's for several years but they are beaten to crap now. She's decided to migrate to Canon mirrorless and a few days ago she purchased a Canon R5 but very much needs a pro-level RF 35 1.4 or 1.2. For the interim, she bought the RF 35mm f1.8 macro. Why in the name of tarnation is not Canon getting off its backside and releasing an RF35 1.2 or 1.4!!!!


----------



## danfaz (Dec 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The IBIS of the R3 made my decision to get the 28-70/2 over the 24-70/2.8 IS easier.


Same here for the lens choice!


----------



## snapshot (Dec 31, 2021)

I am very happy with EF85 1.4 IS adapted to the R5 for portraits, I tend to use EF 70-200 2.8 for group photos where I have to shoot F5 to get everybody in focus. I have some interest in the Nikon/Sigma 105 f1.4 for tighter framing. Maybe 135 would be good.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 31, 2021)

KirkD said:


> My daughter is a professional wedding photographer and her top two lenses are the 35 and the 85. She has been using Nikon 750's for several years but they are beaten to crap now. She's decided to migrate to Canon mirrorless and a few days ago she purchased a Canon R5 but very much needs a pro-level RF 35 1.4 or 1.2. For the interim, she bought the RF 35mm f1.8 macro. Why in the name of tarnation is not Canon getting off its backside and releasing an RF35 1.2 or 1.4!!!!


The EF 35mm f/1.4L II works beautifully on the R5/R6. Ergonomics are very good. Unless there is some shortcoming with video, I can't imagine anybody not being 100% happy with it on mirrorless.

Note: B&H says more on the way, 2-4 weeks. They also have a used one rated 10, which is a rare rating for them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2021)

I don't know where this fascination with supremely big and heavy and very expensive prime lenses will end but...

The RF 50 f1.2 weighs over 2 lbs, is 3.5 inches fat and 4.5 inches long, and costs $2,300. It has a 77mm front filter element.

The RF 85 f1.2 weighs close to 3 lbs, is over 4 inches fat and close to 5 inches long. It takes an 82mm front filter. It has a theoretical entrance pupil diameter of 71mm.

An RF 135 f1.4 would need a theoretical entrance pupil of 96mm. That makes the front element nearly twice as massive as the 85mm f1.2. So you are probably looking at a lens that weighs 5 lbs, is 5.5 inches fat, 6.5 inches long, takes a 105mm front filter and costs $3,799.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 31, 2021)

OMG! OMG! OMG!


----------



## dwarven (Dec 31, 2021)

This will be the new Eye of Sauron, if not quite as exotic. I wonder how much it will weigh.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> An RF 135 f1.4 would need a theoretical entrance pupil of 96mm. That makes the front element nearly twice as massive as the 85mm f1.2. So you are probably looking at a lens that weighs 5 lbs, is 5.5 inches fat, 6.5 inches long, takes a 105mm front filter and costs $3,799.


Sold.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 31, 2021)

KirkD said:


> ...Why in the name of tarnation is not Canon getting off its backside and releasing an RF35 1.2 or 1.4!!!!


They may have the peculiar idea that they need to be able to project a return on their investment before committing to developing and manufacturing a lens.


----------



## slclick (Dec 31, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> OMG! OMG! OMG!


I was wondering how long it would take for you to chime in.


----------



## slclick (Dec 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> They may have the peculiar idea that they need to be able to project a return on their investment before committing to developing and manufacturing a lens.


Maybe Canon has decided the old 35 is not the new 35. We do cling to older ideas and formulas much more than other crafts.(Sunny 16 much?)
I personally am more comfortable at 40mm.

*Where's my freaking RF pancake Canon?*


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 31, 2021)

rwvaughn said:


> I really agree with this. but I'd like to see an RF 50-150 f/2-2.8. As long as Sony is Tamron's principal stockholder, I think it's going to be a while before we see Tamron making any RF glass especially as they have to keep Sony happy.


It's about profit. Period. It is not about keeping anyone happy except shareholders.


----------



## slclick (Dec 31, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It's about profit. Period. It is not about keeping anyone happy except shareholders.


But..but....but...do you mean they don't actually read our comments back at Canon? Because there's 3 or 4 people who want an RF7 or a non L 50. 

Let's storm the Tokyo HQ, I'll wear the mankini with bison horns.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 31, 2021)

slclick said:


> ...Let's storm the Tokyo HQ, I'll wear the mankini with bison horns.


I can't decide if I really want to see that or if I really, really, really DON'T want to see that. I'm leaning toward the latter.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 31, 2021)

slclick said:


> Maybe Canon has decided the old 35 is not the new 35. We do cling to older ideas and formulas much more than other crafts.(Sunny 16 much?)
> I personally am more comfortable at 40mm.
> 
> *Where's my freaking RF pancake Canon?*


The International Haus of Photographers is lobbying against it.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 31, 2021)

slclick said:


> But..but....but...do you mean they don't actually read our comments back at Canon? Because there's 3 or 4 people who want an RF7 or a non L 50.
> 
> Let's storm the Tokyo HQ, I'll wear the mankini with bison horns.


Don't forget to memorialize your shenanigans by taking lots of video and post to every social media site known to man. Also, don't worry about being tracked. Japan doesn't ping, triangulate, or store those locations. The geniuses in DC might get it right next time.


----------



## Fischer (Dec 31, 2021)

Chig said:


> I'll stick with my EF 135mm f/2.8 soft focus lens which cost me USD 240 (NZD 370) including shipping and sales tax on eBay.
> It's super light and an amazing lens for the money (and the soft focus feature is fun to play with)


Enjoy! But soft focus is something very different than DS which cannot be replicated via software.


----------



## Fischer (Dec 31, 2021)

135mm DS makes better sense than a 85mm DS imho. But @f/1.4 you will have to have a special need. To me it could be an excellent alternative to the 200mm f/2.0. Price would probably be very like.


----------



## fox40phil (Jan 1, 2022)

MartinVLC said:


> I would love a 135mm f/1.8 or f/2 for 1200-1500 $/€ but I´m afraid it will turn out to be a f/1.4 for 3500-4500 $/€ and therefore totally out of reach... and so big and heavy that I wouldn´t want it even if I could afford it.


This... completely!
I would repair my 135 2.0 again if needed... it’s awesome! Costs me only 700€ (Used)back in the days... today you can get it for 500€ (Used)

This is the wrong way for what I don’t like Canon currently... the missing of Great and not overpriced Updates...


----------



## InchMetric (Jan 1, 2022)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It's about profit. Period. It is not about keeping anyone happy except shareholders.


How is it possible to earn good profits without producing products that make customers (not necessarily vous) happy?


----------



## InchMetric (Jan 1, 2022)

Prediction: Canon will NEVER make a DS lens without offering a non-DS counterpart. They know there are enough of us, and it’s trivial simply not to have some lens elements coated.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> How is it possible to earn good profits without producing products that make customers (not necessarily vous) happy?


Simple – cut expenses.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 1, 2022)

slclick said:


> But..but....but...do you mean they don't actually read our comments back at Canon? Because there's 3 or 4 people who want an RF7 or a non L 50.
> 
> Let's storm the Tokyo HQ, I'll wear the mankini with bison horns.


Send us a picture, quick!
My wife would like to see you!
PS: bison horns can be dispensed with...
PS: should we wait for January 6th.?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 1, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I have a feeling Canon will come out with a 135mm f1.4 to try and 1 up the 135mm f1.8 GM which is not only one of the sharpest lenses on any system but also has AF performance that makes it usable for sport and wildlife too. Be interesting to see what approach Canon takes.
> 
> As a side note many of us suspect Canon’s RF 35mm L prime will be an f1.2, if this happens I wonder what the price will be as Sigma have the 35mm f1.2 Art DG DN available for E and L mount which while is largely irrelevant to RF shooters but if its significantly more expensive I wonder how RF shooters would feel about that?



if Sigma were to offer its 35mm 1.2 (the lens I miss most) in RF, it would be an opportune niche in which to start. I have no doubt Canon's coming 35mm entrant will be fantastic, but the Sigma will almost certainly be a better value, if not better generally.

Sigma's recent new products have tended to be thinner aperture value lenses, which are less interesting to me, but are actually the missing RF pieces. They appear to be concentrating on lenses that match there little camera, which doesn’t seem all that clever in a chip-constrained production environment. 

They should be doubling down on the bonkers-class wide aperture glass.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 1, 2022)

Still waiting for the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> Still waiting for the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM


Why? Size, weight and or cost, presumably. Else, the RF 85/1.2 on a body with IBIS (R3/R5//R6) is the way to go.

I have and like the EF 85/1.4L IS. If I start using it more than I do currently, I’ll replace it with the 85/1.2 with no qualms. Having said that, I think I’d prefer the 135/1.4, or possibly even an RF 135/2.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 1, 2022)

Dragon said:


> A 135mm f/1.4 sounds delightful (DS or no DS), but that will be an expensive piece of glass. For reference compare an EF 200 f/2.8 with a 200 f/2 (think 10x the price). Definitely need a 135mm f/2 for the rest of us.


The Sigma EF f/1.8 is awesome. One of the best Sigma lenses. And at 82mm filter thread, a nice companion with the RF 15 - 35mm f/2.8.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Jan 2, 2022)

A 135 f1.4 for its own, is already a beast (almost can equal to a 200 f2 and 300 2.8) so, even if it is DS or not, probably would cost arround 4-5k and back pain, for his weight (probably a little bit more of 2 kilograms)


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jan 2, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> if Sigma were to offer its 35mm 1.2 (the lens I miss most) in RF, it would be an opportune niche in which to start. I have no doubt Canon's coming 35mm entrant will be fantastic, but the Sigma will almost certainly be a better value, if not better generally.
> 
> Sigma's recent new products have tended to be thinner aperture value lenses, which are less interesting to me, but are actually the missing RF pieces. They appear to be concentrating on lenses that match there little camera, which doesn’t seem all that clever in a chip-constrained production environment.
> 
> They should be doubling down on the bonkers-class wide aperture glass.


Sigma have their Art series which is where their best efforts into IQ go.. Perfect examples of this are their
85mm f1.4 DG DN
105mm f2.8 Macro DG DN
In terms of doubling down they have both f1.2 and f1.4 35mm primes for mirrorless and I’m sure we’ll see more this year. Perhaps the 50mm f1.4 and 135mm f1.8 will get redesigns next.

Their I-series is for those who want smaller and lighter lenses but still very good IQ.


----------



## slclick (Jan 2, 2022)

Many comments about Sigma's stellar with sharpness 135 but do any owners/users experience that Siggy 'sticker look'? It's what kept me away from certain Art lenses.


----------



## rwvaughn (Jan 3, 2022)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It's about profit. Period. It is not about keeping anyone happy except shareholders.


And since Sony is the principal shareholder they do indeed have to keep Sony happy.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 3, 2022)

rwvaughn said:


> And since Sony is the principal shareholder they do indeed have to keep Sony happy.


Well, that's a new one ... I thought it was the alien lizard monsters.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jan 3, 2022)

rwvaughn said:


> And since Sony is the principal shareholder they do indeed have to keep Sony happy.


Keeping Sony happy largely involves selling more lenses. Sony would more than welcome Tamron being able to sell RF mount lenses. Very recently Nikon came out with a 28-75mm f2.8 which is very strongly suspected to be a rebadged Tamron G1 that was released on emount. If that is true more revenue for both Tamron and Sony.


----------



## Nemorino (Jan 3, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Would be interested to see if DS really even makes all that much of a difference at 24mm. I can't imagine the bokeh is *that* much better.


There are some aspects of this patent which are interesting. First, why is Canon designing such a wide DS lens? What is a use case?

Second the lens design is more simple and looks like a Zeiss Planar. You can find the diagram of the patent here:








Canon Patent Application: Apodization Lenses for EF and RF


This patent application contains a series of embodiments for both EF and RF mount systems. It sounds like this patent application deals when using an apodization filter and maintaining an even uniformity of light at different wavelengths - which translates to me as being no color cast when...



www.canonnews.com




And the planar at wikipedia:









slclick said:


> Many comments about Sigma's stellar with sharpness 135 but do any owners/users experience that Siggy 'sticker look'? It's what kept me away from certain Art lenses.


Maybe this is the reason why Canon's R&D is designing this kind of DS lenses.

And at last (as canonnews writes) the 24mm and 50mm are *EF designs*.


----------



## Ceeb (Jan 3, 2022)

Famateur said:


> Not a fan of the DS look myself, either. To me, it looks too much like the faked computational "bokeh" of cell phone cameras' portrait mode. I much prefer the standard version...


For me, sharp bokeh is unnatural. We are used to see sharp bokeh produced by the lens for decades and think that that is natural. Even we are okay with different shapes of bokeh (circle, lemon shape, pentagon shape) which are produced by lens blades, because we are used to them for years. While foreground object is in focus, background should be blurry, even the bokeh should be blurry. That is more natural. So DS means natural bokeh and we all eventually will get used to it too in years.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 3, 2022)

slclick said:


> Many comments about Sigma's stellar with sharpness 135 but do any owners/users experience that Siggy 'sticker look'? It's what kept me away from certain Art lenses.


I'm not sure what that means...are you talking about the lens itself, or the IQ of the pictures it generates?


----------



## slclick (Jan 3, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> I'm not sure what that means...are you talking about the lens itself, or the IQ of the pictures it generates?


Look it up, it will be easier to understand than my description which will be corrected here at least 4 times by more savvy techies.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 4, 2022)

slclick said:


> Look it up, it will be easier to understand than my description which will be corrected here at least 4 times by more savvy techies.


I tried and I failed to find a single link on Google about "sticker look" pertaining to Sigma lenses.


----------



## slclick (Jan 4, 2022)

Larsskv said:


> The computer generated mtf charts of the Canon RF 50 (which unfortunately is my best source of information) indicates that it is better at f1.2 than either the Sigma 50 ART or the Zeiss 50 Milvus are at f1.4 (as measured by lens rentals).
> 
> The comparison tool at the digital picture shows they are close, but the difference in resolution in the comparison tool makes it hard to tell.
> 
> ...


Right here in our own backyard. I'm not making this shit up


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jan 4, 2022)

slclick said:


> Why do I use an EF-RF adapter on my R6?
> 
> 135 f/2L This is a lens which many have attempted to better but sharpness isn't everything (looking at you Siggy) and it may well be the last EF lens I will own if I replace all the rest with RF versions. (Oh and it makes a great 2 lens combo with the RF 35)


One reason I like the EF 135mm so much is the light weight.

I used to have a Zeiss Apo Sonnar 135mm and may replace it again, but that's just manual. For for AF, I skipped the Sigma Art due to weight and got another Canon 135mm f/2 lens for my R6, EOS R and 5DS R. It's sharp enough and enables lovely photos.

My kit also includes the RF 85mm 1.2 but due to its weight, I also bought another Tamron 85mm 1.8 for an extra lighter weight option. So I keep two 85mm.


----------



## tron (Jan 4, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Ego says they have to do better than the Sigma 135 art (f/1.8) . If Canon can make that lens with very little coma, it will sell like hotcakes in the astro world.


Title says DS. A DS lens for astrophotography? I do not think so. 85mm DS loses 2 stops or so. A non DS f/2 lens would be better for astro. Portrait photography is another matter of course.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 4, 2022)

rwvaughn said:


> And since Sony is the principal shareholder they do indeed have to keep Sony happy.


Let's not confuse Sony's second place, 12% stake in Tamron, as a raging controlling interest. Think again if you believe Sony being happy means Tamron not making a profit. Pray tell, why would Sony tell Tamron: "Don't produce RF, there might be money in it." Especially because Sony is also in it for the dinero.

Sony is not "THE" principal shareholder. Sony is one of, not the only, principal shareholder.*

*Principal shareholder = Any party that owns a 10% or more share." Don't forget that the other 88% (the stake of the other shareholders and their proxy votes) can have their way with Sony... if they choose to do so. You'd have a point if Sony had a 51% controlling interest. That isn't near the same as a principal interest. Mainly because of that word "controlling".

However, this does explain why Tamron has Sony's mount info... and why Tamron does not have Canon's. Up until now, it has been "Sony is altruistic" by allowing lens mfgs. to have their mount info. The flip side of that has always been: "Canon is mean," rather than Tamron hasn't reverse engineered it yet (the truth). Dang... virtue signalling in the camera world. hahaha

Looks to me like Sony is keeping Tamron, and the other 88% of shareholders, happy.


----------



## max (Jan 4, 2022)

we just need a RF 135 f/2 with no shenanigans


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jan 4, 2022)

slclick said:


> Why do I use an EF-RF adapter on my R6?
> 
> 135 f/2L This is a lens which many have attempted to better but sharpness isn't everything (looking at you Siggy) and it may well be the last EF lens I will own if I replace all the rest with RF versions. (Oh and it makes a great 2 lens combo with the RF 35)






 - a rare comparison between the 135 L and 135 GM

Be nice to see mirrorless versions of 100/105mm f1.4 glass on all big three platforms. The Sigma Art while being stellar optically needs a redesign.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2022)

tron said:


> Title says DS. A DS lens for astrophotography? I do not think so. 85mm DS loses 2 stops or so. A non DS f/2 lens would be better for astro. Portrait photography is another matter of course.


Hence one with DS and one without just like the 85.


----------



## danfaz (Jan 5, 2022)

tron said:


> 85mm DS loses 2 stops or so.


Well...a stop and a third, not 2.


----------



## beckstoy (Jan 5, 2022)

Holy Bokeh, Batman!
I'm gonna start saving now.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 5, 2022)

slclick said:


> Right here in our own backyard. I'm not making this shit up



This is a mine field debating, and many people deny it or are unable to see it. But after 5 or 6 years being aware of this issue, I still think there are significant differences between the look of lenses, and I still cant stand the Sigma 50ART. I believe the “sticker look” vs depth/“3D-rendering” is caused by differences between how in and out of focus areas are rendered - the transition zone. 

I don’t agree with everything in this article, but it is a good attempt to describe that the sticker look is a real phenomenon. Well worth a read:



https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 5, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> I tried and I failed to find a single link on Google about "sticker look" pertaining to Sigma lenses.



see my comment above, and also this article:



https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/


----------



## tron (Jan 6, 2022)

danfaz said:


> Well...a stop and a third, not 2.


Or up to 1.5 to be even more precise?






Canon Training Articles - Tips & Tricks | Canon U.S.A., Inc.


Looking for training articles on Canon Products? Join us here for articles ranging from beginning to advanced on all the best tips & tricks.




www.usa.canon.com






Reduced light transmittance:
The Defocus Smoothing coatings in the 85mm F1.2 L DS lens will reduce actual light transmission by up to 1.5 stops, when the lens is at its widest aperture.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Jan 6, 2022)

Larsskv said:


> see my comment above, and also this article:
> 
> 
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/


I wish the article used the same subject and conditions while comparing different lenses to illustrate the point.

"Notice how the this way bigger nose, and this other way bigger nose in profile shot from a different distance both in outdoor directional and higher contrast natural light are 3D compared to these two indoor lit noses show straight on with one clearly smaller and a different shape than the others?"

I suppose? Maybe? But I don't know that it's because of the lenses and a sticker effect. 

(I haven't actually read the full article, and studied the diagrams, but the examples seem clearly flawed.)


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 6, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> What would you use a lens like this for? I can't think of many times I've been out with my 70-200 and thought "let me zoom this in halfway..."


So, you are saying you'd be better off with a 70,200 and not a 70-200?


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 6, 2022)

PhotoGenerous said:


> I wish the article used the same subject and conditions while comparing different lenses to illustrate the point.
> 
> "Notice how the this way bigger nose, and this other way bigger nose in profile shot from a different distance both in outdoor directional and higher contrast natural light are 3D compared to these two indoor lit noses show straight on with one clearly smaller and a different shape than the others?"
> 
> ...



I agree - a side by side comparison would be much more helpful.

From my own experience though, I prefer images from my 35L, ower the 35LII, because of the 3D-effect I see in the 35L Images. The 35LII isn’t bad, as the Sigma 50ART is, but its not great.

And with regards to old vs modern lenses. I do believe that correcting aberrations may cause a loss of depth rendering, but the recent Canon RF lenses proves that depth rendering /3D effect can remain alongside with correction of aberrations. I haven’t found that any of my RF lenses is bad in that regard.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 6, 2022)

Larsskv said:


> see my comment above, and also this article:
> 
> 
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/


When you say "sticker" do you mean 2D vs. 3D, because that word is not mentioned there either? 

As for that article, there are numerous problems with both evaluation methodology and conclusions highlighted in the comments. It's fine if you prefer the way a certain lens renders a certain combination of foreground subjects, background blur, and transition; but suggesting there is any sort of objective way to determine a "winner" in this regard is bogus. The RF 50mm f/1.2 is the best lens I have ever shot on any AF body/system, dating back to my consumer Nikon days in the late 90's, and many people agree with that assessment. I'm not saying my opinion is superior to yours/this article author's, but the fact that it's a reasonable/shared conclusion at all makes the very premise of the article invalid, since is attempting to make authoritative conclusions rather than subjective ones.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 6, 2022)

Lens rendering is a very hotly debated topic. Like any art, its subjective in its interpretation and value. For the life of me, I cannot see the Zeiss '3d micro contrast' all their aficionados go on about. Even when two images are put next to each other and the poster describes it in detail to me. And I could see the sail boat in those weird pictures from the 90s, so its not my eyes! I'm not saying images from the Zeiss are bad, I'm just saying I don't see this phenomenon as others claim to. 

Similar with the 50mm Art. I recently got one second hand, and I absolutely love it. Haven't seen any sticker effect. 

I guess my point is, if you think you are interested in a lens, but the internet is making you second guess becuase of talk like this - rent it and try for yourself. The rental fees are not bad for a week or weekend, and you could save yourself hundreds by not buying something you wouldn't have liked. If you do like it, the rental fee will seem small in comparison to your enjoyment of the lens. 

Brian


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jan 6, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> Lens rendering is a very hotly debated topic. Like any art, its subjective in its interpretation and value. For the life of me, I cannot see the Zeiss '3d micro contrast' all their aficionados go on about. Even when two images are put next to each other and the poster describes it in detail to me. And I could see the sail boat in those weird pictures from the 90s, so its not my eyes! I'm not saying images from the Zeiss are bad, I'm just saying I don't see this phenomenon as others claim to.
> 
> Similar with the 50mm Art. I recently got one second hand, and I absolutely love it. Haven't seen any sticker effect.
> 
> ...


Very well said, I’m another who is yet to see the Zeiss rendering and why some like it so much, not saying it doesn’t exist but I’m yet to see it personally.

In terms of Canon the RF 85mm f1.2 renders a great image at the same time as being very sharp. Nikon, Sony and Sigma also have recent mirrorless lenses which also have these characteristics.


----------



## HenryL (Jan 7, 2022)

Larsskv said:


> see my comment above, and also this article:
> 
> 
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/


So let me see if I've got it right...what the author illustrates is that flat lighting produces boring and uninspiring pictures, and photos with good lighting "pop". Amazing. Mind. Blown.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 7, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> When you say "sticker" do you mean 2D vs. 3D, because that word is not mentioned there either?
> 
> As for that article, there are numerous problems with both evaluation methodology and conclusions highlighted in the comments. It's fine if you prefer the way a certain lens renders a certain combination of foreground subjects, background blur, and transition; but suggesting there is any sort of objective way to determine a "winner" in this regard is bogus. The RF 50mm f/1.2 is the best lens I have ever shot on any AF body/system, dating back to my consumer Nikon days in the late 90's, and many people agree with that assessment. I'm not saying my opinion is superior to yours/this article author's, but the fact that it's a reasonable/shared conclusion at all makes the very premise of the article invalid, since is attempting to make authoritative conclusions rather than subjective ones.



yep! all discussions on this topic is difficult because differences is hard to measure, and it seems to be a subjective element to it. No doubt about that.

yes, the RF50L is really good in terms of “3D rendering” but in that regard, I dont think it beats the EF50L.

There are many problems with the article, but if you pay attention to the phenomenon, you might start to see differences in rendering between lenses. Some will think or describe differences in terms of bokeh. I say some if this shows itself as differnces in 3D rendering, which is an illusion, since every picture is flat.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 7, 2022)

Larsskv said:


> yep! all discussions on this topic is difficult because differences is hard to measure, and it seems to be a subjective element to it. No doubt about that.
> 
> yes, the RF50L is really good in terms of “3D rendering” but in that regard, I dont think it beats the EF50L.
> 
> There are many problems with the article, but if you pay attention to the phenomenon, you might start to see differences in rendering between lenses. Some will think or describe differences in terms of bokeh. I say some if this shows itself as differnces in 3D rendering, which is an illusion, since every picture is flat.



I believe I understand what you mean by this so let me give it a try.

It's the effect you have where a face (say) is in focus...and everything else is very out of focus. It looks like someone put a sticker with a face on it, on top of a bunch of bokeh.

I suspect the effect is lessened if you have some stuff that is only *slightly* out of focus in the frame. Of course if you get very close to your subject (such that you can't see the sides of his head at all), you're going to get the sticker effect.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 8, 2022)

I'd appreciate any and all contributions to my lens "Go Fund Me" page.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 8, 2022)

PhotoGenerous said:


> I wish the article used the same subject and conditions while comparing different lenses to illustrate the point.
> 
> "Notice how the this way bigger nose, and this other way bigger nose in profile shot from a different distance both in outdoor directional and higher contrast natural light are 3D compared to these two indoor lit noses show straight on with one clearly smaller and a different shape than the others?"
> 
> ...


Any lens ‘comparison‘ that doesn’t use the same camera and subjects at the same time in the same lighting is worthless. And to use a phrase like “some people simply don’t see it” is sloppy and points to not actually being able to illustrate it.

In his first image he is much closer to the subject then the second and third image so has a completely different perspective. In the second and third images he is comparing an interior diffuse low contrast lighting of an Asian face type to an exterior high contrast white European face type and saying the Asian appears to have “a flat nose”!

I can’t believe PetaPixel actually posted this article!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Any lens ‘comparison‘ that doesn’t use the same camera and subjects at the same time in the same lighting is worthless. And to use a phrase like “some people simply don’t see it” is sloppy and points to not actually being able to illustrate it.
> 
> In his first image he is much closer to the subject then the second and third image so has a completely different perspective. In the second and third images he is comparing an interior diffuse low contrast lighting of an Asian face type to an exterior high contrast white European face type and saying the Asian appears to have “a flat nose”!
> 
> I can’t believe PetaPixel actually posted this article!


Here, PetaPixel predicts that Canon will abandon the M-series in 2022 and will not make any new DSLRs. https://petapixel.com/2021/12/22/petapixels-bold-camera-predictions-for-2022/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Here, PetaPixel describes their plans to look foolish a year from now, with egg all over their face. https://petapixel.com/2021/12/22/petapixels-bold-camera-predictions-for-2022/


Fixed that for you.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fixed that for you.


That's taking Creative Commons to its limits.


----------



## home_slice (Jan 10, 2022)

Why aren’t we hearing anything about a fast L 35mm?! That is such a staple lens and at this point, the only EF left in my kit. sure I would probably pick up a fast 24mm if it happened but 35mm is my go-to lens. Do other people not consider it a priority? I would think that would have been one of the first primes to come out?!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2022)

home_slice said:


> Why aren’t we hearing anything about a fast L 35mm?! That is such a staple lens and at this point, the only EF left in my kit. sure I would probably pick up a fast 24mm if it happened but 35mm is my go-to lens. Do other people not consider it a priority? I would think that would have been one of the first primes to come out?!


Probably because 1) the 35L II is reply recent compared to other fast primes, and 2) Canon would like you to buy the 28-70mm f/2.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 10, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> Lens rendering is a very hotly debated topic. Like any art, its subjective in its interpretation and value. For the life of me, I cannot see the Zeiss '3d micro contrast' all their aficionados go on about. Even when two images are put next to each other and the poster describes it in detail to me. And I could see the sail boat in those weird pictures from the 90s, so its not my eyes! I'm not saying images from the Zeiss are bad, I'm just saying I don't see this phenomenon as others claim to.
> 
> Similar with the 50mm Art. I recently got one second hand, and I absolutely love it. Haven't seen any sticker effect.
> 
> ...


I presently own 5 Zeiss lenses. 
All of them are excellent.
They all are renowned for their wonderful and unique 3D effect.
But I've never seen it..
Neither have I found that fleur de sel tastes of violets.
Maybe I'm just dumb...


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 10, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Very well said, I’m another who is yet to see the Zeiss rendering and why some like it so much, not saying it doesn’t exist but I’m yet to see it personally.
> 
> In terms of Canon the RF 85mm f1.2 renders a great image at the same time as being very sharp. Nikon, Sony and Sigma also have recent mirrorless lenses which also have these characteristics.


This 3D effect certainly exists in advertising and in Zeiss fan-forums. I guess that somebody once used this expression (3D or microcontrast), and, since then, every reviewer feelt obliged to mention this Zeiss specific "property".
Do not misunderstand me, most Zeiss lenses are extremely sharp and contrasty, but "microcontrasty"???
PS: even on the EOS R, the RF 85 f1,2 is a mind-blowing cutie.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jan 10, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> This 3D effect certainly exists in advertising and in Zeiss fan-forums. I guess that somebody once used this expression (3D or microcontrast), and, since then, every reviewer feelt obliged to mention this Zeiss specific "property".
> Do not misunderstand me, most Zeiss lenses are extremely sharp and contrasty, but "microcontrasty"???
> PS: even on the EOS R, the RF 85 f1,2 is a mind-blowing cutie.


Maybe the Milvus and Otus lenses special in their day but a select few recent mirrorless lenses across the big 3 are easily some of the very finest ever made.

RF
50mm f1.2 L
85mm f1.2 L

Z
50mm f1.2 S
58mm 0.95 Noct


E
50mm f1.2 GM
135mm f1.8 GM


Sigma
85mm f1.4 DG DN
105mm f2.8 Macro DG DN
35mm f1.2 DG DN

Voigtländer 
50mm f2 APO-Lanthar 

All of the above I reckon would most likely surpass their Zeiss counterparts.


----------



## beckstoy (Jan 11, 2022)

SHuttup and take my money!


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 11, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Maybe the Milvus and Otus lenses special in their day but a select few recent mirrorless lenses across the big 3 are easily some of the very finest ever made.
> 
> RF
> 50mm f1.2 L
> ...


Fully agree!
Provided you add most recent Leica SL and M lenses...


----------



## beckstoy (Jan 16, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't know where this fascination with supremely big and heavy and very expensive prime lenses will end but...
> 
> The RF 50 f1.2 weighs over 2 lbs, is 3.5 inches fat and 4.5 inches long, and costs $2,300. It has a 77mm front filter element.
> 
> ...


If you don't understand the fascination with these large lenses, you probably aren't a portrait photographer (or at least, a different kind of portrait photographer). I love them, and spend a bit more time in the gym to prepare for my shoots. You can't replicate the files you get through these lenses with any "lighter" lenses. Some fake it with PP'ing, but others, like me, understand.
I'll be putting that $3799 down, that's for sure. I have a year or so to get in better shape to add this lens to my (already very heavy) bag.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 17, 2022)

beckstoy said:


> If you don't understand the fascination with these large lenses, you probably aren't a portrait photographer (or at least, a different kind of portrait photographer). I love them, and spend a bit more time in the gym to prepare for my shoots. You can't replicate the files you get through these lenses with any "lighter" lenses. Some fake it with PP'ing, but others, like me, understand.
> I'll be putting that $3799 down, that's for sure. I have a year or so to get in better shape to add this lens to my (already very heavy) bag.


I’ve shot many portraits with the 300mm f2.8 so I am not afraid of big and heavy. But anybody that thinks an f1.4 is going to make their images more compelling than an f1.8 or f2 is laughably naive.

Give me an Elena Shumilova with a 5D III and an EF 135 f2 over anybody that thinks their RF 135 f1.4 is going to do anything for them any day!


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 17, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Give me an Elena Shumilova with a 5D III and an EF 135 f2 over anybody that thinks their RF 135 f1.4 is going to do anything for them any day!


I’d suggest her PP techniques too. I’ve seen some of her shots taken on an EF 70-200 F/4 L ……


----------

