# Is an RF 135mm f/1.4L USM in development? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 6, 2019)

> A couple of days ago we posted about an RF 14-21mm f/1.4L and another “crazy” prime lens would be coming as well. A couple of unknown folks have let us know that an RF 135mm f/1.4L USM is in “some kind of development”, possibly alongside an RF 135mm f/1.8L USM.
> One of the sources claims that an RF 135mm lens was shown in a roadmap presentation, but no speed or other specifications were shown, though “f/1.4 or f/1.8” was verbally mentioned. However, it was listed as coming in “late 2020+”.
> As with anything [CR1], please take this info with a grain of salt.



Continue reading...


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 6, 2019)

Hope it's true, would be sensational !


----------



## sdz (Mar 6, 2019)

We appear to be entering the era of the super fast, super sharp lenses.


----------



## rsdofny (Mar 6, 2019)

Wide opened, you can have one corner of the eye in focus and the other of the same eye out of focus.


----------



## dolina (Mar 6, 2019)

Looking forward to this.


----------



## fentiger (Mar 6, 2019)

will it be white?


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 6, 2019)

fentiger said:


> will it be white?



The current 135mm f/2L is black, and AFAIK, only L lenses >=200mm are white.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 6, 2019)

Even more barmy than the 105mm f1.4...and yet still no 50mm f1.0....that's a proper stunt lens...
Honestly the current 135mm f2 could easily be pushed to f1.8 with a 77mm front thread. Then add a great IS unit and be done with it. Super light...super sharp and super capable. Make it's MFD to around 1m and it'll be amazing. A viable prime alternative to a 70-200 f2.8 LIS. 
It seems Canon are only concerned in making colossal over sized lenses for the tiny cameras on the Rf mount.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 6, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> The current 135mm f/2L is black, and AFAIK, only L lenses >=200mm are white.


The ef 200mm f2.8 L is black....the 28-300LIS is white. So it's pretty random and more to do with physical size.


----------



## degos (Mar 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Honestly the current 135mm f2 could easily be pushed to f1.8 with a 77mm front thread. Then add a great IS unit and be done with it.



The 135 f2 is showing its age, compared to the Sigma f1.8 and the Samyang f2 it's pretty lousy with softness and CA all over the place. It needed to be upgraded to a II about a decade ago.

Back in 1996 it was stunning. Even by 2009 it was still a good lens. Today it's just another old lens bypassed in Canon's obsession with new-shiny-sexy.

I wonder who works on Canon's assembly lines for lenses like that. It must be tough on their morale.


----------



## RunAndGun (Mar 6, 2019)

degos said:


> The 135 f2 is showing its age, compared to the Sigma f1.8 and the Samyang f2 it's pretty lousy with softness and CA all over the place. It needed to be upgraded to a II about a decade ago.
> 
> Back in 1996 it was stunning. Even by 2009 it was still a good lens. Today it's just another old lens bypassed in Canon's obsession with new-shiny-sexy.
> 
> I wonder who works on Canon's assembly lines for lenses like that. It must be tough on their morale.



I have the CN-E version of this lens and I love. It and the 85 are my primary interview lenses. I’ve even put it on one of my 5D’s and shot stills with it and it performed well.

All that being said, a ‘super speed’ version of the 135 would be incredible. But as someone who has demo’d the sigma 105 T1.5, a 135 that speed will not be light(weight), even in a stills configuration. But the weight of most still lenses don’t bother me.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The ef 200mm f2.8 L is black....the 28-300LIS is white. So it's pretty random and more to do with physical size.



The 28-300mm is >200mm on the long end.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Mar 6, 2019)

Very exciting to see these lenses from Canon. Not putting Canon down, but if I were to get a mirrorless camera right now, I would consider Nikon simply because of their compact and somewhat affordable lenses, the 24-70 and 14-30 and IBIS. Surely Canon will have similar eventually. Moot point as I will continue to use my current Canon DSLR body and lenses. But I do enjoy following the developments.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2019)

If I owned a home... a new mortgage would be coming soon. So much is coming so quickly.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 6, 2019)

Surprised we are not hearing about not so fast but small and cheap and cheerful lens for the RP.
Not as glamorous but important for the RP


----------



## Etienne (Mar 6, 2019)

Canon, please make some smaller, lighter primes. 135 f/2L IS would be great


----------



## Treyarnon (Mar 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It seems Canon are only concerned in making colossal over sized lenses for the tiny cameras on the Rf mount.


The 70-200 F2.8 is not colossal - Its Tiny! (well, for a 70-200 2.8)


----------



## addola (Mar 6, 2019)

These rumored lenses sound sweet. If they're not stabilized, they'd be tough to work with with cameras without IBIS.

I see a future where I adapt Canon RF lenses on Nikon Z-mount bodies.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Even more barmy than the 105mm f1.4...and yet still no 50mm f1.0....that's a proper stunt lens...
> Honestly the current 135mm f2 could easily be pushed to f1.8 with a 77mm front thread. Then add a great IS unit and be done with it. Super light...super sharp and super capable. Make it's MFD to around 1m and it'll be amazing. A viable prime alternative to a 70-200 f2.8 LIS.
> It seems Canon are only concerned in making colossal over sized lenses for the tiny cameras on the Rf mount.


All of the RF lenses are new designs and the market they are concerned the most about is the Pros / advanced amateurs that have the holy trinity of the 16 - 35mm f2.8L, 24-70MM f2.8L & the 70-200mm f2.8L followed by the 100-400mm f4 - 5.6L The holy trinity in RF mount have been announced as coming they need to do this to combat Sony and the G Master lenses. This is the market with the fattest margins not the entry level lenses the RP will need. Add in the present RF 50mm f1.2L and the upcoming RF 85mm f1.2L lenses that are so favoured by wedding photographers & fashion / portrait photographers and it is clear the Pros are the photographers a. you need to keep and b. were being swayed by Sony. 

Canon have all their sales statistics, and they are aware of market trends not just what they are doing but also competitors including smart phones. Given how many years it took for Sony to get into a leading position, Canon are now reacting super fast. Developing lenses is time consuming and expensive.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 6, 2019)

I forgot to add, the Sony G Master lenses are not small, the laws of physics only saves you so much when producing fast lenses.


----------



## padam (Mar 6, 2019)

Looking at their most recent tele developments, if they use a similar lightweight design with fluorite glass, magnesium alloy casing with fly-by-wire focusing, they can make some reduction with the weight, but the price will be astronomically high, so maybe they will skip most of those.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 6, 2019)

rsdofny said:


> Wide opened, you can have one corner of the eye in focus and the other of the same eye out of focus.


Or you could shoot a subject some distance from the camera (full length and then some) and get great separation like never before at a longer distance. And if you wanted a tight headshot you still have the freedom to close down a couple stops. I would love such a lens.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Mar 6, 2019)

135 1.4 would be vreally crazy (also extremely expensive) If anyday canon creates an x1.4 or x2 extensor for RF mount, this will become almost 200 f2 (189 f2, exactly), Thats a lens almost valued on 6k$. I think it will be 1.8 IS or so.


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2019)

degos said:


> The 135 f2 is showing its age, compared to the Sigma f1.8 and the Samyang f2 it's pretty lousy with softness and CA all over the place. It needed to be upgraded to a II about a decade ago.
> 
> Back in 1996 it was stunning. Even by 2009 it was still a good lens.  Today it's just another old lens bypassed in Canon's obsession with new-shiny-sexy.
> 
> I wonder who works on Canon's assembly lines for lenses like that. It must be tough on their morale.


Speak for yourself. It's a great tool and one with a unique look when used correctly. Age has nothing to do with it. It's a great design, timeless.


----------



## Dantana (Mar 6, 2019)

addola said:


> These rumored lenses sound sweet. If they're not stabilized, they'd be tough to work with with cameras without IBIS.
> 
> I see a future where I adapt Canon RF lenses on Nikon Z-mount bodies.



I don't think that's possible with a Z flange at 16mm and an RF flange at 20mm. At least not without adding glass.


----------



## lexptr (Mar 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Even more barmy than the 105mm f1.4...and yet still no 50mm f1.0....that's a proper stunt lens...
> Honestly the current 135mm f2 could easily be pushed to f1.8 with a 77mm front thread. Then add a great IS unit and be done with it. Super light...super sharp and super capable. Make it's MFD to around 1m and it'll be amazing. A viable prime alternative to a 70-200 f2.8 LIS.
> It seems Canon are only concerned in making colossal over sized lenses for the tiny cameras on the Rf mount.


Not exactly. The "holly trinity" is awesome. The RF 70-200 f2.8 is incredibly small. So I would say, they push in both directions: extreme super-species and normal workhorses. Where they are not focused is the third one: smaller and cheaper non-L lenses. Any ways, I agree with you, a good 135 f1.8 IS would be more appealing


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 6, 2019)

slclick said:


> Speak for yourself. It's a great tool and one with a unique look when used correctly. Age has nothing to do with it. It's a great design, timeless.


I agree! It’s not that I don’t appreciate sharp lenses, but I have a hard time understanding those who crave so much for more sharpness than you can have with the EF 135L, also at f2. When you reach a certain level of sharpness, “sharp enough“ (which the 135L is) getting sharper becomes meaningless, or at least a low priority, in my opinion. I’d rather have a smaller and lighter lens, rather than a sharper one than the 135L.


----------



## lexptr (Mar 6, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I agree! It’s not that I don’t appreciate sharp lenses, but I have a hard time understanding those who crave so much for more sharpness than you can have with the EF 135L, also at f2. When you reach a certain level of sharpness, “sharp enough“ (which the 135L is) getting sharper becomes meaningless, or at least a low priority, in my opinion. I’d rather have a smaller and lighter lens, rather than a sharper one than the 135L.


But what if new one will be sharper AND maintain all the good qualities of the old 135 f2 or even improve them? Also there are some super-mega-pixel bodies these days and people who want to use them and make large prints.


----------



## fox40phil (Mar 6, 2019)

sdz said:


> We appear to be entering the era of the super fast, super sharp lenses.


+ hyper expensive^^


----------



## sdz (Mar 6, 2019)

fox40phil said:


> + hyper expensive^^



That too!


----------



## tron (Mar 6, 2019)

rsdofny said:


> Wide opened, you can have one corner of the eye in focus and the other of the same eye out of focus.


+1 Ha ha very true.


----------



## fox40phil (Mar 6, 2019)

If they can build a super fast ultra wide angle..and a 135 1.4...maybe Canon could also build some more 1,2f?! 24mm or 35mm? or even 100mm^^.


----------



## CafferyPhoto (Mar 6, 2019)

IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS please IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS please IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS please


----------



## Ale_F (Mar 6, 2019)

Ok. I agree for the need of some cheap RF lenses over the fast big zoom and prime.
50 1.8
about 40 pancake 2.8
28 2.8


----------



## Yasko (Mar 6, 2019)

addola said:


> These rumored lenses sound sweet. If they're not stabilized, they'd be tough to work with with cameras without IBIS.
> 
> I see a future where I adapt Canon RF lenses on Nikon Z-mount bodies.


 I rather see a future to adapt my EF glass to an RF body . May be the next RP or R iteration (with a sensor different than my 6D mk ii one...), or may be I will just save anton of money and keep the DSLR as a main body for a few years to come. I mean, I am a nerd, not making a living from it...


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 6, 2019)

So Canon has decided it's great to have a smaller mirrorless camera and then just release insanely expensive and massive lenses. Yeah megabuck primes will have sales skyrocketing.


----------



## Perio (Mar 7, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> 135 1.4 would be vreally crazy (also extremely expensive) If anyday canon creates an x1.4 or x2 extensor for RF mount, this will become almost 200 f2 (189 f2, exactly), Thats a lens almost valued on 6k$. I think it will be 1.8 IS or so.



Mitakon 135mm f1.4 lens is about the same size as Canon 200mm f2. I used to own 200 f2, loved it optically but the FL is a bit too much. The same highest IQ but 135mm FL would be amazing. Some weight save would be great too


----------



## Tom W (Mar 7, 2019)

slclick said:


> Speak for yourself. It's a great tool and one with a unique look when used correctly. Age has nothing to do with it. It's a great design, timeless.



Indeed, one of Canon's greatest lens is the old 400 f/5.6L. It has but 7 lens elements, but is tack sharp and it definitely not a new design.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 7, 2019)

lexptr said:


> But what if new one will be sharper AND maintain all the good qualities of the old 135 f2 or even improve them? Also there are some super-mega-pixel bodies these days and people who want to use them and make large prints.


If so, GAS would hit me hard, and I would buy (yet another) lens I don’t need.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 7, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Indeed, one of Canon's greatest lens is the old 400 f/5.6L. It has but 7 lens elements, but is tack sharp and it definitely not a new design.


Good to read that I am not alone: I am always impressed about the detailed and contrasty images of this lens where everything seems "right" (natural?). If the atmosphere is fine.
Some of my first images were made from a brownish crop field after a very cold night in the strong morning sun (end of february / beginning of march) and it was VERY unsharp, maybe 640x480 pixels downsizing would have made it acceptable - I learned that the weather conditions contribute more to sharpness compared to the "old" lens itself.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 7, 2019)

I think an xF 1.4 135 would cost in the region of 5 kEUR / k$ because of its large front element. A 2.0 135 IS version with 1:3 max reproduction ratio would be my favorite as a very flexible medium telephoto lens! And weight only 30% while being much more compact.

At the moment I would be fine to use my aged EF 2.0 100 on a good full frame body meaning good IQ, flexible video modes, 3 fps were sufficient and reasonable price. (No current EOS R camera fulfills all these specs.)


----------



## dolina (Mar 7, 2019)

RF 135mm f/1.4L IS USM would cost more than $2,700 but below $9,000.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Mar 7, 2019)

A bit off topic but I’ve been wondering would it be possible for canon to make RF mount DSLRs? 

I like the idea of a lineup where mirrored and mirrorless bodies exist but all using the same lenses natively.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 7, 2019)

Perio said:


> Mitakon 135mm f1.4 lens is about the same size as Canon 200mm f2. I used to own 200 f2, loved it optically but the FL is a bit too much. The same highest IQ but 135mm FL would be amazing. Some weight save would be great too


So...bit of a monster then...


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 7, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> A bit off topic but I’ve been wondering would it be possible for canon to make RF mount DSLRs?
> 
> I like the idea of a lineup where mirrored and mirrorless bodies exist but all using the same lenses natively.



It would great to use RF lenses on SLR but the mirror needs to move outside the optical path for the exposure and for
a single sheet mirror this is impossible: The RF lenses leave not enough room between sensor and last lens
element (except for future tele primes maybe).

But I like the idea too and maybe a split mirror might help: Use two semi transparent mirrors where DPAF
on the sensor can do its job. The upper half of the mirror swings upwards and the lower half swings downwards.
The mirror is split from left to right.
While you have two mirrors which must be adjustet you do not have to adjust a special PD AF sensor array because
the sensor plane is the (DPAF) plane.

Add an optional EVF and you have a DSLR + mirrorless combo-camera which works in bright daylight, allows
checking the scene while turned off but also gives you an EVF for night vision, video, exposure pre-check through
a viewfinder on brighter days.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 7, 2019)

degos said:


> The 135 f2 is showing its age, compared to the Sigma f1.8 and the Samyang f2 it's pretty lousy with softness and CA all over the place. It needed to be upgraded to a II about a decade ago.
> 
> Back in 1996 it was stunning. Even by 2009 it was still a good lens. Today it's just another old lens bypassed in Canon's obsession with new-shiny-sexy.
> 
> I wonder who works on Canon's assembly lines for lenses like that. It must be tough on their morale.


Sorry, but you got it all wrong!
Not only is the EF 135 still an excellent lens (do you own it, or was it all theory?), but I'm still waiting for a "modern" macro lens to beat the sharpness of my 1972 2,8/60mm Macro Elmarit or 1987 Apo Macro-Elmarit 2,8/100.
Many great photographs are still taken with old lenses, or with "obsolete" DSLR's.
For the weight of the Sigma, excellent lens, of course, you could almost carry the 135 Canon + EF 1,4/85. Sure you'd notice a difference in quality????
PS: Ever had a look at the build quality of a Samyang?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 7, 2019)

lexptr said:


> Not exactly. The "holly trinity" is awesome. The RF 70-200 f2.8 is incredibly small. So I would say, they push in both directions: extreme super-species and normal workhorses. Where they are not focused is the third one: smaller and cheaper non-L lenses. Any ways, I agree with you, a good 135 f1.8 IS would be more appealing


It's not "incredibly" small...it's actually longer than the current model when racked out to 200mm. It's only short at it's 70mm length. It's likely to be a little heavier too. Sure it looks smaller when it's put away in a lens bag, but in use it's a bit bigger.


----------



## dolina (Mar 7, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> A bit off topic but I’ve been wondering would it be possible for canon to make RF mount DSLRs?
> 
> I like the idea of a lineup where mirrored and mirrorless bodies exist but all using the same lenses natively.


Not physically possible. Also DSLR development has ceased while production will continue until the year 2023 or 2028.


----------



## suburbia (Mar 7, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> All good but give me ONE small lens for travelling light! 50/1..8, 50/1.4, 35/2, double-Gaussian is fine, I don't need ultimate sharpness, I don't need a pancake, I don't need IS, just make it half the length of the 35/1.8ISMac and we're good.



Was it ever done for the EF range? but would be nice to see a new mid-range for the RF mount, a step up of quality from the first round of non L RF lenses but not the weigh and cost of a brick of gold as the L releases so far.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 7, 2019)

dolina said:


> Not physically possible. Also DSLR development has ceased while production will continue until the year 2023 or 2028.


Speculations, speculations, unless you are a member of Canon's R & D team...


----------



## Kit. (Mar 7, 2019)

dolina said:


> Also DSLR development has ceased


Are you saying that there will be no new Canon pro sports body in time for 2020 Olympics?


----------



## degos (Mar 7, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Not only is the EF 135 still an excellent lens (do you own it, or was it all theory?), but I'm still waiting for a "modern" macro lens to beat the sharpness of my 1972 2,8/60mm Macro Elmarit or 1987 Apo Macro-Elmarit 2,8/100.



Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. Nice focal length and fast AF. But big dopey aperture leaves gave angular bokeh. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.

Sharp? It was in the film era, but is outclassed now:








Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





And close it down to 2.8 and guess what is just as good? The 70-200 II again. 

Yes, there are some old sharp lenses; Canon 200 1.8 and 300 2.8 and the Mamiya 300 5.6 being examples. But the mid-tier mid-90s lenses like the 135 were designed down to a budget. It's a disgrace that they're still in the catalogue.

So who's next up to defend the 200 2.8 II? Canon will still take a grand of your cash for that dinosaur.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 7, 2019)

degos said:


> Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.



Whaaaaaat?? That’s crazy talk...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 7, 2019)

dolina said:


> Not physically possible. Also DSLR development has ceased while production will continue until the year 2023 or 2028.


Er...no it hasn't. Please get your facts right. Canon is still developing a 5D5 and a 1DxIII. Lens wise, there's a new 800mm f5.6 coming and a long rumored 200mm f2 replacement. Sure I can't see any more consumer grade lenses coming along for EF...but once all the Rf lenses are in production I'm pretty sure the EF line will go back to it's regular refresh. Certainly with the big whites.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 7, 2019)

degos said:


> Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. Nice focal length and fast AF. But big dopey aperture leaves gave angular bokeh. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.
> 
> Sharp? It was in the film era, but is outclassed now:
> 
> ...


Actually, I find the wide open bokeh and out of focus rendering of the 135L far superior to the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II/III. Stopped down to f2.8 and the bokeh and rendering gets harsher. But I'm a long time user and fan of the 135L and 70-200 f2.8 LIS II. Sharpness wise...the 135L is easily as sharp as the 70-200. Maybe even sharper. 
I just wish the 135L had an image stabiliser and slightly closer min focus distance. It's an astonishingly versatile lens, may be more so than the 70-200 II LIS


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 7, 2019)

addola said:


> These rumored lenses sound sweet. If they're not stabilized, they'd be tough to work with with cameras without IBIS.
> 
> I see a future where I adapt Canon RF lenses on Nikon Z-mount bodies.


By the time this lens arrives, I suspect Canon’s flagship R type body will be available with IBIS.


----------



## dolina (Mar 7, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Are you saying that there will be no new Canon pro sports body in time for 2020 Olympics?


We will know within 16 months as the lens release and development announcement indicates a shift on priorities,


----------



## Kit. (Mar 7, 2019)

dolina said:


> We will know within 16 months as the lens release and development announcement indicates a shift on priorities,


Are you saying that brand recognition is not a priority for Canon anymore?


----------



## Trey T (Mar 7, 2019)

sdz said:


> We appear to be entering the era of the super fast, super sharp lenses.


I would love to see a RF 400mm f/2.0 @ the same size/weight as current model.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 7, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> By the time this lens arrives, I suspect Canon’s flagship R type body will be available with IBIS.


Is IBIS effective for the focal length of 135mm (not the "135mm equivalent" for a tiny sensor, but the real 135mm)?


----------



## dolina (Mar 7, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Are you saying that brand recognition is not a priority for Canon anymore?


Are you saying a mirrorless camera will not be associated with Canon?


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 7, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Is IBIS effective for the focal length of 135mm (not the "135mm equivalent" for a tiny sensor, but the real 135mm)?


This, from Sony IBIS, indicates that it is effective for long focal lengths. Of course there will be some implementation differences.






How effective is Sony IBIS with long lenses? - Dyxum - Page 1


On another thread various comments have been made implying that Sony in-body stabilisation is known...




www.dyxum.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 7, 2019)

Way to go Canon.
Keep up these developments and continue to lead the way.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 7, 2019)

dolina said:


> Are you saying a mirrorless camera will not be associated with Canon?


If it's a non-Canon mirrorless camera.

If it's a Canon DSLR, it will be assoicated with Canon.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 7, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Sure, the 50mm f/1.8 "Mk I" and the 35mm f/2.0 "non-IS" are what I'm talking about. Basically, the lens might as well be as deep as the R's grip; any shallower doesn't make the system as a whole shallower. The 35mm/1.8ISMac is twice the size I'd like in an every-day lens, in part from IS and in part from macro capability I think. Though of course AF and the control ring also make it bigger. (I'm using a Leica 35/1.4 ASPH as my "always in the backpack" lens until Canon comes up with something cheaper and native.)
> 
> (I tried my 50mm f/1.8 "Mk I" on an adapter but the combined size is the size of the RF 35mm, which is twice as big as I want.)
> 
> (I also tried the 45mm and 28mm pancakes on an adapter and while the resulting size is almost right, they're still a little too big, and also for the amount of space they take up they should be a 1-1 1/3 stops brighter than they are.)



I don't see something that small and fast a priority for Canon. The market is shrinking, and there is a flight for the higher priced segment. Look at how Panasonic is positioning their GH5s and their FF entries, and Fuji and Olympus with their high priced bodies. The RF ecosystem won't be as a large as the EF ecosystem for that reason. A lot of consumer grade options will not be duplicated -- it'll be more enthusiast and above. So most people are looking for quality over portability with FF. Most of the people that value portability over all else often choose cell phones, which is why the whole market is shrinking.

There is a reason why Canon chose to lead the R ecosystem with expensive glass. And with the 35 f/1.8 IS macro and the 35L lens (EF version II and the eventual RF version), that focal length is pretty much covered. Maybe there will be a pancake or two, but those will be slow (f/2.8) and Canon knows that it'll sell more AF lenses than MF lenses (which can be smaller). The R with the RF 35 f/1.8 IS is not that big. Halving the lens depth does not save that much in the volume of body/lens combo. What does is a EOS M with the 22 f/2. Size is a guiding principle for Canon in how it treats the M ecosystem and why it is not a full system with many lenses at fast apertures.


----------



## fentiger (Mar 7, 2019)

Trey T said:


> I would love to see a RF 400mm f/2.0 @ the same size/weight as current model.


For that with a front element at least 200mm you may need to sell both kidneys and may be your Liver as well.


----------



## dolina (Mar 7, 2019)

Kit. said:


> If it's a non-Canon mirrorless camera.
> 
> If it's a Canon DSLR, it will be assoicated with Canon.


DSLR is sun setting. No point in developing it further. Producing them up to 2028 , at most, makes sense.


----------



## wockawocka (Mar 7, 2019)

Lovely, now how about some lightweight L series 1.8 primes.


----------



## Trey T (Mar 7, 2019)

fentiger said:


> For that with a front element at least 200mm you may need to sell both kidneys and may be your Liver as well.


By putting the lens about 3/4" closer to the sensor (film plane), they should be able to achieve better than the current f/2.8 aperture of the 400mm lens. I think f/2.0 is doable.

In terms of pricing, it's important but not really important for this conversation. I'm more interested in the technology progression.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2019)

Trey T said:


> By putting the lens about 3/4" closer to the sensor (film plane), they should be able to achieve better than the current f/2.8 aperture of the 400mm lens. I think f/2.0 is doable.


Trey, I’d like to introduce you to Physics...it appears that you haven’t met.

For any lens, the entrance pupil (which is the optical representation of the physical aperture) needs to be filled with light. For telephoto lenses, the entrance pupil is essentially at the front element, meaning you need a front element about the same size as the physical aperture, which is focal length / f-number. A 400mm f/2.0 lens would need a 200mm diameter front element. A shorter flange focal distance isn’t going to change that one bit.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 7, 2019)

fentiger said:


> For that with a front element at least 200mm you may need to sell both kidneys and may be your Liver as well.


I would, if I hadn't already sold my little brain for all my current lenses and cameras.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 7, 2019)

dolina said:


> DSLR is sun setting.


ILC is sun setting.



dolina said:


> No point in developing it further.


No point in developing a new pro sports camera for release before 2020 Olympics?


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 7, 2019)

degos said:


> Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. Nice focal length and fast AF. But big dopey aperture leaves gave angular bokeh. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.
> 
> Sharp? It was in the film era, but is outclassed now:
> 
> ...


I am happy to defend the 200 f2.8LII. I got one used a couple of months ago, and I love it. Reasonably small and light (just a little bit bigger than the 135L), fast to focus, sharp across the frame at f2.8, and beautiful bookeh! It made me sell the 70-200 f2.8LIII I got on sale on black friday last november without thinking twice.

The 200 f2.8LII is plenty sharp, but yes, when pixel peeping I admit that it could be sharper. In my opinion though, I find the lack of biting crisp details to provide a very pleasing and “organic” look. I’m not sure I would want it sharper if I could choose... The only thing I miss in it is IS.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 7, 2019)

fox40phil said:


> + hyper expensive^^



As the old saying goes....you gotta Pay to Play......


----------



## Trey T (Mar 7, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Trey, I’d like to introduce you to Physics...it appears that you haven’t met.
> 
> For any lens, the entrance pupil (which is the optica representation of the physical aperture) needs to be filled with light. For telephoto lenses, the entrance pupil is essentially at the front element, meaning you need a front element about the same size as the physical aperture, which is focal length / f-number. A 400mm f/2.0 lens would need a 200mm diameter front element. A shorter flange focal distance isn’t going to change that one bit.


But I'm talking about RF flange, larger rear aperture.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 7, 2019)

degos said:


> Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. Nice focal length and fast AF. But big dopey aperture leaves gave angular bokeh. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.
> 
> Sharp? It was in the film era, but is outclassed now:
> 
> ...


I own the EF 135mm f/2L and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. In my experience the 135mm has better bokeh at f/2.8, and of course, the 70-200 is terrible at f/2.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 7, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> This, from Sony IBIS, indicates that it is effective for long focal lengths. Of course there will be some implementation differences.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, I think the write up in the link helps prove IBIS from Sony is not very effective at all at long focal lengths. The very old Soligor lens he is using is manual focus, at f/5.6, and hand held. I'd like to see a controlled test with a Sony native AF lens and wide open. All of Sony's long lenses are image stabilized (OSS). All of them. I must wonder why that is? Sony also makes nothing longer than 400mm.


----------



## addola (Mar 8, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> By the time this lens arrives, I suspect Canon’s flagship R type body will be available with IBIS.


 
We’ll definitely see IBIS on Canon soon enough, but I think in the next few years Canon will be more aggressive with lens options and Nikon more aggressive with camera body options.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2019)

Trey T said:


> But I'm talking about RF flange, larger rear aperture.


But...Physics. For a telephoto design, the exit pupil is irrelevant in determining overall lens dimensions. So is the image circle (it’s always big, which is why there are no long telephoto EF-S lenses). A 24mm lens, the RF flange matters. A 400mm lens, it just doesn’t. 

Seriously...Physics. You two should get acquainted. Roger Cicala published a series of blog posts on lens design. There are other online resources.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> This, from Sony IBIS, indicates that it is effective for long focal lengths. Of course there will be some implementation differences.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it’s effective. But lens-based IS is _more_ effective at longer focal lengths.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 8, 2019)

Trey T said:


> I would love to see a RF 400mm f/2.0 @ the same size/weight as current model.



That would be a lens with around 200mm front element size (massive). 6-7kg is a very conservative weight gestimation. I mean it could be even heavier by mile.


----------



## dolina (Mar 8, 2019)

Kit. said:


> No point in developing a new pro sports camera for release before 2020 Olympics?


No point in developing any DSLR further as the money is in mirrorless.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 8, 2019)

dolina said:


> No point in developing any DSLR further as the money is in mirrorless.


What makes you think that there is no money for Canon in a new pro sports camera released before 2020 Olympics?


----------



## dolina (Mar 8, 2019)

Kit. said:


> What makes you think that there is no money for Canon in a new pro sports camera released before 2020 Olympics?


That's what the 16 months will indicate. There's nothing wrong with the D5 or 1DX2. You can still by them after 2020.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2019)

Kit. said:


> What makes you think that there is no money for Canon in a new pro sports camera released before 2020 Olympics?


I'm not sure his statements qualify as 'thinking'. As has already been pointed out to him, DSLRs continue to outsell MILCs, and Canon expo;icitly stated that they are continuing to develop DSLRs.


----------



## Trey T (Mar 8, 2019)

Kit. said:


> ILC is sun setting.
> 
> 
> No point in developing a new pro sports camera for release before 2020 Olympics?


The wildlife and sport career/industry is much narrower than wedding or lifestyle photogs. For every 1000 wedding photog, there's only 1 sport photogs. The sport career is all driven by talents while the wedding career is all in the camera specs or gadgets, so-to-speak. If canon come out w/ on in the next 9mos, it will still be in transition phase for the photogs. The risks of using new camera w/o much practice is career-damaging.


----------



## Trey T (Mar 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> But...Physics. For a telephoto design, the exit pupil is irrelevant in determining overall lens dimensions. So is the image circle (it’s always big, which is why there are no long telephoto EF-S lenses). A 24mm lens, the RF flange matters. A 400mm lens, it just doesn’t.
> 
> Seriously...Physics. You two should get acquainted. Roger Cicala published a series of blog posts on lens design. There are other online resources.


Did Roger publish a blog post on 400mm f/2.8 RF lens design that can be scaled to f/2.0 design?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2019)

Trey T said:


> Did Roger publish a blog post on 400mm f/2.8 RF lens design that can be scaled to f/2.0 design?


You're like a bull terrier, you just won't let this go. Tell you what...why don 't you go design and manufacture a 400mm f/2.0 pancake lens. We'd all love that! Physics be damned!

Heck, I'd even settle for you finding one legitimate source that suggests supertelephoto lenses will be smaller because of the RF mount. Good luck.

While you're frantically googling, try comparing Canon's patents for two 100-400mm zoom lenses that are both f/5.6 at the long end. The scaling of the EF lens to RF mount saved a massively impressive 9.5mm, a huge, whopping 3% of the length of the lens.

EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM II (CR link)

Example 3
Zoom ratio 3.75
Focal length f = 104.16-166.66-391.00mm
Fno. 4.60-5.20-5.80
Half angle ω = 11.73-7.40-3.17 °
Image height Y = 21.64mm
221.48-252.31-*300.68mm overall length of the lens*
BF 70.65-87.69-113.37mm

RF 100-400 f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM (CR link)

Focal distance 102.21 195.97 389.86
F number 3.83 4.93 5.85
Half angle of view (degree) 11.95 6.30 3.18
Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64
*Lens total length* 204.85 250.29 *291.30*
BF 4.31 31.68 97.49
But hey, you go right on believing that RF mount + 400mm lens = magic.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 8, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I am happy to defend the 200 f2.8LII. I got one used a couple of months ago, and I love it. Reasonably small and light (just a little bit bigger than the 135L), fast to focus, sharp across the frame at f2.8, and beautiful bookeh! It made me sell the 70-200 f2.8LIII I got on sale on black friday last november without thinking twice.
> 
> The 200 f2.8LII is plenty sharp, but yes, when pixel peeping I admit that it could be sharper. In my opinion though, I find the lack of biting crisp details to provide a very pleasing and “organic” look. I’m not sure I would want it sharper if I could choose... The only thing I miss in it is IS.


I quite agree, which is why I kept it when I switched to Sony bodies - which have the advantage of IBIS. To answer an earlier question, I find it effective on both this lens and 135mm (I've not tried anything longer), though I've not tried the 200mm with slower speeds than 1/60.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 8, 2019)

degos said:


> The 135 f2 is showing its age, compared to the Sigma f1.8 and the Samyang f2 it's pretty lousy with softness and CA all over the place. It needed to be upgraded to a II about a decade ago.
> 
> Back in 1996 it was stunning. Even by 2009 it was still a good lens. Today it's just another old lens bypassed in Canon's obsession with new-shiny-sexy.
> 
> I wonder who works on Canon's assembly lines for lenses like that. It must be tough on their morale.



It's true that the Sigma f/1.8 and Samyang (and Zeiss f/2 and Zeiss Batis f/2.8) have less CA and are sharper (I expect the same will be true for the upcoming Sony 135 1.8). But depending on what you're shooting the differences (esp. sharpness) may be trivial and even work to Canon's advantage. (Either way, it's hardly "lousy with softness.") Have you not seen the beautiful photos that have been taken with the 135 f2? Elena Shumilova, for instance, uses one for most of her photos. https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/ If I worked on a Canon assembly line for the 135 f/2 knowing that such photos could be taken with it, my morale would be rather good. Or are you being sarcastic?


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 9, 2019)

sdsr said:


> It's true that the Sigma f/1.8 and Samyang (and Zeiss f/2 and Zeiss Batis f/2.8) have less CA and are sharper (I expect the same will be true for the upcoming Sony 135 1.8). But depending on what you're shooting the differences (esp. sharpness) may be trivial and even work to Canon's advantage. (Either way, it's hardly "lousy with softness.") Have you not seen the beautiful photos that have been taken with the 135 f2? Elena Shumilova, for instance, uses one for most of her photos. https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/ If I worked on a Canon assembly line for the 135 f/2 knowing that such photos could be taken with it, my morale would be rather good. Or are you being sarcastic?


Great link!


----------



## Viggo (Mar 9, 2019)

It’s a very good reason why some people think the 135 f2 is the sharpest lens they ever tried and some find it seriously fuzzy and lacking. It’s one of the worst offenders when it comes to copy variation along with the 35 L mk1 and 16-35 II.

I’ve had at least 8 or 9 135’s in my time and they are either very sharp or very soft, never had one in between...


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2019)

sdsr said:


> It's true that the Sigma f/1.8 and Samyang (and Zeiss f/2 and Zeiss Batis f/2.8) have less CA and are sharper (I expect the same will be true for the upcoming Sony 135 1.8). But depending on what you're shooting the differences (esp. sharpness) may be trivial and even work to Canon's advantage. (Either way, it's hardly "lousy with softness.") Have you not seen the beautiful photos that have been taken with the 135 f2? Elena Shumilova, for instance, uses one for most of her photos. https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/ If I worked on a Canon assembly line for the 135 f/2 knowing that such photos could be taken with it, my morale would be rather good. Or are you being sarcastic?


Whilst I'm not taking anything away from Elena's images, which I have linked to before and think are beautiful, we have to acknowledge the fact that they are so heavily post processed that almost all the lens characteristics are buried.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Mar 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> A family moment from last month, with my ancient ef 135mm f/2L.



Terrible. Just awful. There's no detail in that grass whatsoever.


----------



## awair (Mar 10, 2019)

While I’d love to see a 135/1.4, my priority is definitely for (lens) IS, with this type of lens.

In my opinion, the 85/1.4L blows away the 1.2L for at least 98.7% of shots (approx...), if only because more of them are in focus! In fact, I made a decision to sell my 1.2 (for a loss) within 24 hours of picking up the 1.4.

The 135/2 was my first ' L' glass, and it's still great; easy to travel with, low light capability and super sharp. I've used it on my backup with the 1.4x, when the 70-200 was too big to travel with, and also on the 100D (SL1) for travel.

I've just picked up my RP, and the 135 has been firmly attached for the last 48 hours. It's a great combination, but it looks so long with the hood attached.

Although I’m happy with this purchase, I won't be switching (full-time) to mirrorless any time soon. I will be able to travel more easily with the RP, and maybe 2? Lenses. The only RF that I’m really likely to buy (apart from the rumoured 400/2 “pancake”?), is a proper pancake 35 or 40/2.8, similar to the current (EF) 40/2.8 - which also looks huge on the RP!


----------



## padam (Mar 10, 2019)

awair said:


> A proper pancake 35 or 40/2.8, similar to the current (EF) 40/2.8 - which also looks huge on the RP!


You're kidding right, basically all lenses are huge? It looks pretty small to me, close to Sony's smallest 35/2.8 native mirrorless lens. (Of course it is the R, but they are close)







Of course they might make it just a little bit smaller, but it might cost 2-3 times the price and without a control ring.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 11, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm not too worried about CA given how easiiy it's fixed automatically in post-processing. In fact I've thought for 20 years they should make lenses with CA and distortion from hell, and just optimize everything else, on the grounds these two flaws are trivial to address.


I believe that is what they do with the better compact cameras, the S and G series. Rather than adding a lot of optical correction, the internal software corrects the aberrations and distortions in the JPEGs and probably does some preprocessing for the RAW files, judging from how decent shots can look even before applying the profiles on the computer. The G7X II has a f/1.8-2.8 zoom lens. The pictures can turn out remarkably well. I have 13” x 19” prints hanging on my walls that show how well.

When I got my first Rebel, I got with it a 75-300 mm Canon lens for $100. Maybe it was worth that. (Or maybe its long-term value was to let me know that I really did want to spend the money on the 100-400mm II.) It has terrible CA and generally, I’ve not been that happy with shots I have made with it, even after applying Photoshop corrections. The exception has been the pictures I made of the solar eclipse with my T3i. After CA correction they look about as good as anybody else’s shots I have seen. So maybe the lesson is that to follow your lens philosophy, they should correct everything optically that cannot be fixed well in software and not sweat what can be.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 11, 2019)

slclick said:


> Speak for yourself. It's a great tool and one with a unique look when used correctly. Age has nothing to do with it. It's a great design, timeless.



I guess it all depends on whether you are more concerned with taking great images of a three dimensional world, or with taking absolutely perfect images of two-dimensional flat test charts from close distance. I have yet to see a lens with edge to edge sharpness, which requires a lot of correction for field curvature, that still renders smooth, pleasing bokeh the way lenses that leave more than a bit of field curvature uncorrected, such as the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L, EF 85mm f/1.2 L, and EF 135mm f/2 L, do.

So what if it's not the best for shooting flat test charts and doing document reproduction work? That's not what I'm going to use it to do.

As for the supposed CA of the 135/2 (which has never affected the kinds of images I've shot with my 135/2): For the most part, if you control the light properly instead of expecting your camera, your lens, and Photoshop to make up for your lack of ability to see and control light, CA becomes a non-issue the vast majority of the time.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 11, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> The 28-300mm is >200mm on the long end.



But the 70-200 L models aren't.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 11, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I agree! It’s not that I don’t appreciate sharp lenses, but I have a hard time understanding those who crave so much for more sharpness than you can have with the EF 135L, also at f2. When you reach a certain level of sharpness, “sharp enough“ (which the 135L is) getting sharper becomes meaningless, or at least a low priority, in my opinion. I’d rather have a smaller and lighter lens, rather than a sharper one than the 135L.



The development of new lenses is being driven by those who bow to the gods of the flat test chart - even though they have no intention of shooting flat test charts with the lenses they select based on how well they perform shooting flat test charts. Who cares if all of that flat field correction makes the bokeh look like $#!+?




Dantana said:


> I don't think that's possible with a Z flange at 16mm and an RF flange at 20mm. At least not without adding glass.



It's a LOT more possible than adapting a lens with a 16mm registration distance to a camera with a 20mm flange!




lexptr said:


> But what if new one will be sharper AND maintain all the good qualities of the old 135 f2 or even improve them? Also there are some super-mega-pixel bodies these days and people who want to use them and make large prints.



I'll believe it when I see it. If "sharp" means enough flat field correction to stay sharp all the way to the edge of the frame when shooting a flat test chart at relatively close distances, current lens design methods mean that the bokeh will be harsh and busy as a consequence. But who cares what photos of a three dimensional world using it look like, as long as it scores higher when pointed at a relatively close flat test chart, right?




Mr Majestyk said:


> So Canon has decided it's great to have a smaller mirrorless camera and then just release insanely expensive and massive lenses. Yeah megabuck primes will have sales skyrocketing.



Hey it works for Sigma. How many mayonnaise jars have they sold to be hung on those cute little mirrorless cameras that are so superior to DSLRs because they are much smaller and lighter?




mb66energy said:


> It would great to use RF lenses on SLR but the mirror needs to move outside the optical path for the exposure and for
> a single sheet mirror this is impossible: The RF lenses leave not enough room between sensor and last lens
> element (except for future tele primes maybe).
> 
> ...



In order cover a sensor 24mm high, and reflect the light straight up, the mirror would need to sit at a 45° angle and be 34mm tall. That puts the bottom edge 24mm in front of the bottom of the sensor. That's 4mm further from the sensor than the flange is in the R mount.




degos said:


> Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. Nice focal length and fast AF. But big dopey aperture leaves gave angular bokeh. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.
> 
> Sharp? It was in the film era, but is outclassed now:
> 
> ...




You need to go back and try that again. I own and shoot regularly with both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the EF 135mm f/2. There's no comparison between the 135/2's creamy smooth bokeh and the 70-200/2.8's "busy" bokeh. The 70-200 is a great zoom lens and is certainly much more flexible in terms of focal length, but it is not a better lens at 135mm. If I know 135mm is the only focal length I need, I'm reaching for the "dinosaur" every single time.




privatebydesign said:


> Whilst I'm not taking anything away from Elena's images, which I have linked to before and think are beautiful, we have to acknowledge the fact that they are so heavily post processed that almost all the lens characteristics are buried.



Yes. Some of her images have two or more distances that are both in "sharpest" focus with intermediate distances in between much softer.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 11, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I guess it all depends on whether you are more concerned with taking great images of a three dimensional world, or with taking absolutely perfect images of two-dimensional flat test charts from close distance. I have yet to see a lens with edge to edge sharpness, which requires a lot of correction for field curvature, that still renders smooth, pleasing bokeh the way lenses that leave more than a bit of field curvature uncorrected, such as the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L, EF 85mm f/1.2 L, and EF 135mm f/2 L, do.
> 
> So what if it's not the best for shooting flat test charts and doing document reproduction work? That's not what I'm going to use it to do.
> 
> As for the supposed CA of the 135/2 (which has never affected the kinds of images I've shot with my 135/2): For the most part, if you control the light properly instead of expecting your camera, your lens, and Photoshop to make up for your lack of ability to see and control light, CA becomes a non-issue the vast majority of the time.


I recall the head of Leica's optical design answering a journalist that lenses weren't developed to photograph test charts, that the quality of a lens shows in "real life", not only in MTF charts...


----------



## Trey T (Mar 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're like a bull terrier, you just won't let this go. Tell you what...why don 't you go design and manufacture a 400mm f/2.0 pancake lens. We'd all love that! Physics be damned!
> 
> Heck, I'd even settle for you finding one legitimate source that suggests supertelephoto lenses will be smaller because of the RF mount. Good luck.
> 
> ...


I thought you're trying to educate me, so I asked ... geez. Was there something inappropriate of my questions? 

Also, I mentioned about the 400mm f/2.8 and a possibility of 400mm f/2.0, not a zoom.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 11, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> But the 70-200 L models aren't.



They're >=200mm on the long end.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 11, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> They're >=200mm on the long end.


I think you'll find that Canon paint their lenses white over a certain size / mass. It's not a specific focal length that dictates a white or black lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think you'll find that Canon paint their lenses white over a certain size / mass. It's not a specific focal length that dictates a white or black lens.


Is that so?




The black lens above is ~300 g heavier than the white one.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Is that so?
> 
> View attachment 183452
> 
> ...


Lol....so I guess 2 engineers around the back of their lens shed...smoking on their cigarettes....chatting...I think we'll paint this one black...and that one white. That'll confuse every one and really mess up the OCD guys.....there is no logic.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Lol....so I guess 2 engineers around the back of their lens shed...smoking on their cigarettes....chatting...I think we'll paint this one black...and that one white. That'll confuse every one and really mess up the OCD guys.....there is no logic.....


There used to be. Originally, white paint went on lenses with fluorite elements in them, ostensibly because fluorite is more temperature sensitive than traditional glass and the white paint keeps the lens cooler ( I say ostensibly because Nikon evidently has no trouble painting lenses with fluorite elements black, but then Nikon are also the ones who previously claimed fluorite elements were bad because they were prone to cracking).

However, certain more recent lenses without fluorite elements have been painted white, for example the 70-300L. That suggests the current rationale is based on marketing rather than technical factors.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> There used to be. Originally, white paint went on lenses with fluorite elements in them, ostensibly because fluorite is more temperature sensitive than traditional glass and the white paint keeps the lens cooler ( I say ostensibly because Nikon evidently has no trouble painting lenses with fluorite elements black, but then Nikon are also the ones who previously claimed fluorite elements were bad because they were prone to cracking).
> 
> However, certain more recent lenses without fluorite elements have been painted white, for example the 70-300L. That suggests the current rationale is based on marketing rather than technical factors.



Most of the larger non-white Canon telephotos, such as the 180mm macro, are older designs without fluorite elements that have not been updated for over 20 years. In the case of the EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro, it's been unchanged since 1996. The EF 200mm f/2.8 L II has also been the same since 1996.

The EF 200mm f/1.8 L (1988) and EF 200mm f/2 L IS (2008) both have fluorite elements and are both white.

The EF 400mm f/5.6 L (1993) and EF 300mm f/4 L (1991) are both white and have "... one Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass lens element (2nd) with an optical effect similar to fluorite."


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 17, 2019)

Trey T said:


> I thought you're trying to educate me, so I asked ... geez. Was there something inappropriate of my questions?
> 
> Also, I mentioned about the 400mm f/2.8 and a possibility of 400mm f/2.0, not a zoom.



400/2.0 lens would be a huge one. 200mm front element is a massive chunk of glass. I would imagine the weight of such a lens would be over 10kg.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 17, 2019)

Honestly I think they'd be better off following Nikon releasing a lens like this on EF mount. Its already quite a large specialist lens so I don't think using an adapter is really that big of an issue for RF users compared to wide/normal primes.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> There used to be. Originally, white paint went on lenses with fluorite elements in them, ostensibly because fluorite is more temperature sensitive than traditional glass and the white paint keeps the lens cooler ( I say ostensibly because Nikon evidently has no trouble painting lenses with fluorite elements black, but then Nikon are also the ones who previously claimed fluorite elements were bad because they were prone to cracking).
> 
> However, certain more recent lenses without fluorite elements have been painted white, for example the 70-300L. That suggests the current rationale is based on marketing rather than technical factors.


I see a white lens and I want to paint it black
No colours any more I want to paint them black

What would happen to a flourite element if it overheated. Does it crack or distort or cloud over?
I'd agree I think its been a great marketing tool in a world of black lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 24, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I see a white lens and I want to paint it black
> No colours any more I want to paint them black
> 
> What would happen to a flourite element if it overheated. Does it crack or distort or cloud over?
> I'd agree I think its been a great marketing tool in a world of black lens.


I recall my July trip to Death Valley, several years ago. My cameras were black Leica R models, with an Apo Telyt 180mm lens, originally developed for the US Navy.
After a few hundred yards, I could no longer touch the cameras, and the 180mm tele had a cracked front lens (special ED glass, not fluorite).
I'm convinced this would not have happened with a white heat -reflecting paint! So, I'm quite sure that Canon -white is an advantage, though not really discreet...


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I recall my July trip to Death Valley, several years ago. My cameras were black Leica R models, with an Apo Telyt 180mm lens, originally developed for the US Navy.
> After a few hundred yards, I could no longer touch the cameras, and the 180mm tele had a cracked front lens (special ED glass, not fluorite).
> I'm convinced this would not have happened with a white heat -reflecting paint! So, I'm quite sure that Canon -white is an advantage, though not really discreet...


Paddlers with carbon fibre paddles (black) tend to dump them in the water to cool off before they pick them up after they have been lying in the sun. It works, but I don’t recommend it with cameras.


----------



## BJonesy22 (Jun 20, 2019)

Having the 50 and 85 RF a 135 would be amazing!!


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 21, 2019)

sdsr said:


> It's true that the Sigma f/1.8 and Samyang (and Zeiss f/2 and Zeiss Batis f/2.8) have less CA and are sharper (I expect the same will be true for the upcoming Sony 135 1.8). But depending on what you're shooting the differences (esp. sharpness) may be trivial and even work to Canon's advantage. (Either way, it's hardly "lousy with softness.") Have you not seen the beautiful photos that have been taken with the 135 f2? Elena Shumilova, for instance, uses one for most of her photos. https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/ If I worked on a Canon assembly line for the 135 f/2 knowing that such photos could be taken with it, my morale would be rather good. Or are you being sarcastic?


She's one of my favorite photographers. And yes, it is a special lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 14, 2020)

rsdofny said:


> Wide opened, you can have one corner of the eye in focus and the other of the same eye out of focus.


Not if you use it correctly.


----------

