# Canon Applies for 135mm f/2 Patent



## [email protected] (Mar 16, 2022)

> It was published only today, but Canon submitted its 135mm f/2 lens design (Japanese) back in September 2020. Four versions are shown, ranging from 11 elements to 14 elements.
> The designs appear to sport pretty good image quality, going by the theoretical, calculated “sea grass” graphs that appear in Japanese lens design patents. A trip back to Canon’s most recent 135mm f/2 patent (2018) shows that these new ones compare favorably.
> [Tip to lens geeks: Bill Claff’s Photonstophotos.net site incorporates a long list of lenses that he’s matched up with their corresponding patents, along with a mesmerizing ray tracing application that shows how light interacts with the patent design elements. Very handy.]
> CanonRumor’s RF Lens...




[url=https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-applies-for-135mm-f-2-patent/]Continue reading...


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 16, 2022)

Thanks for sharing, @[email protected]

Will be interesting, how an RF implementation of this lens will perform.
And though many prefer an f/1.4 to f/1.8 design IMO I'd prefer the f/2 for size and weight reasons.
And the old EF lens already shows impressive results wide open. (Still on my wish list  )
So I'm looking forward for a real product.


----------



## HMC11 (Mar 16, 2022)

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


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 16, 2022)

It's a simple piece of maths to determine the minimum size of the front element of a lens. Take the focal length (in this case 135mm) and divide that figure by it's aperture F stop value. If you want to want to know the largest aperture for a given focal length and filter thread (element size) then take the focal length and divide it by the filter size. Focal length = F stop x Element size. Play with this simple equation and you can see that a 135mm f2 need an element of 67.5mm. If we throw a max element size of 77mm, we get either a 155mm f2 or a 135mm f1.8 lens. If we enlarge the front element to a fairly common 82mm, we get either a 164mm f2 or a 135mm f1.6. To get an f1.4 135mm, the front element would need to be 96mm in diameter...which is huge and would need a large supporting AF system. A 135mm f1.8 is very likely the way forwards with a max diameter front element of 75mm. 
Interestingly the Sigma 105mm f1.4 requires a front element of only 75mm. So that lens doesn't really need to be so large and heavy. If you pull the focal length in to 100mm, the front element reduces to 72mm. So not a lot different to a 135mm f2 size wise. 

However, on of the joys of the Ef 135mm f2.0 is a great combination of it's unobtrusive size, it's large min magnification and slim Dof, whilst having a nice reach for portraits. If you play the "top tumps" specs game and replace it with an f1.4 behemoth, then you lose out on the current lens' shooting versatility. Sure, the DOF will be very slim. But who wants to lug that beast about when those Dof effects can be achieved easier and in a more controllable way with other optic choices.


----------



## bbasiaga (Mar 16, 2022)

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

Brian


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 16, 2022)

HMC11 said:


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


That's an interesting point. There was a Sigma CEO interview from a long ways back where the fellow indicated their 135mm f/1.8 lens wasn't selling as well as the other Art series lenses, and he attributed it to the fact that the 70-200 lenses (there was a profusion of new ones that had come out around then) were so good, people thought it redundant. 

I own that Sigma lens, and it's just amazing. For event shooting and shooting woodcock in the evening from close up, it's hard to beat. The Sony attempt at that configuration is reputed to be even slightly better, although I haven't shot it. 

In terms of competition versus the 70-200s, I think it's true for non-pros. For some pros - the ones who concentrate on low-light genres - the brighter 135mm lens does matter.

After you get a few hundred great woodcock shots at 8 p.m. over the years, you start to care about the ones that are done at the lower ISOs. You get more selective, keeping the ones where the bird landed within a few yards of you. It's so dark that the difference between a simple keeper and one that you'll run by a photo editor is the one you can take at 1600 ISO at 1/15th of a second versus the one that needed ISO 4000. Normal people - even most pixel-peeping forum dwellers - aren't going to sweat the extra stop enough to shell out $1,400 (Sigma) or $2,xxx? (the new Canon).

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

Two days ago, I took this picture of the first landing of the first woodcock of the year. It landed about 10 yards away, and this is at 200mm with the RF 70-200 f/2.8. It was taken at 7:30 p.m. at ISO 6400 with -2/3 of exposure compensation to allow the shutter speed to be as fast as 1/20th. I looked at it on the computer, and the very first thought in my head was "should have used the 135."


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 16, 2022)

Another vote here for the RF model to be f/2 or at least 1.8. Not interested in the weight, size and less versatility that comes with shallower DoF at this focal length. The EF isn't the sharpest but it has character and isn't a sterile, sticker style like the Sigma Art versions. Carry it all day... portraits, abstraction, landscapes- very versatile. It was nicknamed magical for good reasons. I have had 2 copies over 18 years, both for analog and digital and look forward to an RF version, top unicorn lens on my list. @CanonFanBoy , you're with me on this, right?


----------



## neurorx (Mar 16, 2022)

This lens is top of my wishlist! I love using my 85mm 1.2 for dance and (and of course portraits) have no trouble focusing, A fast focusing 135mm would be my only request. F stop 1.4 to 2 is less important.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 16, 2022)

So I Googled, "what is so special about the woodcock?" based on this entry. Is this the bird?









Woodcock Facts - RGS


RANGE As a migratory bird, the American woodcock lives in the North during spring and summer but spends the cold months in the South. Although a few from the farthest […]




ruffedgrousesociety.org





I presume they are not in my area, never having seen one. One reason I still prefer to lug around my 400 DO II is the F4 but many folk seem to be happy with the likes of 600 F11. When in Costa Rica a very real issue was the dullness of the forests and my realization was that I could have benefited from fill flash.

Jack


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 16, 2022)

neurorx said:


> This lens is top of my wishlist! I love using my 85mm 1.2 for dance and (and of course portraits) have no trouble focusing, A fast focusing 135mm would be my only request. F stop 1.4 to 2 is less important.


I really like using my ef 85mm f1.2 L II as well. It gains in low light due to the much bigger aperture giving it several stops advantage of the ef 135mm f2.0 L and three stops over a 70-200mm f2.8 LIS. It also gains further stop by it's focal length to shutter speed equation. I can shoot an 85L at 1/80th sec. I have to shoot a 135L at least 1/125th to get sharp results. The 135L could really do with a really good IS unit and then shooting at 1/50th second (no point in going slower due to movement blur) becomes a reality.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 16, 2022)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I really like using my ef 85mm f1.2 L II as well. It gains in low light due to the much bigger aperture giving it several stops advantage of the ef 135mm f2.0 L and three stops over a 70-200mm f2.8 LIS. It also gains further stop by it's focal length to shutter speed equation. I can shoot an 85L at 1/80th sec. I have to shoot a 135L at least 1/125th to get sharp results. The 135L could really do with a really good IS unit and then shooting at 1/50th second (no point in going slower due to movement blur) becomes a reality.


How have adapted R5/6 shooters liked the EF 135? I would assume 1/50 would be doable.


----------



## Bonich (Mar 16, 2022)

This lens is top on my wishlist, may it be 2.0 (preferred), may it be 1.8. Essential is close up performance at least on par with Sigma and Sony max magnification 0.25 or better.

Main usage: Nature, plants, wild flowers, ... .
70-200 2.8 is not fit for purpose regarding twilight capabilities, DOF, closeup @135mm

I will to go back to EF135, I am already thinking about Milvus 135, Sigma.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Mar 16, 2022)

I personally love to work with the 135 F2. It gives a very different kind of look (similar as sigma 135 would create). Of course, it have some problems in very fast action to focus the subject running fast in my direction (dog photography). Would be great to see an actualized version where AF works even better. 

The inly cons that I see to a 1.4 version will be his price (no less than 3500€) and size/weight, (probably +4,5 pounds). By other side, the look may be outstanding.


----------



## f119a (Mar 16, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> Thanks for sharing, @[email protected]
> 
> Will be interesting, how an RF implementation of this lens will perform.
> And though many prefer an f/1.4 to f/1.8 design IMO I'd prefer the f/2 for size and weight reasons.
> ...



The 4th design with IS performed really well optically - on par with 135GM and good enough for a 100MP CMOS - based on a simulation result I saw.
However it could be much more expensive too (4x UD and 6 high-index/high-dispersion).
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Canon mark it above $3k.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 17, 2022)

Jack Douglas said:


> So I Googled, "what is so special about the woodcock?" based on this entry. Is this the bird?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, that's the guy, Jack! Had him near me again this evening. And I took the 135 Sigma with me, but the bird was 3x further away this time. Of course.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 17, 2022)

f119a said:


> The 4th design with IS performed really well optically - on par with 135GM and good enough for a 100MP CMOS - based on a simulation result I saw.
> However it could be much more expensive too (4x UD and 6 high-index/high-dispersion).
> I wouldn't be surprised at all if Canon mark it above $3k.


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

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


----------



## sanj (Mar 17, 2022)

HMC11 said:


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


Different beasts.


----------



## danfaz (Mar 17, 2022)

HMC11 said:


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


This is dated, but is an interesting comparison between the EF versions:








Review: Canon 135mm f/2L vs. Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - Tangents


Review: comparison Canon 135mm f/2L vs. Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II One lens that has a huge loyal fanbase, is the Canon 135mm f/2L USM lens (B&H / Amazon). It has a wide aperture for a medium telephoto lens, and the lens is small and compact. Unassuming. Easy to love. Then the inevitable...




neilvn.com


----------



## pedroesteban (Mar 17, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> How have adapted R5/6 shooters liked the EF 135? I would assume 1/50 would be doable.



The EF 135 works better on the R5 than it did on the 5D mk IV, both in terms of image stabilization and AF. 1/50 is definitely doable if your subject is willing to stand still, but my main subject these days is a fast moving toddler and I always end up shooting at 1/200 or faster.


----------



## bclaff (Mar 17, 2022)

I entered this patent at PhotonsToPhotos so people could play with it in the Optical Bench.
Here's a direct link to Example 4 (I chose Example 4 because it indicates IS (arrow above L3))
It looks like this:


I also added speculative focus (moving L2) that was not in the patent. Looks like it could go to 0.25x
I can export prescriptions in Zemax format. Contact me if that interests you.
Also, if you know of patents that should be in the Optical Bench Hub (match a production lens) and it isn't there please let me know.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 17, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


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


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


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 17, 2022)

Juangrande said:


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


----------



## bbasiaga (Mar 17, 2022)

Juangrande said:


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


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


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 18, 2022)

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


----------



## Fischer (Mar 18, 2022)

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


----------



## f119a (Mar 18, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> It is clear to me that Canon is putting a big mark-up on everything they announce these days - no matter if R&D, and production or margin is the main reason for that.
> But imagine the price, if it was a full step or at least half a step brighter
> It is as it is and we are the consumers...
> 
> Edit: And IQ is not only about resolution and distortion. Contrast, color and bokeh are more important to some...


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


----------



## f119a (Mar 18, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


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


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


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 18, 2022)

f119a said:


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


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


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2022)

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

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


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2022)

Fischer said:


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


Image stabilization is a go for me.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 18, 2022)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Image stabilization is a go for me.


Wondering when you'd chime in


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 18, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


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


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


----------



## max (Mar 20, 2022)

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


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 20, 2022)

max said:


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


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


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 22, 2022)

f119a said:


> This one has wonderful bokeh and contrast. ...


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


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 23, 2022)

HMC11 said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 23, 2022)

[email protected] said:


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



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

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


----------



## f119a (Mar 23, 2022)

Maximilian said:


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


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


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 23, 2022)

f119a said:


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


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


----------



## f119a (Mar 24, 2022)

Maximilian said:


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


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


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


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 24, 2022)

f119a said:


> It's much better than assumption because manufactures uses the same software when they design something. I assume they wouldn't bother building a test lens if the result looks bad even on paper (to save cost of development). Simulation results of 'real lenses' seem consistent with their shooting performance too.
> And result like bokeh is pretty straightforward I think.
> ...
> ↑ A example: Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 on Tele end
> You just need to set your own reference lens for "good", "acceptable" and "bad" performance.


But you don't have specific results of THAT Canon lens, do you?


----------



## f119a (Mar 24, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> But you don't have specific results of THAT Canon lens, do you?


Someone did the simulation and all kinds of aberations are low enough.
If you need help reading the rayfan charts: https://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/ae4.html


maximum scale is 20μm


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 25, 2022)

f119a said:


> Someone did the simulation and all kinds of aberations are low enough.
> If you need help reading the rayfan charts: https://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/ae4.html
> View attachment 202811
> 
> maximum scale is 20μm


Thanks for sharing. I cannot read out from the graphics that these really are from that new Canon design, but I'll believe you, that this is not from any other lens 
Sharing the source would be nice next time.


----------

