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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 16, 2020)

> Well here’s a fun optical formula from Canon discovered by Canon News, a Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM.  The Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM is an all-time classic, and this would certainly be an amazing offering worth of the new lens mount.
> I think there is a higher than normal probability that such a lens design will make it into a consumer product.
> *Canon RF  135mm f/1.4L USM:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 16, 2020)

Be still my beating heart! If this comes to fruition I will be one very happy guy! Please Canon. Please! A native f/2 would be fine, f/1.4 would be sublime. Wondering what the front filter thread size would be. 105mm+?


----------



## Swp (Jan 16, 2020)

EF pls :/

Either way: IS would be nice.


----------



## Besisika (Jan 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Be still my beating heart! If this comes to fruition I will be one very happy guy! Please Canon. Please! A native f/2 would be fine, f/1.4 would be sublime.


That would peak the chatter high. With eye focus on the EOS-R lineup, I would shoot 135 at 1.4 more often than needed. The image will be one of a kind. RF lenses seem to be smaller than the EF anyway.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 16, 2020)

Besisika said:


> That would peak the chatter high. With eye focus on the EOS-R lineup, I would shoot 135 at 1.4 more often than needed. The image will be one of a kind. RF lenses seem to be smaller than the EF anyway.


I don't know which RF lenses you are talking about being smaller (70-200?), but every RF lens I have is a monster compared to EF. However, I like that.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 16, 2020)

Swp said:


> EF pls :/
> 
> Either way: IS would be nice.



Well, all future EOS R bodies will have IBIS. So that does help reduce weight a bit for these types of lenses.

and no... no EF version


----------



## Stuart (Jan 16, 2020)

Wow, a classic lens where the new version could also be an instant classic.

" consumer product " but business landing price. Would LOVE to see images taken by this presently hypothetical lens.


----------



## jdavidse (Jan 16, 2020)

The difference between this lens and a 1.8 or 2.0 will be $5,000 and triple the weight. Assuming we only get 1 L lens at this focal length, I would be happy to see this lens never get made, because I would really like a compact and fast 135 L lens


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (Jan 16, 2020)

WOW!!! I am ready to preorder TODAY!!


----------



## Romain (Jan 16, 2020)

Lens length: 2km Lens hood: 1km Total length: 3km Weight: an elephant!.. Price: 4500$... lol ... Even with this specs it will be an instant buy! (after 10 years of savings haha...) I hope this dream lens will come true!


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 16, 2020)

Hmmn, I expect this would be an amazing lens - and probably render some amazing shots.

However..... what I like about the existing (EF)135/2 is that it is also a pretty unobtrusive little tool, which gives great results but doesn't draw any attention at all. I can't help feeling that at 135/1.4, it will be a different kettle of fish - "great", but you won't be going around subtly with it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 16, 2020)

jdavidse said:


> The difference between this lens and a 1.8 or 2.0 will be $5,000 and triple the weight. Assuming we only get 1 L lens at this focal length, I would be happy to see this lens never get made, because I would really like a compact and fast 135 L lens


I disagree, a 135mm f1.4 need only have a 95mm front element, it’s not crazy like the larger than 100mm front elements on all the big whites. A 135mm f1.8 need only have a 75mm front element, or a 77mm filter thread.

Indeed the RF 28-70mm f2 has a 95mm front thread and is $3,000, I’d expect a 135mm f1.4 to be mechanically simpler, a similar size, lighter, and less costly. I’d guesstimate the $2,499 prince point. A 135mm f1.8 should be considerably cheaper than that, probably sub $2,000.


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 16, 2020)

This plus a sports worthy R-series body would likely be enough to bring me back to Canon. I would fully expect this lens to be in the $6-8K range though.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 16, 2020)

raptor3x said:


> This plus a sports worthy R-series body would likely be enough to bring me back to Canon. I would fully expect this lens to be in the $6-8K range though.


Why? That doesn’t make any sense or correlate with similar sized glass Canon already make.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 16, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I disagree, a 135mm f1.4 need only have a 95mm front element, it’s not crazy like the larger than 100mm front elements on all the big whites. A 135mm f1.8 need only have a 75mm front element, or a 77mm filter thread.
> 
> Indeed the RF 28-70mm f2 has a 95mm front thread and is $3,000, I’d expect a 135mm f1.4 to be mechanically simpler, a similar size, lighter, and less costly. I’d guesstimate the $2,499 prince point. A 135mm f1.8 should be considerably cheaper than that, probably sub $2,000.


You only make my heart pump harder.  People seem to forget the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 and the price isn't out of line at $1,599. For a Canon? Anywhere from $2,699 - $4,000 would be fine with me. Can't take it with me.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Well, all future EOS R bodies will have IBIS.



Is that confirmed??


----------



## ethanz (Jan 16, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Is that confirmed??



You caught that too. Craig spouting some juicy R details here.


----------



## IcyBergs (Jan 16, 2020)

This sounds like a perfect lens for indoor portraits where you absolutely can't have more than one eyelash in focus.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 16, 2020)

Does it come with a free trail for the gym 
Weight lifting might be recommendable 

Filter size about 95 to 105 mm, lenght 162,2 mm, approx. weight 1,5 kg +


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 16, 2020)

Bad news (no cash left !)
But I must get one, no matter how...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 16, 2020)

One of the joys of the ef 135mm f2.0 L is that it's a very small and light lens (relatively) and it's way more versatile that is obvious from it's space sheets. The problem with it is that it's an old design lens (pre-digital) and it could really do with an image stabiliser. It's not a fantastically fast lens to use, sure it has an f2.0 aperture, but due to it's focal length a min shutter speed of 1/125th is required. So it's no where near as bright to use as say an 85mm f1.2. 
If Canon decides to increase the aperture to f1.4 then the front element is likely to be around the 95mm in size (currently 72mm) and that means a far larger and heavier lens. 
I'd like to have a go with what ever Canon are producing here, but I suspect that it would be quite bulky.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 16, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I disagree, a 135mm f1.4 need only have a 95mm front element, it’s not crazy like the larger than 100mm front elements on all the big whites. A 135mm f1.8 need only have a 75mm front element, or a 77mm filter thread.
> 
> Indeed the RF 28-70mm f2 has a 95mm front thread and is $3,000, I’d expect a 135mm f1.4 to be mechanically simpler, a similar size, lighter, and less costly. I’d guesstimate the $2,499 prince point. A 135mm f1.8 should be considerably cheaper than that, probably sub $2,000.


Your word in Kwanon's ear !


----------



## RMac (Jan 16, 2020)

131mm/f1.41 -> ~93mm diameter entrance pupil.
Based on the sketch (assuming it's to scale; I not sure if that's the case with patent drawings) and the given length of ~183 mm (assuming that corresponds to the dimension labeled OL on the drawing), the front element diameter is ~109mm (a bit larger than the ~105mm front element on the Sigma 105mm f1.4)

This probably puts a lens of this design closer to the EF 200mm f2L ($5700) than the RF 28-70mm F2L ($3000) from a size standpoint, which would likely put this lens in new territory price-wise for something that doesn't fit into the "big white lens" category. At 13 elements though, it's a bit simpler than the 200mm F2...

Does anyone know what the "Lp1" and "Lp2" labels mean? Asphereical elements?


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 16, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Why? That doesn’t make any sense or correlate with similar sized glass Canon already make.



Which similar sized glass are you thinking it compares to? It's going to be similar in size to the 200mm f/2 which sells for around $6K. Add in the requirement of having to maintain sharpness with a faster aperture as well as the price premium we've been seeing for the high end RF lenses and I expect it would end up around $7K.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 16, 2020)

raptor3x said:


> Which similar sized glass are you thinking it compares to? It's going to be similar in size to the 200mm f/2 which sells for around $6K. Add in the requirement of having to maintain sharpness with a faster aperture as well as the price premium we've been seeing for the high end RF lenses and I expect it would end up around $7K.


$7000? Not a single chance.. how much is the EF 300/2.8 is II, eh? 135/1.4 would cost a half of that. 
I am thinking $3,500. Not more.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 16, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> This sounds like a perfect lens for indoor portraits where you absolutely can't have more than one eyelash in focus.


Only in the hands of those who don't know how to use it.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jan 16, 2020)

I would be absolutely shocked when this lens hits the market (if it does) that the entry price point is greater than $3K USD. I would suspect that it would be 3X - 4X or so the cost of the current EF 135mm f2.0L. I would say intro price of $2,899 or less. Right around 180mm (or so) is where you start leaning towards "super-"telephoto vs. telephoto. A 135mm lens is still considered a telephoto. Plus, I think it would be a significant stretch for Canon to introduce it for more than $3K.

Time will tell - if it comes to market (which I have no doubts that it will)...


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 16, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> $7000? Not a single chance.. how much is the EF 300/2.8 is II, eh? 135/1.4 would cost a half of that.
> I am thinking $3,500. Not more.



How much would you expect the 200mm f/2 to cost by that logic?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 16, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Does it come with a free trail for the gym
> Weight lifting might be recommendable
> 
> Filter size about 95 to 105 mm, lenght 162,2 mm, approx. weight 1,5 kg +


If it’s only 1,5 kg’s I wouldn’t at all consider that heavy... That’s the same as the 70-200 mk3.


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (Jan 16, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Does it come with a free trail for the gym
> Weight lifting might be recommendable
> 
> Filter size about 95 to 105 mm, lenght 162,2 mm, approx. weight 1,5 kg +


I've been bodybuilding since 1989 in anticipation of this lens. I've been doing pre-exhaust set with my EF 200 f/2 (w/lens hood on of course) for the past 10 years. I. AM. READY.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 16, 2020)

Viggo said:


> If it’s only 1,5 kg’s I wouldn’t at all consider that heavy... That’s the same as the 70-200 mk3.


You're right. But maybe some more worse front balanced because of the big front element...?


----------



## IcyBergs (Jan 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Only in the hands of those who don't know how to use it.


Actually if you know what you are doing you may end up with two eyelashes in focus, since assuming a mfd of about 3 feet or so, wide open you'll end up with about 1/6 of an inch DoF


----------



## dwarven (Jan 16, 2020)

Gonna have to sell my second kidney for the RF mount.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 16, 2020)

Just playing with a DoF calculator....looking at about 1.6 inches at 10 ft and 3.7 inches at 15 ft. That actually isn't as bad as I thought it would be.


----------



## shawn (Jan 16, 2020)

This could be a sign that an f/2 zoom in this range is on the horizon. An f/2 zoom in the 70-150mm range would be preferable to an 135 f/2 prime most of the time. Especially with how good Canon's RF 28-70mm is. So if they're going to do a 135mm prime an aperture of f/1.4 makes sense.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 16, 2020)

shawn said:


> This could be a sign that an f/2 zoom in this range is on the horizon. An f/2 zoom in the 70-150mm range would be preferable to an 135 f/2 prime most of the time. Especially with how good Canon's RF 28-70mm is. So if they're going to do a 135mm prime an aperture of f/1.4 makes sense.


Even a 70-135 f/2 would be great.


----------



## mkamelg (Jan 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Be still my beating heart! If this comes to fruition I will be one very happy guy! Please Canon. Please! A native f/2 would be fine, f/1.4 would be sublime. Wondering what the front filter thread size would be. 105mm+?



Do you remember Mitakon SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4?









Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm F1.4, world's fastest 135mm lens, is up for pre-order


ZY Optics, a Chinese company that sells lenses under brand name Mitakon, teased a massive lens on the Chinese social network Weibo over the weekend, the Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm F1.4. While the company revealed a few details at the time, it didn't specify when the lens would be available for...




www.dpreview.com













Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm F1.4 lens relaunched with 7 mount options


The Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm F1.4 lens is being relaunched in 7 different mounts, including: Sony A, Sony E, Canon EF, Nikon F, Fujifilm G, Pentax K, and Leica L. Got an extra three grand lying around?




www.dpreview.com













中一光学 SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4 単焦点レンズ（※受注生産）-焦点工房オンラインストア


SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4 圧倒的な存在感、スペック｜Product By ZHONG YI OPTICS 中一光学（ちゅういちこうがく）から、135ミリレンズとして突出した明るさを誇る「SPEEDMASTER（スピードマスター）135mm F1.4」が登場。EDガラスの採用により、明るさとシャープさを両立、絞りリングはクリックレスでムービー撮影も意識した仕様です。SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4でしかなし得ない世界観をぜひ体験してください。 SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4は受注生産となります。（納期:約１ヶ月）...




www.stkb.jp





■ Focal length: 135mm (35mm equivalent)
■ Focus: MF (manual focus)
■ Aperture: F1.4-F16
■ Lens configuration: 11 elements in 5 groups (3 ultra-large aperture ED lenses)
■ Aperture blades: 11
■ Shortest shooting distance: 1.6m
■ Maximum shooting magnification: 0.1 times
■ Length: 160mm
■ Diameter: Φ111mm
■ Filter diameter: 105mm
■ Weight: about 3000g
■ Exclusive hood attachment









Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm F1.4 Pre-production Sample Gallery


View Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm F1.4 Pre-production Sample Gallery from DPReview.




www.dpreview.com









__





SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4 | ä¸ä¸€å…‰å¦ | ãƒŸãƒ©ãƒ¼ãƒ¬ã‚¹ãƒ»ä¸€çœ¼ãƒ¬ãƒ•ã‚«ãƒ¡ãƒ©ãƒ¬ãƒ³ã‚º ãƒžã‚¦ãƒ³ãƒˆã‚¢ãƒ€ãƒ—ã‚¿ãƒ¼ æ—¥æœ¬ç·ä»£ç†åº— æ ªå¼ä¼šç¤¾ç„¦ç‚¹å·¥æˆ¿






www.zyoptics.jp


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 16, 2020)

mkamelg said:


> Do you remember Mitakon SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. Never heard of it. Manual focus too.


----------



## padam (Jan 16, 2020)

The rear element is still big on the RF mount with a short flange, that enables them to reduce the diameter of the front element.
Official quote: "If the “back focus” distance between a lens’ rear element and the camera’s sensor is too far, the light entering the rear element is condensed and is harder to do aberration correction on. Lenses counteract this by making the front element (and whole lens) larger and bulkier. "
So it might be possible to do with a 95mm filter thread.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 16, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Gonna have to sell my second kidney for the RF mount.


Who needs kidneys, after all...


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No. Never heard of it. Manual focus too.



And buttery soft wide open.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jan 16, 2020)

RMac said:


> 131mm/f1.41 -> ~93mm diameter entrance pupil.
> Based on the sketch (assuming it's to scale; I not sure if that's the case with patent drawings) and the given length of ~183 mm (assuming that corresponds to the dimension labeled OL on the drawing), the front element diameter is ~109mm (a bit larger than the ~105mm front element on the Sigma 105mm f1.4)
> 
> This probably puts a lens of this design closer to the EF 200mm f2L ($5700) than the RF 28-70mm F2L ($3000) from a size standpoint, which would likely put this lens in new territory price-wise for something that doesn't fit into the "big white lens" category. At 13 elements though, it's a bit simpler than the 200mm F2...
> ...


The core of the patent seems to be the usage of two positive lenses (Lp1 Lp2) inside the focus group made of glass with anomalous partial dispersion glass to correct for chromatic aberration on all focus distances. Clever.


----------



## slclick (Jan 16, 2020)

As a long time owner of the 135L I would take a 1.8 over a 1.4 for size and price reasons. However, once I move to RF mount I doubt I will be replacing same/same. I can only foresee purchasing RF glass in focal lengths I don't own. 

Thank you Canon for adapting EF to RF so well!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 16, 2020)

jdavidse said:


> The difference between this lens and a 1.8 or 2.0 will be $5,000 and triple the weight. Assuming we only get 1 L lens at this focal length, I would be happy to see this lens never get made, because I would really like a compact and fast 135 L lens



Totally agree. I would rather have an F2 for half the weight. Thats enough DOF



mkamelg said:


> Do you remember Mitakon SPEEDMASTER 135mm F1.4?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Add AF, better sharpness and correction and you will hit 4kg


----------



## Joules (Jan 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Add AF, better sharpness and correction and you will hit 4kg


Add Canon design ingenuity and the superb RF mount, and you'll likely be surprised at how far below that weight the lens will be.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jan 16, 2020)

Love 135mm. I had Canon's and have a Zeiss.

Today, I passed a great deal on a like-new EF 135mm for $350 on Craigslist.

I was going to buy, but called the seller and told them to raise their price, because I was just going to buy and sell their lens. Maybe I should have bought it, but hearing her reason for selling, said I'd wait 24 hrs. to see if she can get a better price.


----------



## slclick (Jan 17, 2020)

I have 6 L lenses but it's the only one I'd keep if I had to pick one. It's not the most expensive either, by a long shot. Not once did I wish it had IS, was more wide open or worried about aberrations. It's not perfect but nothing else has the color and micro contrast.


----------



## AJ (Jan 17, 2020)

135/1.4 sounds quite sexy, but I'd rather see development of workhorse lenses that the rest of us can afford.


----------



## analoggrotto (Jan 17, 2020)

Oh this is going to be good. The Sony 135/1.8 is mad popular. 

Lets hope they release it soon!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 17, 2020)

135 F1.8 with a 77 mm filter size. F2 if they include IS. Shorten the hood while you are at it. Please do not paint it white. Who is asking for f1.4? Completely misses the point of the original lens IMO. Did Canon hire Jony Ive?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jan 17, 2020)

Oh goodie another RF lens with sky-high pricing. Almost same price as a 200 f/2 and over 1.6kg. Hopefully just another patent that won’t see the light of day, and a 135 f/1.8 IS is on the cards


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> 135 F1.8 with a 77 mm filter size. F2 if they include IS. Shorten the hood while you are at it. Please do not paint it white. Who is asking for f1.4? Completely misses the point of the original lens IMO. Did Canon hire Jony Ive?


I'll take f/1.4 any day. I could always stop down to f/2. If it is f/2 I can't open up to f/1.4.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'll take f/1.4 any day. I could always stop down to f/2. If it is f/2 I can't open up to f/1.4.


Carnival glass to chase the increasingly tired and played out fad for ridiculously shallow depth of field. But that’s just my opinion. YMMV


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Carnival glass to chase the increasingly tired and played out fad for ridiculously shallow depth of field. But that’s just my opinion. YMMV


If distance to subject isn't close up... then the shallow dof can be an asset... especially with busy or unattractive backgrounds. It doesn't have to be 1 eye in focus. Right? Anyway, it is all a matter of personal taste. A person can always stop down if shallow dof isn't wanted. So to answer your question from your post, "Who's asking for f/1.4?" Me.  I'd actually prefer a 70-135 f/2 zoom, but I'll take a 135mm f/1.4. When shooting a fashion show in low light and there is some distance, f/1.4 at that focal length would be a Godsend. 35ft at f/1.4 @ 135mm would give me a dof of 1.73ft... no flash allowed. That is a good thing. 85mm at 35ft, f/1.2 would give me a dof of 3.74 feet. Great! So there are very valid uses for fast glass other than half focused faces.


----------



## Gingko (Jan 17, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Bad news (no cash left !)
> But I must get one, no matter how...



Do not turn to the dark side.
An extra kidney would do !


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> $7000? Not a single chance.. how much is the EF 300/2.8 is II, eh? 135/1.4 would cost a half of that.
> I am thinking $3,500. Not more.



The Mitakon 135mm f/1.4 was priced at $3,000, I doubt Canon would get that close.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 17, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Carnival glass to chase the increasingly tired and played out fad for ridiculously shallow depth of field. But that’s just my opinion. YMMV


For me that’s not the point, it is to isolate subjects at a greater distance than I can with 85 f1.2. That lens is wonderful, but you have to be close to get the amazing background. With the 200 f2 I had that same separation and pop at a much greater distance. It’s truly something that has to be experienced imo.


----------



## Jim Corbett (Jan 17, 2020)

I'd get that over any of the 70-200s in a heartbeat! If there is such thing as magical focal length, 135mm would be it. 
Not a fan of zooms in general, especially those that extend.


----------



## Sator (Jan 17, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> The Mitakon 135mm f/1.4 was priced at $3,000, I doubt Canon would get that close.



The EF 200mm f/2 weighs about 2kg and costs about $5600. The EF 400mm f/2.8 weighs 3.8kg and costs $8000.

The Canon 135mm f/1.4 optical formula looks like it uses extra aspherical elements to reduce the weight and size of the lens as with the latest optical formulae of the recently refreshed EF great whites. That means that even with the addition of an autofocus mechanism, the weight might be able to be kept closer to 3kg (like the Mitakon 135mm f/1.4). However, as with the latest EF great white updates, the additional aspherical elements are likely to push up the cost.

The estimated price based on cost per kilogram of glass suggests that $6-7000 is a much more realistic approximation of market price.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 17, 2020)

Sator said:


> The EF 200mm f/2 weighs about 2kg and costs about $5600. The EF 400mm f/2.8 weighs 3.8kg and costs $8000.
> 
> The Canon 135mm f/1.4 optical formula looks like it uses extra aspherical elements to reduce the weight and size of the lens as with the latest optical formulae of the recently refreshed EF great whites. That means that even with the addition of an autofocus mechanism, the weight might be able to be kept closer to 3kg (like the Mitakon 135mm f/1.4). However, as with the latest EF great white updates, the additional aspherical elements are likely to push up the cost.
> 
> The estimated price based on cost per kilogram of glass suggests that $6-7000 is a much more realistic approximation of market price.


Not to nitpick, but the 200 f2 in use weight is over 2,7kg.


----------



## Joules (Jan 17, 2020)

I like Canon going for new designs that nobody else does (well).

We hear people demanding better low light performance all the time - going for a lens that lets in more light is the easiest way to get there.

I'm not sure if Canon would release this lens if it would end up being just a show off like the 58 0.95.


----------



## Sator (Jan 17, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Not to nitpick, but the 200 f2 in use weight is over 2,7kg.



The same is going to be true across the board including with the 400mm f/2.8 as well as a hypothetical 135mm f/1.4.


----------



## 6degrees (Jan 17, 2020)

Unreal


----------



## Daner (Jan 17, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> 135 F1.8 with a 77 mm filter size. F2 if they include IS. Shorten the hood while you are at it. Please do not paint it white. Who is asking for f1.4? Completely misses the point of the original lens IMO. Did Canon hire Jony Ive?



I'm with you in principle, but the RF 15-35, 24-70, and 85 1.2 all use an 82mm filter thread, so I wouldn't mind them getting all the aperture they can out of 82 instead of being limited to 77.

I hope that they don't do what Sigma did with their 105mm f/1.4. At that focal length, it is just too big and heavy for me to consider for extended use in the wild. Funny that I had no problem carrying my EF 100-400 around, but it was a bit lighter than the Sigma, and the additional versatility made the weight well worth it.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2020)

Gingko said:


> Do not turn to the dark side.
> An extra kidney would do !


I have read that livers regenerate. Might could sell half.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> The Mitakon 135mm f/1.4 was priced at $3,000, I doubt Canon would get that close.


The Sigma is 105mm f/1.4 ART is $1,599 and has AF. I have a shooting partner that has one he uses to great effect. Couldn't give me the Mitacon.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 17, 2020)

If Canon can do a practical f1.4 at a reasonable cost then they should but that’s not what this sounds like. I’m fine with the f2 which will also benefit from IBIS. I think the subject isolation is fine and I can use it wide open without ever having to stop down.
Ultra narrow DOF is a parlor trick and those get old after a while. There is also the fact that phones, with their lens arrays, are going to be very very good at this in another generation or two.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 17, 2020)

And I would like to see an f/2 135 IS STM Macro (1:2 would be sufficient) for those guys who have a (1) thinner wallet, (2) would like an allround light tele and (3) have not personnel to lug around all the stuff. A very great companion to the RF 35 in my opinion.

But it is always nice to see some high end special lenses come to patents and maybe real products (I think a cine version would be a sought after lens for a lot of filmmakers).


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 17, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Totally agree. I would rather have an F2 for half the weight. Thats enough DOF
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If the Chinese-- made manual focusing Mitakon already sells for $ 3000, how much will the high-salary Japanese made Canon 1,4/135 AF cost ?
I'm sadly convinced, about as much as the 200 f2 L.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 17, 2020)

Daner said:


> I'm with you in principle, but the RF 15-35, 24-70, and 85 1.2 all use an 82mm filter thread, so I wouldn't mind them getting all the aperture they can out of 82 instead of being limited to 77.
> 
> I hope that they don't do what Sigma did with their 105mm f/1.4. At that focal length, it is just too big and heavy for me to consider for extended use in the wild. Funny that I had no problem carrying my EF 100-400 around, but it was a bit lighter than the Sigma, and the additional versatility made the weight well worth it.



I would call the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 'cartoonish'. The results are great, but I hated using it, way too heavy and worse: front heavy.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 17, 2020)

One more thing: I like to see the trend in Canons lenses to use a high number of lens elements and a comparatively low number of lens groups - just like the RF 50 RF 85 and EF-M 32.
Less glass-air transitions, less reflections / flares hence better contrast.


----------



## Daner (Jan 17, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I would call the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 'cartoonish'. The results are great, but I hated using it, way too heavy and worse: front heavy.



I have no criticisms of the results or the price. It is an impressive lens, but if I am going to deal with something that heavy I am going to need a different use case to motivate it and a lens with more length and/or more versatility.


----------



## john kriegsmann (Jan 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Be still my beating heart! If this comes to fruition I will be one very happy guy! Please Canon. Please! A native f/2 would be fine, f/1.4 would be sublime. Wondering what the front filter thread size would be. 105mm+?


Typical canon- one more huge bulbous lens that weighs more than the R camera body. Canon's 135 f2 lens is a light weigh killer lens, where is the need for an f 1.4 edition that weighs more and costs twice as much? This is one of the reasons that I am giving some hard thought to abandoning Canon and going with a Sony A73. Better dynamic range, and I can use my existing Canon glass with an adapter. There are also a slew of lens manufactures that make smaller, lighter lenses for the Sony system.


----------



## john kriegsmann (Jan 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Be still my beating heart! If this comes to fruition I will be one very happy guy! Please Canon. Please! A native f/2 would be fine, f/1.4 would be sublime. Wondering what the front filter thread size would be. 105mm+?


I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras. Fuji is the only mirrorless company that has produced quality fast prime lenses that are small and relatively light. I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ? Looks like Canon's approach is to increase their bottom line rather than provide their customers with lenses that are a better form fit for their new cameras.


----------



## slclick (Jan 17, 2020)

john kriegsmann said:


> I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras. Fuji is the only mirrorless company that has produced quality fast prime lenses that are small and relatively light. I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ? Looks like Canon's approach is to increase their bottom line rather than provide their customers with lenses that are a better form fit for their new cameras.


They aren't alone. 

Still, there might just be bodies on the way which balance better


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2020)

john kriegsmann said:


> I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras. Fuji is the only mirrorless company that has produced quality fast prime lenses that are small and relatively light. I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ? Looks like Canon's approach is to increase their bottom line rather than provide their customers with lenses that are a better form fit for their new cameras.


Who proclaimed the mirrorless purpose was smaller and lighter in all cases? The Micro 4/3 crowd? My lenses fit to form just fine for my taste. As for m4/3... I have one and the form factor sucks.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 17, 2020)

A 1.4 might be double the cost of a 2.0 ($5000?) but it provides enough differentiation from my 70-200 f2.8 to be a consideration.

All that glass looks heavy, like the RF50 1.2


----------



## PerKr (Jan 17, 2020)

john kriegsmann said:


> I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras. Fuji is the only mirrorless company that has produced quality fast prime lenses that are small and relatively light. I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ? Looks like Canon's approach is to increase their bottom line rather than provide their customers with lenses that are a better form fit for their new cameras.



The minute people started asking for large sensors in mirrorless cameras they threw the size argument out the window. What's the point of a large sensor if you're going to use slow lenses anyway? If you want compact, you go with Fuji or m4/3 rather than a FF Sony/Nikon/Canon. 
And of course Canon go for very fast and expensive RF lenses that showcase the advantages of their mount. It's a big finger at Sony, saying "any lens you can do, we can do better!". It's not like a good 135/1.8 is a small, lightweight lens either way (and comparing Sony lenses, the old A-mount 135/1.8 is only slightly heavier than the much newer E-mount version while the newer lens is large enough that the A9 with the 135/1.8 is close in size to the A900 FF DSLR with its 135/1.8)

Fuji lenses are small and light because they serve a much smaller sensor. Same goes for m4/3.


----------



## Joules (Jan 17, 2020)

john kriegsmann said:


> I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ?


The point is to enable lens designs that weren't possible before.


----------



## Joules (Jan 17, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> If the Chinese-- made manual focusing Mitakon already sells for $ 3000, how much will the high-salary Japanese made Canon 1,4/135 AF cost ?


If some Chinese guys can hit a 3k price point with a product limited to just 100 copies, Canon with their high degree of automation and top notch economies of scale could do it a lot cheaper.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 17, 2020)

john kriegsmann said:


> I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras.



Photography equipment sales are weak, apparently some companies are limiting themselves to high profit equipment.

As for Fuji's strategy, Canon is covering small with EOS-M.



john kriegsmann said:


> I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ? Looks like Canon's approach is to increase their bottom line rather than provide their customers with lenses that are a better form fit for their new cameras.



Yes, Canon is in the business of maximizing profit, not on making less money (or God forbid, lose any) on what customers think the revolution's purpose was to begin with.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 17, 2020)

john kriegsmann said:


> I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras. [...]


I am Canon user, not fan in the first place and I do not use these large, h, f ve RF lenses but the - at the moment - only small, versatile, high aperture, good IQ, excellently versatile lens, the RF 35 which is not small but compact and light!
Maybe Canon thinks that a lot of people who do NOT use heavy very expensive (RF) lenses will be satisfied with the (too easy and reliable) adapter solution. I on my own have set a limit: EOS RP below 1000 EUR and I will buy it to have the full frame option and especially to reuse my FD lenses or sell them. A very attractive offer gave me the camera WITH adapter and RF 35 for a little bit more than 1000 EUR and I must say: Extraordinary versatility due to the f/1.8 + IS and the 1:2 macro in a compact and lightweight package.

EDIT: At the moment waiting for a 100 or 135 f/2.0 IS STM (1:2) Macro lens in the RF35 style.


----------



## Joules (Jan 17, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Why would it cost half??!!
> 
> The front element of 135 / 1.4 = 96mm or 200 / 2 = 100mm or 300 / 2.8 = 107mm isn't much different. All these lenses should cost approximately the same.


Reducing the complexity and associated cost of a lens to a single metric is unlikely to yield reliable numbers.

The Sigma 150-600 mm has a 95mm opening as well and costs a fraction of all the options you named. And we're dealing with DSLR lenses in any case. The lens being discussed here is designed with completely different constraints.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2020)

Obviously the lens will be hailed by some and yawned at by others. What I don't understand is the vitriol directed towards what some will obviously want. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Leave everyone else alone. Ain't no gun to nobody's head either way. Buy an EF 135mm f/2L and adapt it. Be happy. Or, buy the new flavor and be happy. I'll prefer the new flavor and the lack of CA... along with the carnival glass parlor trickery.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 17, 2020)

raptor3x said:


> How much would you expect the 200mm f/2 to cost by that logic?


US$4500-5000. Current AU price: AUD $6,800.00


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 17, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Why would it cost half??!!
> 
> The front element of 135 / 1.4 = 96mm or 200 / 2 = 100mm or 300 / 2.8 = 107mm isn't much different. All these lenses should cost approximately the same.



not a very strong logic. Sorry. 
compare price of Sigma 150-600 C vs 150-600 S lens. 92mm front filter vs 105mm.


----------



## slclick (Jan 17, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Photography equipment sales are weak, apparently some companies are limiting themselves to high profit equipment.
> 
> As for Fuji's strategy, Canon is covering small with EOS-M.
> 
> ...


Evolution


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> US$4500-5000. Current AU price: AUD $6,800.00



In AUD, look at the MSRP for the 200mm f/2 ($7499 AUD) vs the 300mm f/2.8 ii ($8099 AUD); right around an 8% price difference. Do you really think a 135mm f/1.4, which requires the same large front elements as the 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8, brought to market 12 years later is going to be half the price? Also look at the new 400mm f/2.8 III and 600mm f/4.0 III. By your thinking the 400 should be substantially cheaper than the 600, but the prices come in at $12K and $13K respectively, also around an 8% price difference.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2020)

raptor3x said:


> In AUD, look at the MSRP for the 200mm f/2 ($7499 AUD) vs the 300mm f/2.8 ii ($8099 AUD); right around an 8% price difference. Do you really think a 135mm f/1.4, which requires the same large front elements as the 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8, brought to market 12 years later is going to be half the price? Also look at the new 400mm f/2.8 III and 600mm f/4.0 III. By your thinking the 400 should be substantially cheaper than the 600, but the prices come in at $12K and $13K respectively, also around an 8% price difference.


The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED lens has an 82mm front filter thread as compared to 105mm for the Sigma. I don't know how everyone is coming up with their pricing, but as it relates to front filter thread size... I say it is a bad way to judge price. The Sigma is $1,599 usd and the Nikon runs about $2,500 usd. All the hand wringing over what the final cost will be based on this or that lens is just sillyness. It will be fun revisiting this price arguement once the lens is released... if it ever is.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> $7000? Not a single chance.. how much is the EF 300/2.8 is II, eh? 135/1.4 would cost a half of that.
> I am thinking $3,500. Not more.


I agree. The RF 28-70 f/2L is a much more complex lens and rings in at $3k. I don't know the front element size, but the filter ring is 95mm. Seems a 135mm f/1.4 would be a much simpler build no matter what the front element size is. Anyway, I never knew lenses were priced based on front element sizes.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Obviously the lens will be hailed by some and yawned at by others. What I don't understand is the vitriol directed towards what some will obviously want. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Leave everyone else alone. Ain't no gun to nobody's head either way. Buy an EF 135mm f/2L and adapt it. Be happy. Or, buy the new flavor and be happy. I'll prefer the new flavor and the lack of CA... along with the carnival glass parlor trickery.


I was aiming for snarky rather than vitriol but I admit I may have over-shot the mark. I thought the carnival glass thing was pretty clever though. If Canon could just invent a lens that makes people look 20 lbs thinner.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I was aiming for snarky rather than vitriol but I admit I may have over-shot the mark. I thought the carnival glass thing was pretty clever though. If Canon could just invent a lens that makes people look 20 lbs thinner.


I never interpreted your remarks as vitriol. There are a lot of haters here though.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 17, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I was aiming for snarky rather than vitriol but I admit I may have over-shot the mark. I thought the carnival glass thing was pretty clever though. If Canon could just invent a lens that makes people look 20 lbs thinner.



...or 20 IQ points smarter.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Jan 17, 2020)

I for one am excited for this lens to come into fruition even if I can't see myself actually owning the lens (I am expecting it to cost close to that of the 200mm f/2) based on the fact that I don't shoot professionally and already owning the wonderful Sigma 135mm f/1.8. Who doesn't like seeing progress and what's possible in future lens design? If you're complaining about this what's obviously a specialised-use lens being too big and heavy this lens is obviously not for you.


----------



## slclick (Jan 17, 2020)

basketballfreak6 said:


> I for one am excited for this lens to come into fruition even if I can't see myself actually owning the lens (I am expecting it to cost close to that of the 200mm f/2) based on the fact that I don't shoot professionally and already owning the wonderful Sigma 135mm f/1.8. Who doesn't like seeing progress and what's possible in future lens design? If you're complaining about this what's obviously a specialised-use lens being too big and heavy this lens is obviously not for you.


I am curious if you have used the Canon 135L in the past and how you compare the Sigma and the 1/2 stop difference plus other attributes. TIA


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Jan 17, 2020)

slclick said:


> I am curious if you have used the Canon 135L in the past and how you compare the Sigma and the 1/2 stop difference plus other attributes. TIA



I tried my mate's copy a long time ago and before the Sigma came out so it's hard for me to make proper comparisons unfortunately. The Sigma's obviously sharper and from memory has more of a "pop" straight out of camera; I always found what the newer Sigma lenses does well is that "micro contrast" if you like which also aids in the perception of sharpness. It's also better corrected in terms of CA. Weight wise I don't find it to be an issue whatsoever and I am a pretty average build guy (but I also handhold the Sigma 150-600 Sport and walk around for hours with just a R strap) and find it balances quite well with a decent sized body (like my 5D4). I think OOF area renders wonderfully as well. When I bought the Sigma here in Australia on launch I think the Canon at the time was still a little dearer so it was a no-brainer (but even if the Sigma was dearer I would've still gotten the Sigma).

Here is a shot I took of a friend sometime ago not even wide open at f/2.5 (so I could get both mum and bub's eyes in focus) and OOF area is still butter:



Mother and daughter by Tony, on Flickr


----------



## reef58 (Jan 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED lens has an 82mm front filter thread as compared to 105mm for the Sigma. I don't know how everyone is coming up with their pricing, but as it relates to front filter thread size... I say it is a bad way to judge price. The Sigma is $1,599 usd and the Nikon runs about $2,500 usd. All the hand wringing over what the final cost will be based on this or that lens is just sillyness. It will be fun revisiting this price arguement once the lens is released... if it ever is.



I get your point, but top quality optics use top quality glass. Top quality glass is very expensive and gets more expensive in large sizes. I am not a technical guess, but at one time had a fetish for nice APO refractors. a 4" refractor may costs $2000 to $3000. An 8" refractor will cost $20,000 or more. A good portion of that difference is the cost of the raw glass,

You can buy cheaper glass of course but most are assuming if Canon were to build a lens as mentioned they will use the top shelf glass. All that being said I would vote for an MSRP around $3500.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 18, 2020)

reef58 said:


> I get your point, but top quality optics use top quality glass. Top quality glass is very expensive and gets more expensive in large sizes. I am not a technical guess, but at one time had a fetish for nice APO refractors. a 4" refractor may costs $2000 to $3000. An 8" refractor will cost $20,000 or more. A good portion of that difference is the cost of the raw glass,
> 
> You can buy cheaper glass of course but most are assuming if Canon were to build a lens as mentioned they will use the top shelf glass. All that being said I would vote for an MSRP around $3500.


I agree to your MSRP. My point was that although the Sigma had a much larger front element the Nikon cost far more. People were saying the Canon would cost upwards of $5k to $7k. Just silly.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 18, 2020)

john kriegsmann said:


> I have a hard time understanding Canon's fans enthusiasm for large, heavy, fast and very expensive RF lens that are a poor form fit for their small mirrorless cameras. Fuji is the only mirrorless company that has produced quality fast prime lenses that are small and relatively light. I thought the whole purpose of the mirrorless revolution was to reduce the size ? Looks like Canon's approach is to increase their bottom line rather than provide their customers with lenses that are a better form fit for their new cameras.



Don’t forget Canon M series. It is focused on size and weight, on both camera bodies and lensss. Sure, they don’t have the lens line up that compares to Fuji, but the 11-22mm and the 32 F1.4 are really fine, small and lightweight lenses, that I believe is better than Fuji‘s offerings. The 22mm f2 pancake is also worth mentioning. Sigma supplements the longer focal lengths to some degree with their new 56(?) F1.4.


----------



## photographer (Jan 18, 2020)

5000 or even 7000 $ for this when i can have sigma 105 1.4 for 1600? You guys have a money printer?


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 18, 2020)

photographer said:


> 5000 or even 7000 $ for this when i can have sigma 105 1.4 for 1600? You guys have a money printer?


It won't be $5k to $7k. Don't believe the doom, gloom, and outright silliness of these people. Go buy the Sigma... but you won't.


----------



## Bangrossi (Jan 18, 2020)

I think the physical size will be comparable to EF version of 200mm f2 or 300mm f2.8. I imagine the 135mm f1.4 just a bist shorter than 200 f2


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Jan 18, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> Don’t forget Canon M series. It is focused on size and weight, on both camera bodies and lensss. Sure, they don’t have the lens line up that compares to Fuji, but the 11-22mm and the 32 F1.4 are really fine, small and lightweight lenses, that I believe is better than Fuji‘s offerings. The 22mm f2 pancake is also worth mentioning. Sigma supplements the longer focal lengths to some degree with their new 56(?) F1.4.



The M6II and 11-22 + 32mm combo is my new daily walk around combo. Light weight compact and great function and image quality.


----------



## Joules (Jan 18, 2020)

Bangrossi said:


> I think the physical size will be comparable to EF version of 200mm f2 or 300mm f2.8. I imagine the 135mm f1.4 just a bist shorter than 200 f2


The EF 200 mm 2.0 is 208mm long, at 162 mm this 135mm 1.4 is a good bit shorter and you save an additional 24 mm is you look at the body + lens combination.



SwissFrank said:


> My mistake, I assumed you'd notice the similarity of the three lenses I was talking about in terms of being fast, short-medium telephotos of a single product line (EF L) by a single manufacturer and comperable quality.


There are definitely similarities, yes. But there are also significant differences from what I can tell looking at the patent (Disclaimer: I may well misinterpret it, so please correct me if you have a better understanding of the description).

Namely:

Far simpler design, the 200mm 2.0 is 17 lenses in 12 groups, the 135mm 1.4 appears to be 13 lenses in 3 (!? Are they just not describing the others?) groups.

Less constraints thanks to the RF mount.

No IS in the 135mm 1.4.

I assume there is a bigger market for a 135mm prime than a 200mm or 300mm prime. This is just based on my subjective impressions though.

As was said earlier, it makes little sense to quarrel about the price of this lens, as we will probably find it out soon enough. I personally would be shocked though if it is above 4k.


----------



## Sator (Jan 18, 2020)

reef58 said:


> You can buy cheaper glass of course but most are assuming if Canon were to build a lens as mentioned they will use the top shelf glass. All that being said I would vote for an MSRP around $3500.



The manual focus Mitakon version of the 135mm f/1.4 costs $3000 USD. It is starry-eyed wishful thinking to believe that Canon would charge only $500 dollars more, especially for a version that also has autofocus, in addition to more state of the art optics. It is understandable that people want to believe it will be cheap but there is every reason to think this is pure fantasy. When did Canon start charging a mere ~15% premium over rival third-party Chinese designs? And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the Canon is highly likely to have autofocus.

Canon have been applying for a lot of patents for optical formulae that use extra aspherical elements to reduce the lens size and weight, but with the latest iterations of the great whites, it has also increased the price. There are a lot of aspherical elements in this patent for the 135mm f/1.4 and this will push up the price. Mitakon's optical designs are hardly the bleeding edge of engineering design either, and that is putting it mildly.

Keep in mind that the Rokinon 135mm f/2.0 manual focus lens costs $430 USD on B&H. The Canon EF 135mm f/2L costs $999, and it is a very old design. On this basis alone, it is reasonable to conclude that a Canon version of a 135mm f/1.4, especially one with autofocus, would likewise cost at least twice the Mitakon version.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 18, 2020)

raptor3x said:


> In AUD, look at the MSRP for the 200mm f/2 ($7499 AUD) vs the 300mm f/2.8 ii ($8099 AUD); right around an 8% price difference. Do you really think a 135mm f/1.4, which requires the same large front elements as the 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8, brought to market 12 years later is going to be half the price? Also look at the new 400mm f/2.8 III and 600mm f/4.0 III. By your thinking the 400 should be substantially cheaper than the 600, but the prices come in at $12K and $13K respectively, also around an 8% price difference.


no, not the same front element size. 92-96mm ain't no 105mm. big difference in size and weight. and no, my thinking is not what you think my thinking is. 
I do not understand why you even brought the 400 vs 600 use case. they are a very similar lenses in size and weight, tech and typical use cases, more or less.

look at Sigma 150-600 Contemporary 90-is mm front filter vs Sigma 150 - 600 Sports 105mm front filter. big difference in weight and cost. granted also difference in construction / build quality, weather sealing. 

In any case, your point is taken. Let's agree to disagree.


----------



## Sator (Jan 18, 2020)

The Sigma 150-600 is a consumer-grade zoom, designed to be cost-effective, and whatever it may weigh or whatever its front element size, it cannot be compared in its optical qualities, and hence price, with high-end great whites. In terms of its engineering-grade and hence pricing, an approximately 3kg 135mm f/1.4 high-end prime beast is going to end up in the same ballpark as the great whites. It may even end up being a great white itself and for these Canon always charges a premium over third-party makers like Sigma, thus giving us another reason not to use the price of Sigma or Tamron lenses to estimate the price of a Canon native lens.

But people who badly want to believe in the tooth fairy are most welcome to do so. There is clearly no point in trying to reason with such thinking. Unfortunately, it is almost routine for people to fantasise online about f/0.95 pancake lenses that cost a few bucks. When the baby with the ridiculously large maximum aperture arrives, reality hits for the first time, and they are horrified at the weight and price of the thing.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 18, 2020)

Sator said:


> The Sigma 150-600 is a consumer-grade zoom, designed to be cost-effective, and whatever it may weigh or whatever its front element size, it cannot be compared in its optical qualities, and hence price, with high-end great whites. In terms of its engineering-grade and hence pricing, an approximately 3kg 135mm f/1.4 high-end prime beast is going to end up in the same ballpark as the great whites. It may even end up being a great white itself.
> 
> But people who badly want to believe in the tooth fairy are most welcome to do so. There is clearly no point in trying to reason with such thinking.


for starters, i compared sigma to sigma.. contemporary vs sports. please read carefully. But people who badly want to believe that others believe in the tooth fairy and not have an alternative opinion that 135mm lens will be hard to market at $6000+ price point especially in this market.
There is clearly no point in trying to reason with such thinking.
here is my opinion: Canon would have to use some tricks in order to bring the size, weight and complexity of the lens down in order to enter the market with a better than $6000 price. ok. make it $4500, this is Canon after all. let's revisit this subject when and if the product was released.


----------



## Joules (Jan 18, 2020)

Sator said:


> The manual focus Mitakon version of the 135mm f/1.4 cost $3000 USD. It is starry-eyed wishful thinking to believe that Canon would charge only $500 dollars more, especially for a version that also has autofocus, in addition to more state of the art optics.





Sator said:


> Canon always charges a premium over third-party makers
> 
> [...]
> 
> But people who badly want to believe in the tooth fairy are most welcome to do so. There is clearly no point in trying to reason with such thinking.


The issue aren't the people, it are the circumstances the presented reasoning is based on.

You for instance seem to imply that the pricing of a one off production run limited to less than 100 units remotely reflects on the costs associated with a 135mm 1.4.

And we saw many comparisons with the current big whites, but those are EF lenses designed for a different system and manufacturing process. They are also aimed at a different kind of photography that may not be purchased in such great volumes as portrait work. We don't really have enough RF mount lenses to draw conclusions on just how much easier and efficient it is to manufacture the new lenses. 

The RF system is a new system though - it needs lenses with big profit margins to offset the initial development cost, yes. But it also needs lenses that are attractive enough to pull people into the system from DSLR and other brands mirrorless systems.

I doubt this lens will materialize if it isn't affordable enough. The great strength of the current RF mount cameras is portrait work, among other things. Giving portrait photographers an option they can't get for another system doesn't really make sense if they can't get it anyway because it is beyond their budget. That just makes the other systems more attractive because they have 'small', 'affordable' 135mm portrait options.

Let's just wait and see rather than throw shade at folks.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 18, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> Don’t forget Canon M series. It is focused on size and weight, on both camera bodies and lensss. Sure, they don’t have the lens line up that compares to Fuji, but the 11-22mm and the 32 F1.4 are really fine, small and lightweight lenses, that I believe is better than Fuji‘s offerings. The 22mm f2 pancake is also worth mentioning. Sigma supplements the longer focal lengths to some degree with their new 56(?) F1.4.



It is a combo that makes very good sense to me. The wide zoom for flexibility at the wide angles (which is very fun to shoot), and the 32mm for bokeh, portraits and low light. The image quality gap from these lenses compared to my full frame cameras and equivalent L lenses is so small that it can be hard to justify the investment in FF. If I ever did a reality check along these lines, I could save a ton of money. 

I must say, the reviews of the new M6II really makes me want to upgrade from my M5.


----------



## sulla (Jan 18, 2020)

The EF 135 f/2 lens really has a very big competitor in the EF 70-200 f/2.8, because f/2 and f/2.8 for many people, myself included, is not enough of a difference to justify a second lens, especially given the versatility of the zoom. Therfore I guess it makes sense to make the 135 lens a f/1.4, also considering Sigma's f/1.8 competition.

Personally, I like the 85 1.2 lens for portraiture, 135 is a bit long to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 18, 2020)

sulla said:


> The EF 135 f/2 lens really has a very big competitor in the EF 70-200 f/2.8, because f/2 and f/2.8 for many people, myself included, is not enough of a difference to justify a second lens, especially given the versatility of the zoom. Therfore I guess it makes sense to make the 135 lens a f/1.4, also considering Sigma's f/1.8 competition.
> 
> Personally, I like the 85 1.2 lens for portraiture, 135 is a bit long to me.


Then you need to change your thinking, f2 - f2.8 is the same as f2.8 - f4, or twice as much light, would you value an f4 zoom the same as an f2.8 zoom? An f2 135mm prime would be smaller lighter and cheaper than a 70-200 f2.8 zoom and let in twice the light thus giving shallower dof and or faster shutter speeds.

I agree that too many people don’t really value the difference and consider the numbers too close, f2 f2.8 does sound too similar! I also agree that for many, despite the tradition of 135mm lenses giving a very complimentary perspective to facial features particularly if the subject has a larger nose, find the focal length a bit long. Though that is countered by the fact that most people use a 70-200 in its place and are often at the 200 end!

Personally I never really bought into the f1.2’s, I just never found a compelling use for the shallow dof, I used to own an FDn 50 1.2L but would far rather have the EF 85 f1.4 than pay so much more for the EF f1.2.


----------



## slclick (Jan 18, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Though that is countered by the fact that most people use a 70-200 in its place and are often at the 200 end!


THIS is why I used a 200 2.8L for years. Lovely lens, light, painted black, unobtrusive, nearly as 'magical' as the 135L. A fantastic tele lendscape lens.Oh and dirt cheap!


----------



## Sator (Jan 18, 2020)

Joules said:


> The issue aren't the people, it are the circumstances the presented reasoning is based on.
> 
> You for instance seem to imply that the pricing of a one off production run limited to less than 100 units remotely reflects on the costs associated with a 135mm 1.4.
> 
> ...



My principle argument has always been that the best guide to the pricing of a hypothetical 135mm f/1.4 from Canon (assuming it has autofocus) is to look at the example of the great whites eg EF 200mm f/2.0, EF 300mm f/2.8, or 400mm f/2.8. Canon would be doing well to keep the weight of a 135mm f/1.4 down at around 3kg even after the addition of the autofocus mechanism. At 3kg it would put it in the same weight class at the 200mm f2.0 (2.5kg), 300mm f/2.8 (2.3kg), 400mm f/2.8 III (2.84kg). It would also be a similar high-end category of lens, several ranks above Chinese third party manual focus lenses like the Mitakon.

The reference to the Mitakon price is simply that it corroborates this notion that high-end glass in this circa 3kg weight category cannot be expected to be cheap, especially since it is being made by Canon...and NOT by a third-party Chinese manufacturer. Nor does comparing with this hypothetical circa 3kg high-end lens to the price of a consumer zoom lens of a similar weight or front element size by Tamron or Sigma provide a helpful comparative price point.

As for the notion that a 135mm f/1.4 will sell like hotcakes, I am rather sceptical. I own the Canon 200mm f/2.0 and it tends to be a studio lens. It's rather too heavy to be able to carry around with you all that much. I couldn't imagine a wedding photographer carrying it around all day instead of, or in addition to, a 70-200mm f/2.8. I was seduced by the thought of the f/2.0 aperture but it's a lot less practical than I thought.

Just because Canon are making this 135mm f/1.4 for the RF mount, it isn't going to make the glass super cheap. In fact, the opposite is true. The Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 costs $2300 USD (B&H current price) vs $1600 (on sale at B&H from the usual $1900 USD) for the EF 24-70mm f/2.8. If anything, the new RF lenses are looking like they are going to be more expensive rather than cheaper, especially if they are being designed with a 100+MP sensor future in mind.

Some might point out quite rightly that Canon are patenting optical formulae that help reduce the size of the lens. That's how they got the size of the 600mm f/4 to 3kg on the Mark III, down from 3.9kg for the Mark II version. However, the weight reduction is accompanied by a price hike from $1,370,000 yen to $1,820,000 yen (Canon JP website, the US price for the Mark II looks discounted)! The use of a lot of aspherical elements in the patent for the 135mm f/1.4 suggests that they are using them in a similar way to reduce the size of the lens. That means it might be possible to keep the weight at around 3kg or slightly less even after the addition of autofocus. All that does is put it in the same weight category as the 200mm f2.0 (2.5kg, $5699), 300mm f/2.8 (2.3kg, $6099), 400mm f/2.8 III (2.84kg, $8000). It simply becomes inconceivable that Canon would sell a high-end lens in this heavyweight-class for thousands of dollars less than these comparative great whites. If you're a diehard optimist then hoping for around $5500 might be the closest thing to a nice bargain for a 135mm f/1.4 with autofocus that you could realistically hope for. Anything less and you might as well hold your breath in expectation of the tooth fairy visiting soon.

Being told that the tooth fairy doesn't exist needn't be received as apocalyptic doom and gloom news. It's just about being realistic rather than falling prey to wishful thinking. It's better to face up to reality sooner than living in fantasy land for longer. Sometimes you also have to be careful what you wish for. You are going to find this circa 3kg beast a lot less practical than you thought it was, and it might end up a white elephant.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 18, 2020)

Sator said:


> My principle argument has always been that the best guide to the pricing of a hypothetical 135mm f/1.4 from Canon (assuming it has autofocus) is to look at the example of the great whites eg EF 200mm f/2.0, EF 300mm f/2.8, or 400mm f/2.8. Canon would be doing well to keep the weight of a 135mm f/1.4 down at around 3kg even after the addition of the autofocus mechanism. At 3kg it would put it in the same weight class at the 200mm f2.0 (2.5kg), 300mm f/2.8 (2.3kg), 400mm f/2.8 III (2.84kg). It would also be a similar high-end category of lens, several ranks above Chinese third party manual focus lenses like the Mitakon.
> 
> The reference to the Mitakon price is simply that it corroborates this notion that high-end glass in this circa 3kg weight category cannot be expected to be cheap, especially since it is being made by Canon...and NOT by a third-party Chinese manufacturer. Nor does comparing with this hypothetical circa 3kg high-end lens to the price of a consumer zoom lens of a similar weight or front element size by Tamron or Sigma provide a helpful comparative price point.
> 
> ...


Except that the weight vs cost theory of yours is turned on it's head by the recent RF heavy glass pricing. Weight/cost is not a linear equation. Canon lenses aren't sold by the pound like pork chops. The lens won't be inexpensive, but it also won't prices into the heights of the super-tele or even EF 200mm f/2L.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Jan 18, 2020)

Canon RF 85mm F1.2 is $2700 at B&H
Canon RF 85mm F1.2 DS is $2999 at B&H

I don't see the 135mm F1.4 costing less than $3000.... $4000 and up seems more likely.


----------



## slclick (Jan 18, 2020)

mistaspeedy said:


> Canon RF 85mm F1.2 is $2700 at B&H
> Canon RF 85mm F1.2 DS is $2999 at B&H
> 
> I don't see the 135mm F1.4 costing less than $3000.... $4000 and up seems more likely.


Are there historical precedents of 1.4 primes being more expensive than 1.2 (within a close focal range please)?


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 18, 2020)

slclick said:


> Are there historical precedents of 1.4 primes being more expensive than 1.2 (within a close focal range please)?


slclick, do I recall correctly reading somewhere that a 135mm is an easier focal length to manufacture that many others?


----------



## mistaspeedy (Jan 18, 2020)

If we look at the Sigma range of products...
85mm F1.4 is $1199
135mm F1.8 is $1399 (two thirds of a stop slower than F1.4, yet it is more expensive)

Zeiss too:
85mm F1.4 Milvus is $1799
135mm F2.0 Milvus is $2199 (one stop slower than F1.4, yet it is more expensive)

Now we have the Canon which is only one third of a stop slower.... my guess is it will also be more expensive.
Canon RF 85mm F1.2 is $2700
Canon RF 135mm F1.4 will be... ? (only one third of a stop slower)


----------



## Viggo (Jan 18, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Then you need to change your thinking, f2 - f2.8 is the same as f2.8 - f4, or twice as much light, would you value an f4 zoom the same as an f2.8 zoom? An f2 135mm prime would be smaller lighter and cheaper than a 70-200 f2.8 zoom and let in twice the light thus giving shallower dof and or faster shutter speeds.
> 
> I agree that too many people don’t really value the difference and consider the numbers too close, f2 f2.8 does sound too similar! I also agree that for many, despite the tradition of 135mm lenses giving a very complimentary perspective to facial features particularly if the subject has a larger nose, find the focal length a bit long. Though that is countered by the fact that most people use a 70-200 in its place and are often at the 200 end!
> 
> Personally I never really bought into the f1.2’s, I just never found a compelling use for the shallow dof, I used to own an FDn 50 1.2L but would far rather have the EF 85 f1.4 than pay so much more for the EF f1.2.


Consider always, two different apertures is not in any way shape or form the only differentiating factor. Comparing the 85 L IS to the RF85 and simply use f1.4 is close enough to f1.2 as the reason for the price difference is misleading.

Otherwise I agree with the first part, and that is why the 200 f2.0 is such a tough sale and the wild prices for them used, not enough people get the difference it really is.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 18, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Consider always, two different apertures is not in any way shape or form the only differentiating factor. Comparing the 85 L IS to the RF85 and simply use f1.4 is close enough to f1.2 as the reason for the price difference is misleading.
> 
> Otherwise I agree with the first part, and that is why the 200 f2.0 is such a tough sale and the wild prices for them used, not enough people get the difference it really is.


The 300's are a better example, 300 f4 L IS @ $1,349, the 300 f2.8 L IS costs $6,099. Even when the two were the same generation the 300 cost 4 times the one stop slower f4.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 18, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The 300's are a better example, 300 f4 L IS @ $1,349, the 300 f2.8 L IS costs $6,099. Even when the two were the same generation the 300 cost 4 times the one stop slower f4.


Yes, but anyone who thinks the price difference is solely based on the aperture is mistaken pretty badly  they are pretty different beasts all together. And that’s my point, one can never judge ”if it’s worth it” based on aperture alone.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Yes, but anyone who thinks the price difference is solely based on the aperture is mistaken pretty badly  they are pretty different beasts all together. And that’s my point, one can never judge ”if it’s worth it” based on aperture alone.


Why? I've used both and own the f2.8, build is comparable as is IQ and feature set the only real separator is the aperture, sure you don't get a case with the f4 but come on, does that cost Canon more than a few dollars to make?

If you compared the 85mm f1.8 and f1.2 the case could be made for build quality etc making the difference in price, but that really isn't true with the 300's.


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 19, 2020)

Sator said:


> As for the notion that a 135mm f/1.4 will sell like hotcakes, I am rather sceptical. I own the Canon 200mm f/2.0 and it tends to be a studio lens. It's rather too heavy to be able to carry around with you all that much. I couldn't imagine a wedding photographer carrying it around all day instead of, or in addition to, a 70-200mm f/2.8. I was seduced by the thought of the f/2.0 aperture but it's a lot less practical than I thought.



For me the strength of the 200mm f/2.0 was always indoor sports and/or outdoor portraiture. For regular indoor work it's definitely an extremely awkward lens.


----------



## beckstoy (Jan 19, 2020)

I've stuck with EF (EOS) bodies lately (5DMIV) because mirrorless isn't blowing me away (yet), but this lens alone will drive my 5DMIV's into retirement! This lens, with true pro-level mirrorless, is gonna be amazing!!

2020/2021 is going to be fun! 

...and expensive...


----------



## Franklyok (Jan 19, 2020)

Take can patent all they want just for the sake of patenting and not release anything. 

Probably another 5 kg lens, death on arrival because of weight and price complaining photographers.


----------



## Sator (Jan 19, 2020)

I think the starry-eyed optimists need to start a GoFundMe page to collect deposits ($1000 perhaps) for the 135mm f/1.4 with a guaranteed maximum ceiling price of $3500 USD. If it is any more expensive the person who owns the page gets to pay out the difference.


----------



## sulla (Jan 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Then you need to change your thinking, f2 - f2.8 is the same as f2.8 - f4, or twice as much light, would you value an f4 zoom the same as an f2.8 zoom? An f2 135mm prime would be smaller lighter and cheaper than a 70-200 f2.8 zoom and let in twice the light thus giving shallower dof and or faster shutter speeds.
> 
> I agree that too many people don’t really value the difference and consider the numbers too close, f2 f2.8 does sound too similar! I also agree that for many, despite the tradition of 135mm lenses giving a very complimentary perspective to facial features particularly if the subject has a larger nose, find the focal length a bit long. Though that is countered by the fact that most people use a 70-200 in its place and are often at the 200 end!
> 
> Personally I never really bought into the f1.2’s, I just never found a compelling use for the shallow dof, I used to own an FDn 50 1.2L but would far rather have the EF 85 f1.4 than pay so much more for the EF f1.2.


I do indeed understand the difference between f/2.8 and f/2, between f/2 and f/1.4. Its just that I concluded for myself that a difference of "only" one stop is not enough to justify the expenditure of a separate lens, so besides 2.8 zoom I am also not so fond of 1.8 primes, when there is a 1.4 available as well. I like low-light, so it's really about the light gathering. Thus 85 f/1.2 trumps 135 f/2 als well.

From many reviews I read, quite a few people also rather seldomly use their 135 f/2 besides their 70-200 f/2.8.


----------



## Sator (Jan 19, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Except that the weight vs cost theory of yours is turned on it's head by the recent RF heavy glass pricing. Weight/cost is not a linear equation. Canon lenses aren't sold by the pound like pork chops. The lens won't be inexpensive, but it also won't prices into the heights of the super-tele or even EF 200mm f/2L.


So show us an example of a top notch Canon L lens that weighs 2.5-3kg and costs around $3500 USD?????? It exists in the same same unicorns and rainbows fairy world as this fantasy $3500 135mm f/1.4 lens.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Why? I've used both and own the f2.8, build is comparable as is IQ and feature set the only real separator is the aperture, sure you don't get a case with the f4 but come on, does that cost Canon more than a few dollars to make?
> 
> If you compared the 85mm f1.8 and f1.2 the case could be made for build quality etc making the difference in price, but that really isn't true with the 300's.


After owning both I have to respectfully disagree, they aren’t even close in build and IQ, and the AF of the f4 is good, but the 2.8 is insane. The f4 isn’t weathersealed properly and also uses the very old IS unit.

what you seem to say is that you get everything but the stop of light. Bump the iso and the 300 f2.8 and f4 is the same, which isn’t true 

same as with the RF85 and the 85 L IS. And even more so with the 200 f2.8 and the 200 f2

whether one cares about the rest of the differences or is neither here nor there.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 19, 2020)

Sator said:


> So show us an example of a top notch Canon L lens that weighs 2.5-3kg and costs around $3500 USD?????? It exists in the same same unicorns and rainbows fairy world as this fantasy $3500 135mm f/1.4 lens.


do you expect the Canon 135/1.4 lens to weigh 2.5-3.0kg ? I suggest it would weigh around 1.5-1.6kg instead.
400/2.8 III lens is around 2.8kg. right?


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 19, 2020)

Sator said:


> So show us an example of a top notch Canon L lens that weighs 2.5-3kg and costs around $3500 USD?????? It exists in the same same unicorns and rainbows fairy world as this fantasy $3500 135mm f/1.4 lens.


Sure, just as soon as you prove how you get your imaginary weight for this lens. It's a 135mm prime for gosh sake. Even the complex RF 28-70 f/2L zoom with a 95mm front filter thread weighs in at 1.406 kiliograms. The RF 85mm f/1.2L weighs 1.195kg and has an 82mm front element.

Anyway, until you people can prove your imaginary unicorn and fairies rainbow guesstimates there is no reason for the more level headed to prove theirs. This ain't no 400mm lens. It ain't no great white either.

BTW: It won't cost $3,500-$4,000, but even if it does... ahhhhma buyer.


----------



## RunAndGun (Jan 19, 2020)

Maybe this will help better guesstimate the weight.

Tokina makes a Cine 135mm T1.5 and it weighs 3.07kg/6.77lbs. And costs $9K...

Their Cine 85mm T1.5 is 2.23kg/4.92lbs.

Canon’s still 85mm f/1.2 is 1.025kg/2.3lbs and their Cine version(85mm T1.3) is 1.3kg/2.9lbs.

So I’m gonna guess that those saying a Canon 135mm f/1.4 still lens would be around 1.5kg/3.3lbs to 2kg/4.4lbs are probably right.


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 19, 2020)

The RF mount will be totally drool worthy if this and other recent patents come to fruition. We just need some solid news of quality primes like macro, wide and TS-E to broaden the lens range as its all very potrait/social photographer based at this moment. Oh and of course better cameras.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 19, 2020)

RunAndGun said:


> Maybe this will help better guesstimate the weight.
> 
> Tokina Cine 85mm T1.5 is 2.23kg/4.92lbs.


Canon Cinema Prime CN-E 85mm T1.3 L F (EF Mount) Lens = 2.87lbs

So there's that. 2 lbs lighter for the Canon and for a faster lens. Right?

There's a big difference in materials and construction between a Cine and a regular old FF stills lens. Brand to brand differences are also huge sometimes. Comparing Tokina vs Canon just doesn't fly too well.


----------



## RunAndGun (Jan 19, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon Cinema Prime CN-E 85mm T1.3 L F (EF Mount) Lens = 2.87lbs
> 
> So there's that. 2 lbs lighter for the Canon and for a faster lens. Right?
> 
> *There's a big difference in materials and construction between a Cine and a regular old FF stills lens. Brand to brand differences are also huge sometimes*. Comparing *Tokina vs Canon* just doesn't fly too well.



Exactly, but I think you’re missing the point. I’m showing just how heavy a comparable Cine 135 is to show that a stills version will be/should be much lighter. Especially when you compare even just the Cine versions of two similar lenses between the two manufacturers.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jan 20, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Be still my beating heart! If this comes to fruition I will be one very happy guy! Please Canon. Please! A native f/2 would be fine, f/1.4 would be sublime. Wondering what the front filter thread size would be. 105mm+?


Roughlt the same as the 300 2,8


----------



## noncho (Jan 20, 2020)

My Sigma 135 1.8 is nearly perfect(picture quality), the AF is good enough to use it also for indoor sports. The size and weight are good for 5D/1D bodies. The only thing that can be improved can be done with ... IBIS.
135 1.4 can't have faster focus than 1.8/2.0 due the big elements. It will be also heavy, big and expensive. I'ts too much for me. I would appreciate more for example more compact 180/2.0 (not big and heavy white style as 200/2 please).


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 21, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> No, just as the 135/2 and 200/2.8 are practically the same lens, the 135/1.4 and 200/2 will be too. Canon's clearly prioritizing light weight in the big tele's now, so the 135/1.4 may weigh a lot less than the old EF 200/2, but will be approx the same as the next 200/2 we see from Canon whether EF or RF.
> 
> And likewise, I agree Canon's trying to get a bit of a premium on the RF lenses in general, and for an RF lens that's a show-stopper (f/2 zoom, or the sharpness of the 50/1.2) there's also a "show-stopper premium." Any manufacturer charges more for the latest greatest and discounts old items a bit. And finally sales figures are evaporating meaning that whatever IS made will have its R&D amortized over far fewer units.
> 
> Throw all that together and I'd be comfortable betting you or anyone a beer that an RF 135/1.4 is going to initially be at least US$500 more than the EF 200/2.


I'll take that bet.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 23, 2020)

Wouldn't it be nice to fit it with extenders?
1,4 X Ext + 1,4/135: 190mm f2
2 X Ext + 1,4/135: 270mm f2,8


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 23, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Wouldn't it be nice to fit it with extenders?
> 1,4 X Ext + 1,4/135: 190mm f2
> 2 X Ext + 1,4/135: 270mm f2,8


Yes! I had the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II and the 2X. It was a real chore to AFMA that combo for me. With mirrorless, no problem.


----------



## Dexter75 (Jan 23, 2020)

This thing is going to weigh 3 pounds and cost $3500. No thanks, I’ll stick with my EF 135 f/2 I picked up for $600. Where are the affordable RF primes? It’s going on two years now....


----------



## BigShooter (Oct 11, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> This plus a sports worthy R-series body would likely be enough to bring me back to Canon. I would fully expect this lens to be in the $6-8K range though.


Absolute guff. You can buy 2 x 200mm f/2 IS USM L lenses for 8k. Your pricing is in fantasy land. The 135 focal length is a bread and butter lens for prime shooters, with a wide target market. These would sell by the bucketload, bringing the price a lot lower than your crazy fantasy pricing!


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 11, 2021)

BigShooter said:


> Absolute guff. You can buy 2 x 200mm f/2 IS USM L lenses for 8k. Your pricing is in fantasy land. The 135 focal length is a bread and butter lens for prime shooters, with a wide target market. These would sell by the bucketload, bringing the price a lot lower than your crazy fantasy pricing!



Unless you're looking at beaters on the used market you absolutely cannot buy 2x 200mm f/2 IS for $8K. The 200mm f/2 IS was released at $5700 in 2008. In a similar timeframe, 2011-2018, the 400 2.8 IS MK2 to 400 2.8 IS MK3 saw a price increase of 20% from $10K to $12K. A similar price increase compared to the 200mm f/2, since it's a lens with similar entrance pupil requirements, would put the price somewhere around $7K.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 11, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> Unless you're looking at beaters on the used market you absolutely cannot buy 2x 200mm f/2 IS for $8K. The 200mm f/2 IS was released at $5700 in 2008. In a similar timeframe, 2011-2018, the 400 2.8 IS MK2 to 400 2.8 IS MK3 saw a price increase of 20% from $10K to $12K. A similar price increase compared to the 200mm f/2, since it's a lens with similar entrance pupil requirements, would put the price somewhere around $7K.


I’ve bought two of them in absolute mint condition for around $2900 a piece, and that includes our 25% VAT. It’s probably one the cheapest lenses to buy used vs new.


----------



## JairoMartinez (Oct 13, 2021)

Do we know when this classic prime will be out?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2021)

F/1.4 is unacceptible. Must be f/1.2. Must be. I don't care about all the stupid "you can't tell thje difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4" arguements. I don't care. Do I need it? Hell no! So what? That's what I want, by God!  So don't care about strangers telling me what I need or don't need. Need does not factor in. I want. That's enough.


----------



## JairoMartinez (Dec 8, 2021)

Any news on this lens yet?


----------

