# The Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L USM is coming in Q4 of 2022 [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2022)

> We have confirmed yesterdays report about two new full-frame RF mount lenses in the RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro and the RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM.
> Our assumption that they would be announced in the next few weeks may have been incorrect. These lenses may not be announced until October or November of this year.
> A third lens will also be announced by November, and that will be the RF 135mm f/1.8L USM (we’re not sure about IS). A Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM has been on our roadmap for quite some time, and we have seen patents for such an optical formula. However, it looks like we’re getting an f/1.8 version of the very popular focal length.
> There has been no word on the much rumored RF 35mm f/1.2L USM. We will actively try to get some new information.



Continue reading...


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 24, 2022)

F1.8 is plenty, no need to make the lens 3kg.


----------



## sanj (Jun 24, 2022)

I would prefer 1.2 or at least 1.4.


----------



## roby17269 (Jun 24, 2022)

Come to daddy  
So sad about no news for the 35L though  that one feels more needed... for me.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 24, 2022)

I love it when there's a set of new lenses discussed and I could see myself buying all three!

F1.8 is definitely preferred for me over 1.4 for the 135mm. Definitely more handholdable and usable. 

The STM wide angle may get picked up if it's cheap enough and good enough quality. I wouldn't mind a smaller option than the 16-35 for travel.

The 24mm prime is a big want for me and I will be very excited to pick that one up!


----------



## jdavidse (Jun 24, 2022)

Excellent! This is great news that it will be 1.8. No need for a 1.4 which would just put it out of reach financially and add weight and size. I would still rather it were a f2, just so we could get a true size advantage to the f2.


----------



## Mistral75 (Jun 24, 2022)

It's not the first time you're talking about an RF 135mm f/1.8L. Last time was in May 2019 and it was supposed to be announced by February 2020. It was ranked [CR2].








Three new RF prime lenses coming in early 2020 [CR2]


We were told that three new fast L primes will be announced for the RF mount in early 2020. They include an RF 24mm f/1.4L USM and an RF 135mm f/1.8L along with



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 24, 2022)

I have an EF135 f/2 that still takes really nice pictures, so I'll probably pass. I can't see ever wanting an f/1.4 or f/1.2 version. The front element of a 135 f/1.4 would be at least 96mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2022)

I’m happy for those looking for an updated 135/2, assuming this rumor pans out. 

Personally, I’m very meh on the prospect of a 135/1.8. I had the 135/2, and while I found it to be a very good lens for portraits, I also found that the 70-200/2.8 was better. The zoom range offers more flexibility, and the same subject isolation as 135/2 can be achieved at 160/2.8 (or 170/2.8 for 135/1.8). 

The RF 70-200/2.8 reduces the main advantage of the 135/2 over its EF counterpart, because the RF version is substantially smaller and lighter.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The RF 70-200/2.8 reduces the main advantage of the 135/2 over its EF counterpart, because the RF version is substantially smaller and lighter.


And would there be a similar reduction with an RF 135 f/2 with maybe 500g (the EF weights 750g) there would be a good advantage. And this is not the case if its f/1.8 or even 1.4.

Yes, an old design weights a lot more than these new compact RF zooms. I "only" use the RF 70 200 f/4, but this is awesome...


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 24, 2022)

Unless the 135mm f/1.8 is compatible with the 2x teleconferter, I don’t see a reason to buy it over the Sigma EF 135 since that lens is already so optically beautiful and will likely be half the price.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jun 24, 2022)

jdavidse said:


> Excellent! This is great news that it will be 1.8. No need for a 1.4 which would just put it out of reach financially and add weight and size. I would still rather it were a f2, just so we could get a true size advantage to the f2.


What do we think this thing will cost? I agree a 1.4 would have been similar to a 300 2.8 based on element size. But I could see this one still be $2k. 

-Brian


----------



## john1970 (Jun 24, 2022)

I would be really interested in hearing an update on the 35 mm f1.2. I already have the RF 70-200 mm f2.8 and do not have a need for a 135 mm f1.8.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 24, 2022)

Mistral75 said:


> It's not the first time you're talking about an RF 135mm f/1.8L. Last time was in May 2019 and it was supposed to be announced by February 2020. It was ranked [CR2].


"[CR2] – This rating means there’s a strong possibility that the information has some truth to it, but it may be incomplete and/or misinterpreted information."

So based on that definition, there's no guarantee the lens would have been announced then.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 24, 2022)

Good to hear it's not supposed to be f/1.4.
I've bought and sold the EF version at least 5 times. I hope I don't do that again if I end up buying this. LOL


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jun 24, 2022)

It’s probably going to cost almost double what the Sigma costs for it to be just a little bit faster and an incremental increase in sharpness.


----------



## mxwphoto (Jun 24, 2022)

The 135 f2 was released April 1996 with MSRP $1089. That translates to $2029 in today's dollars. Also, given Sony's 135 f1.8 is $1900 MSRP back in 2019 ($2172 today), I assume the new Canon version would fall around $2299.

This new one will have to really impress for me to consider switching as I got a used f2 for $500.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 24, 2022)

-100mm -f/0.6 when?


----------



## xps (Jun 24, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> What do we think this thing will cost? I agree a 1.4 would have been similar to a 300 2.8 based on element size. But I could see this one still be $2k.
> 
> -Brian


2000 EUROS would be great, but in my thoughts Canon will place it at atl least 2500-2600 Euros. If you add the Ucraine-war-and-oil-and-gas-is-missing crisis to the calculation 2999 Euroe could come true. I hope, I´m not right


----------



## vjlex (Jun 24, 2022)

Mistral75 said:


> It's not the first time you're talking about an RF 135mm f/1.8L. Last time was in May 2019 and it was supposed to be announced by February 2020. It was ranked [CR2].
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I still don't quite understand why people don't want to give CR Guy the benefit of any doubt. Especially regarding any rumors around the 2020-2021 'lost years'. Just because rumors aren't promises doesn't mean they're lies.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jun 24, 2022)

What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.


It’s the classic headshot portrait focal length.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 24, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.


As neuro says, classic tight head portrait as at 135 it’s safely inside the 100mm threshold for a flattering perspective (on FF), but not so long as to be difficult to handle. The 135L also has slight pincushion distortion which again is flattering for all but the skinniest people. However, personally I prefer the 200mm focal length for various reasons.


----------



## roby17269 (Jun 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s the classic headshot portrait focal length.


I also had it and loved it for kids photography: great distance for when they roam around to play


----------



## camerone (Jun 24, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.


The EF 135/2 _could_ be used for indoor sports too if you really need to minimize ISO. personally I use mine for pets and cars. 

honestly I just love using it, period. A 70-200/2.8 is more practical and gets you like 85-90% of the way to the 135/2 at 135mm but that last 10%... Also, I prefer primes, I think they make me a better photographer, and I don't think I'm alone in that


----------



## Colorado (Jun 24, 2022)

camerone said:


> honestly I just love using it, period. A 70-200/2.8 is more practical and gets you like 85-90% of the way to the 135/2 at 135mm but that last 10%... Also, I prefer primes, I think they make me a better photographer, and I don't think I'm alone in that



Yeah I agree and I don't know exactly why. I had the EF70-200 (f4 but still) and the EF135 f2 and I just vastly preferred the pics and the shooting experience with the 135. It was, again for unexplainable reasons, the lens I would nature walk with especially for fall colors. It forced me to not just take 24mm landscapes but instead focus in on an interesting composition while at the same time letting me photograph things close to me. I've been selling off my EF lenses but the the 135 (with an EF->RF converter) will be the last one I sell.

That said I don't know when that would be. The RF version would have to be vastly superior to tempt me as there are many other RF lenses that I would want first.


----------



## max (Jun 24, 2022)

sanj said:


> I would prefer 1.2 or at least 1.4.


The 2.0 is 500gr lens! It is a bliss to use. If you want a 1.4 or 1.2 you will have to buy bigger more expensive lenses.

This to me is all I want! It is the lens that is keeping me from jumping to EOS R series.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 24, 2022)

It’s remarkable how many here wax lyrical about the 135L but use the past tense.


----------



## max (Jun 24, 2022)

xps said:


> 2000 EUROS would be great, but in my thoughts Canon will place it at atl least 2500-2600 Euros. If you add the Ucraine-war-and-oil-and-gas-is-missing crisis to the calculation 2999 Euroe could come true. I hope, I´m not right


wow! I was not expecting close to 2.500.... The original EF goes for less than 1.000


----------



## jdavidse (Jun 24, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> Come to daddy
> So sad about no news for the 35L though  that one feels more needed... for me.


For me, the EF 35L II is hard to fault. Better other lenses are prioritized for a while.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jun 24, 2022)

xps said:


> 2000 EUROS would be great, but in my thoughts Canon will place it at atl least 2500-2600 Euros. If you add the Ucraine-war-and-oil-and-gas-is-missing crisis to the calculation 2999 Euroe could come true. I hope, I´m not right


$2500-$2600 would be an insane price but you might be right. $2000-$2200 would be reasonable. Shame Samyang stopped making RF glass because their new 135mm f1.8 absolutely stellar and matches the Sony GM equivalent in IQ but for half the price.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Jun 24, 2022)

As long as it's 'magickal' and not Sigma clinical. Not a fan of the sticker look. 

Similar to Nuero's take, although I never felt as he did with any of the EF versions, I am smitten by the RF 70-200 f/4 and no longer feel the compulsion to buy a RF 135 with that on my R6.


----------



## Skux (Jun 24, 2022)

f/1.8 is fine, once you get past 100mm your backgrounds are going to blur out at maximum aperture anyway. Even my old Takumar 135mm f/3.5 produces lovely bokeh.

The only catch is the more expensive and narrower it gets, the more it competes with Canon's own 70-200. Unless you are doing headshots all day I think most people would choose the versatility of the zoom.


----------



## SebastiaoSal (Jun 24, 2022)

No, no, no, I want the RF 70-135mm F/2L instead


----------



## Act444 (Jun 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I’m very meh on the prospect of a 135/1.8. I had the 135/2, and while I found it to be a very good lens for portraits, I also found that the 70-200/2.8 was better. The zoom range offers more flexibility, and the same subject isolation as 135/2 can be achieved at 160/2.8 (or 170/2.8 for 135/1.8).


I am as well. I also had the EF 135 f2 and while it was great for low-light action back when I was using APS-C DSLRs, since going 100% FF it sat unused until I finally let it go. Not quite long enough to provide sufficient reach for faraway subjects, and I tend to prefer a less compressed look for portraiture (100mm or wider). Additionally, for me the 70-200 2.8 (and occasionally the 70-300 L) cover any 135mm needs just fine.

That said - offering a fast 135mm option is good for the RF system as a whole. Personally I'm interested to see if a 100 or 105mm f1.4 ever shows up...


----------



## danfaz (Jun 25, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> It’s remarkable how many here wax lyrical about the 135L but use the past tense.


Yep, I'm one of them. LOL


----------



## navastronia (Jun 25, 2022)

danfaz said:


> Good to hear it's not supposed to be f/1.4.
> I've bought and sold the EF version at least 5 times. I hope I don't do that again if I end up buying this. LOL


 . . . . 5?! Seems like you would have learned to keep it/sell it after like, maybe 3 times. But who am I to talk, I've certainly bought and returned lots of gear in the past.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 25, 2022)

Finally, a good rumor lol


----------



## melgross (Jun 25, 2022)

However Canon us doing it, they’re increasing their RF lens count nicely.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Jun 25, 2022)

The 135 f/2L is an amazing all rounder. Portraits, abstraction, landscape, indoor sports etc. It's only limits are you.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 25, 2022)

max said:


> The 2.0 is 500gr lens! It is a bliss to use. If you want a 1.4 or 1.2 you will have to buy bigger more expensive lenses.
> 
> This to me is all I want! It is the lens that is keeping me from jumping to EOS R series.


Well, if you like it on an EF camera, you'd have a near orgasmic experience with it on an R series camera... thanks to the eye AF.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 25, 2022)

Yes, the 70/200 is more versatile.
But it's much longer, heavier and, being white, far more visible for candid shots. Ii just shouts "did you see me ?"...
I often use my 135mm in cities for "stolen"portraits, even for "macros" of larger flowers (dahlias) at F2. The only reason for me to buy the RF version would improved close-up abilities.


----------



## jam05 (Jun 25, 2022)

chasingrealness said:


> Unless the 135mm f/1.8 is compatible with the 2x teleconferter, I don’t see a reason to buy it over the Sigma EF 135 since that lens is already so optically beautiful and will likely be half the price.


Unless one wants the control ring etc


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 25, 2022)

On one hand, this would take me down to only 2 EF lenses in my bag - the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS and the Sigma 28mm f/1.4. On the other hand, as others have mentioned, my existing Sigma 135 f/1.8 is superb, and if the RF is "priced premium", it begs the question as to whether it makes more sense to get the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 instead... A lens I was resisting due to the fact that I have that 85, a 24 - 105 f/4, a 100 - 500, and I don't shoot a lot of sports limited to 200 (else I would have chosen it over the 100 - 500 to begin with). Being unable to use TC's with it makes it very narrow in purpose for me. 

Filter thread size is also a concern; everything in my bag is 77mm or less, except the 15-35 and that Sigma 135mm which are both 82mm, so I have standardized on 82mm filters. I would love to be at 77mm instead, but I got the 15-35 before the 14-35 was available, and in retrospect I love being able to get down to 15, have f/2.8, have IS, and have minimal optical distortion compared to other Canon RF ultrawides; it's literally the lens I use most. If this lens would be bigger than 77mm but not 82mm, I'm out.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 25, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Me too. Out of 15 EF lenses, the only one left is the 135/2.0. I love it. It can blur a background even when subject is full-body in a landscape frame, which that background is far less magnified and thus more recognizable than the 200/2.8 (or 70-200/2.8). Meanwhile, the 85/1.2 spec-wise should also be able to do that


If you use the same view with the 85 1.2 you get the same blurry background yes, but on the more distance view of the 135L you have a little bit more depth of field for the subject. The EF 135 was more easy to focus, because the whole person is in the depth of field - but with eye AF its no matter anymore. (i never used a 85 1.2 on a R yet)
With the distance to the subject you can more easily take pictures of children, they are playing undisturbed.
And so the EF135 (along with the TSE17) stays forever, because both replacements would be more than double the cost... this price I used for the camera or an additional lens (the 70-200 f/4 was expensive, but worth it, because its so tiny and now ALWAYS in my backpack)

I have an R5, which has 3 wheels, so I don't need a 4th on the lens... it works well. Maybe for a R or RP or the upcoming replacements (which I don't think will come soon, because Canon will stay in the number scheme now) it was a good idea with the ring. I would buy a cheaper L-lens without the ring, because I wouldn't use it as like the rotating distance scale on EF lenses. Relict of the analogue era...


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 25, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Unless one wants the control ring etc


He probably has a control ring adapter, as I do.


----------



## roby17269 (Jun 25, 2022)

jdavidse said:


> For me, the EF 35L II is hard to fault. Better other lenses are prioritized for a while.


I am sure it is, but I am not going to spend non-trivial money on EF lenses now. And I am not going to buy the RF 35mm 1.8 since I know that I'd buy the 35L when it will be available and I wouldn't be using the 1.8 anymore after that


----------



## Chrisinhouston (Jun 25, 2022)

It's quite doable. I own the Sigma ART 135mm f/1.8 in the EF mount and love it for portraits.


----------



## Atlasman (Jun 25, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.


I used the EF 135mm f2 for hockey coverage indoors. I opted to leave the 70-200mm f2.8 at home in exchange for a lighter package. I shot an entire day of coverage with this one lens. I used this lens for event photography and got outstanding results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> I am sure it is, but I am not going to spend non-trivial money on EF lenses now.


^^This. 

My oldest Is starting high school this fall, and will be on the field in the evening with typical high school lighting. A 300/2.8 would be ideal for that, but I’m not going to buy the EF version at this point. If Canon launches an RF version, I will pre-order it.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jun 25, 2022)

sanj said:


> I would prefer 1.2 or at least 1.4.


I’m an f/0.95 guy myself…


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 25, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> I’m an f/0.95 guy myself…


Noctilux!


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 25, 2022)

I’m actually a little disappointed with this news because I was planning on replacing a Sigma 135 1.8 but could live with the 1.8 on that lens. But if they fail to make the rumored 35mm 1.2 I’ll be pissed. I’ve been holding out for that lens for a long time and the fast 1.2 on a 35 is important for my needs. 


blackcoffee17 said:


> F1.8 is plenty, no need to make the lens 3kg.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 25, 2022)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> It’s probably going to cost almost double what the Sigma costs for it to be just a little bit faster and an incremental increase in sharpness.


Don’t forget as a native lens it would likely acquire focus faster as well. So a good upgrade


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 25, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.


 portraiture


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 25, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.


For almost everything!
(Landscapes, people, cities, flowers, portraits, dogs, children, sports and so much more !)


----------



## entoman (Jun 25, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.


Maybe stop thinking in terms of which *subjects* the lens is suitable for, as it can be used for almost anything...

Instead, I'd recommend thinking in terms of *how* a lens of this focal length can be used to enhance the subjects that you normally shoot - i.e. take advantage of the compressed perspective, subject isolation and reduced depth of field to add variety to your images


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 25, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> For almost everything!
> (Landscapes, people, cities, flowers, portraits, dogs, children, sports and so much more !)


Astrophotography. But of course with a tracker.

__
https://flic.kr/p/2c3iJYn
Or panorama stitched 

__
https://flic.kr/p/PNV87z
;-)


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 25, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Me too. Out of 15 EF lenses, the only one left is the 135/2.0. I love it. It can blur a background even when subject is full-body in a landscape frame, which that background is far less magnified and thus more recognizable than the 200/2.8 (or 70-200/2.8). Meanwhile, the 85/1.2 spec-wise should also be able to do that, but it was one of the worst lenses in the EF catalog, with huge light fall-off into the corners, poor OOF highlight circles into the corners, very slow AF, heavy and ackward, and hard to avoid touching the rear element when mounting and unmounting. And not great sharpness either. All that said, I'd switch in a second to an RF were the RF demonstrably better.


In defence of the 85mm 1.2, I agree it’s slow focusing , it’s easy to miss focus . However it takes absolutely beautiful portraits, mine is incredibly sharp stepped down (when used in studio with flash - the detail on a 5DSR is shocking). I often shoot it at 1.2 , I love how it looks, very complimentary. Well worth the focusing effort. 70-200mm is the most reliable portrait lens and also is brilliant fit portraits. 200mm F2 is beautiful but heavy (I’d prefer a 135mm F2 rather than a heavier F1.8 but I could see Canon making it a differentiation point. For me for head shots the EF 300mm 2.8 II is my favourite, so sharp but complimentary. I’ve a big collection of Canon lens and I’d rate it as the best, great for sport, wildlife and portraits.


----------



## mxwphoto (Jun 25, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Me too. Out of 15 EF lenses, the only one left is the 135/2.0. I love it. It can blur a background even when subject is full-body in a landscape frame, which that background is far less magnified and thus more recognizable than the 200/2.8 (or 70-200/2.8). Meanwhile, the 85/1.2 spec-wise should also be able to do that, but it was one of the worst lenses in the EF catalog, with huge light fall-off into the corners, poor OOF highlight circles into the corners, very slow AF, heavy and ackward, and hard to avoid touching the rear element when mounting and unmounting. And not great sharpness either. All that said, I'd switch in a second to an RF were the RF demonstrably better.


The 85 1.2 ii on a R series camera is magical. Yes, focusing is not fastest, but with eye AF I am able to get sharp portraits of my kids running around. The dreaded cut off bokeh balls due to mirrorbox is resolved and sharpness wide open is actually quite decent. Some chromatic abberation does reduce apparent sharpness and contrast, but if one pixel peep they can still count the eyelash hairs and skin pores. Because of that though, it renders skin imperfections a bit more forgivingly than the new RF version.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 25, 2022)

chasingrealness said:


> Unless the 135mm f/1.8 is compatible with the 2x teleconferter, I don’t see a reason to buy it over the Sigma EF 135 since that lens is already so optically beautiful and will likely be half the price.



With some of the L lenses, they're putting in accelerometers, which contribute to IBIS effectiveness, even if the lens itself doesn't itself have IS. For instance, the RF 85 f/1.2 (non-IS) shows 8 stops of IBIS with a camera that claims around 5 stops of IBIS.

That they haven't done this more has been surprising and a little disappointing. I'd probably sell something to get the new 135 f/1.8 if it accomplished something similar.

I do have to say that my Sigma glass (including - for now - the 135mm f/1.8) has all vastly improved now that I'm shooting with IBIS. Used to be its biggest disadvantage.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> ^^This.
> 
> My oldest Is starting high school this fall, and will be on the field in the evening with typical high school lighting. A 300/2.8 would be ideal for that, but I’m not going to buy the EF version at this point. If Canon launches an RF version, I will pre-order it.



It's heavier than you'd like, but I picked up an original EF 300 f/2.8 mark I for some obscure use cases (mostly woodcock at dusk). It's ugly, but the glass is great, and I got it for about $800. The newer versions are all noticeably better image quality wise, but the original is no slouch. If you're OK with a monopod, you'd likely be able to buy it until the RF version came out, and then sell it for just about the same price after.


----------



## Nemorino (Jun 25, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> With some of the L lenses, they're putting in accelerometers, which contribute to IBIS effectiveness, even if the lens itself doesn't itself have IS. For instance, the RF 85 f/1.2 (non-IS) shows 8 stops of IBIS with a camera that claims around 5 stops of IBIS.


The most interesting of these lenses is IMO the 28-70 f/2, one of the first four lenses of the RF. Years before the first bodies with IBIS have been released.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 26, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> With some of the L lenses, they're putting in accelerometers, which contribute to IBIS effectiveness, even if the lens itself doesn't itself have IS. For instance, the RF 85 f/1.2 (non-IS) shows 8 stops of IBIS with a camera that claims around 5 stops of IBIS. [..]


Canon marketing says the extra stops are due to the image circle being a lot bigger than the sensor on those lenses.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 26, 2022)

Hopefulle there is a new title just before announcement:
from RF 135mm f/1.8L USM is coming
to RF 135mm f/1.8L* IS* USM is coming
for my EOS RP.
If not maybe I will buy one because I really liked the 135mm focal length
(with Canon EF camera + FD 2.5 135 S.C.) and maybe a better
capital investment as other things with enhanced fun factor!


----------



## Quackator (Jun 26, 2022)

Since the Sigma 135mm ART is exceptionally good, there's no need for a Canon equivalent anymore.
I'd rather love to see a 2.0/70-135mm come to life.

Sigma ART or Canon RF L - I don't mind.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 26, 2022)

Quackator said:


> Since the Sigma 135mm ART is exceptionally good, there's no need for a Canon equivalent anymore.
> I'd rather love to see a 2.0/70-135mm come to life.
> 
> Sigma ART or Canon RF L - I don't mind.


There is still a need for a Canon:
Canon want their $$$$$ share !
But agree a 70-135 would be fine, yet horribly expensive...


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 26, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> It's not clear to me it'd be more than a 70-200/2.8. Both would have a 72mm maximum aperture so would be approximately the same amount of glass.


I hope you're right, but since this will be a "special" lens without any competition from the generalists, I'm afraid the pricing could be a bit higher...
And, designing a wide open zoom could result in the use of expensive glass types.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Jun 26, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> What type of photography does one use 135mm for? Honest question. That's long...but not super long....it's not short enough for close-up photography or landscape...and it lacks the reach you would need if on the sidelines of a sporting event.


There's a lot of ways that have been well described above, I'll point out that it's one of my best lenses and I find ways to use it. I also as more of a duffer with children getting older am less in need of reporting/catching every event vs getting hopefully one or two great shots to remember them by. I'd much prefer a wide open shot with the 135/2 then a zoom shot with a more distracting background. If I can't move around I miss some shots, but it's light and amazing when I can use it. I'll usually bring the 135 and the EF-S 55-250 to any play or sporting event, and if I have the space I'll bring two bodies, that whole set costs less than an L zoom 70-200 2.8.


----------



## Chubz (Jun 27, 2022)

Seems I’m in the minority, but I’m disappointed this will be f1.8. The lens roadmap has been mostly accurate to date and I’ve been excitedly waiting -- for what feels like years now -- for a 135mm f1.4.

Sigma, Sony and Samyang already make excellent 135 f1.8s and I can’t see this Canon lens being much better. Making yet another 135mm f1.8 just seems to lack ambition. Sure, it will fill a gap in the RF system, but Canon had a real opportunity here to make an “ultimate portrait lens” which could have attracted people from other systems.

If Canon weren’t so hostile to 3rd party manufacturers then I’m sure Sigma/Samyang could have provided an excellent/affordable RF 135mm option, leaving Canon to focus on something that would have pushed the envelope. I had thought that the RF 28-70 f2 was a statement of intent from Canon that they planned to make more unique and ambitious lens designs, but sadly that lens appears to be a one-off.

I sincerely hope the RF 35L doesn’t disappoint.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 27, 2022)

SebastiaoSal said:


> No, no, no, I want the RF 70-135mm F/2L instead


That’ll be 3k ff lens… I’d prefer this too even if I cant’t afford it. /sarc

May be L grade RF-s counterpart : 45 - 90 F/2 would be 1500$ and affordable.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 27, 2022)

Chubz said:


> I had thought that the RF 28-70 f2 was a statement of intent from Canon that they planned to make more unique and ambitious lens designs, but sadly that lens appears to be a one-off.



It might be a one off, like that blog post from lensrentals mentioned:








Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens


There is a lot of online discussion about why a manufacturer made this lens when they so obviously needed to make that other lens. Or why this manufacturer’s design is better than that manufacturer’s magical solutions. So, I thought I’d share the second-hand information I have about the process...



www.lensrentals.com





"Manufacturers will usually prioritize a show-off lens or two in their lineup, a loss leader that says ‘we did this thing no one else does so you can see how good we are’. Think Canon RF 28-70mm f/2..."


----------



## neurorx (Jun 27, 2022)

I wonder what price point the lens will be at given its not an f2 in the RF mount? $2300-2500?


----------



## neurorx (Jun 27, 2022)

danfaz said:


> It might be a one off, like that blog post from lensrentals mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was thinking that too. I was hoping for some more really innovative lenses but that really isn't what Canon is doing.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 27, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Me too. Out of 15 EF lenses, the only one left is the 135/2.0. I love it. It can blur a background even when subject is full-body in a landscape frame, which that background is far less magnified and thus more recognizable than the 200/2.8 (or 70-200/2.8). Meanwhile, the 85/1.2 spec-wise should also be able to do that, but it was one of the worst lenses in the EF catalog, with huge light fall-off into the corners, poor OOF highlight circles into the corners, very slow AF, heavy and ackward, and hard to avoid touching the rear element when mounting and unmounting. And not great sharpness either. All that said, I'd switch in a second to an RF were the RF demonstrably better.


We've discussed numerous times the virtues and deficiencies of both the ef 85mm f1.2 II and the ef 135mm f2.0. Both are amazing portraiture lenses which we are both very familiar with. Both sit in my wedding lens bag and both get heavy usage. Most of the 85 f1.2's deficiencies are addressed in the new RF version in every area except sizer and weight. However, I can't see a RF 135mm f1.8 (non IS) fixing ANY of the 135L's current deficiencies. The current lens takes tele converters really well. Every RF tele prime lens so far has been substantially bigger and heavier than their EF counter parts. A heavier 135 isn't going to be a benefit. The extra 1/3 stop is pretty much useless unless it's matched with a light weight IS unit. if I shoot an 85 f1.2 at a wedding I can assume say 1/80th sec at f1.2 @ iso 400. The shutter speed is matched to the focal length and the image will be relatively noise free and sharp. However, under the same light levels, I have to shoot the 135mm at 150th sec (focal length to shutter speed rule) and I loose over a stop at f2.0. So my exposure becomes 150th sec at f2.0 at iso 1600....that's a lot more noisy that the results I would get from the 85.
The problem with fixing the 135L deficiencies is that it competes against the 70-200 f2.8 LIS capabilities.


----------



## SHAMwow (Jun 27, 2022)

Y'all just buy the Sigma already then! So confident, don't wait, just buy it. Oh what's that? You always end up buying the Canon anyways? Then yes, it will cost way more than it should. It's what I'll be buying. All the forum folks always talk a big talk on 3rd party parity, but somehow always end up with the native version.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 27, 2022)

SHAMwow said:


> Y'all just buy the Sigma already then! So confident, don't wait, just buy it. Oh what's that? You always end up buying the Canon anyways? Then yes, it will cost way more than it should. It's what I'll be buying. All the forum folks always talk a big talk on 3rd party parity, but somehow always end up with the native version.


RF is closed , no native Sigma. EF adapter? Might as well buy EF 135L.


----------



## jonbenz (Jun 27, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> *I need a 135mm f/1.0DS.*
> 
> It's not an impossible ask. The resulting front element size of about 140mm is the same as the Nikon 300/2, or Canon 400/2.8, 600/4., 800/5.6. These lenses are pricey but not unaffordable.
> 
> ...


Hey Frank, would you share how to calculate the resulting front element size? I have read it a lot on the forum and I would like to know the math behind it. Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2022)

jonbenz said:


> Hey Frank, would you share how to calculate the resulting front element size? I have read it a lot on the forum and I would like to know the math behind it. Thanks!


A lens’ entrance pupil diameter is the apparent view of the iris diaphragm as seen from the front of the lens. The front element of a lens must be of sufficient diameter to ‘fill’ the entrance pupil with light. For telephoto lens designs, the axial position of the entrance pupil is approximately at the position of the front element. So to estimate the size of a telephoto front element, you simply divide the focal length by the maximum f/number (because f/number is the ratio of focal length to entrance pupil diameter). 

Thus, a 135mm f/1 would need a 135/1 = 135mm front element. Similarly, the 600mm f/4 would need a 150mm front element. In practice, lens specs are rounded, and usually in a direction that benefits the manufacturer. So, the 600/4 is probably something like a 593mm f/4.12 lens, which is consistent with the ~144mm diameter that I actually get with a measuring tape on my 600/4L IS II. 

Note that the entrance pupil being at the axial position of the front element is a telephoto design ‘feature’. Thus, for example, the front element of the 16mm f/2.8 is much larger than 5.7mm.


----------



## Jethro (Jun 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Note that the entrance pupil being at the axial position of the front element is a telephoto design ‘feature’. Thus, for example, the front element of the 16mm f/2.8 is much larger than 5.7mm.


A 'telephoto' lens being >85mm?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2022)

Jethro said:


> A 'telephoto' lens being >85mm?


Sort of. A telephoto design is one where the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length. For example, the EF 100mm f/2 is a telephoto design – it’s about 74mm long. However, the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro lenses are around 120mm long and thus are not telephoto designs.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 28, 2022)

Chubz said:


> Seems I’m in the minority, but I’m disappointed this will be f1.8. The lens roadmap has been mostly accurate to date and I’ve been excitedly waiting -- for what feels like years now -- for a 135mm f1.4.
> 
> Sigma, Sony and Samyang already make excellent 135 f1.8s and I can’t see this Canon lens being much better. Making yet another 135mm f1.8 just seems to lack ambition. Sure, it will fill a gap in the RF system, but Canon had a real opportunity here to make an “ultimate portrait lens” which could have attracted people from other systems.
> 
> ...


I would also like to see f/1.4... but I don't see how a small difference (f/1.4 vs f/1.8) would be earthshaking enough to get folks to abandon other systems. At that focal length, in my opinion, a difference like that won't be noticed. My desire for faster would be, just because. Besides, f/1.8 would probably be a much more affordable and convenient size for the masses.


----------



## Rafał (Jun 28, 2022)

Aaa 35mm 1.2 would be an instant buy for me (if reasonably sized). I wonder if we see answer to Nikon teles for birding, where it's cheaper to get the lens with Z9 body then just a Canon lens.


----------



## jonbenz (Jun 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> A lens’ entrance pupil diameter is the apparent view of the iris diaphragm as seen from the front of the lens. The front element of a lens must be of sufficient diameter to ‘fill’ the entrance pupil with light. For telephoto lens designs, the axial position of the entrance pupil is approximately at the position of the front element. So to estimate the size of a telephoto front element, you simply divide the focal length by the maximum f/number (because f/number is the ratio of focal length to entrance pupil diameter).
> 
> Thus, a 135mm f/1 would need a 135/1 = 135mm front element. Similarly, the 600mm f/4 would need a 150mm front element. In practice, lens specs are rounded, and usually in a direction that benefits the manufacturer. So, the 600/4 is probably something like a 593mm f/4.12 lens, which is consistent with the ~144mm diameter that I actually get with a measuring tape on my 600/4L IS II.
> 
> Note that the entrance pupil being at the axial position of the front element is a telephoto design ‘feature’. Thus, for example, the front element of the 16mm f/2.8 is much larger than 5.7mm.


Thanks, great explanation!
what about normal lenses? let's say, how would they calculate the dream lens front element? (50mm f0.95).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2022)

jonbenz said:


> Thanks, great explanation!
> what about normal lenses? let's say, how would they calculate the dream lens front element? (50mm f0.95).


 ‘Normal’ focal length lens designs are often relatively symmetrical, such that the entrance and exit pupils are very close to each other and near the physical iris diaphragm. That’s true for both the older double gauss designs like the EF 50/1.2 and the newer, more complicated designs like the RF 50/1.2. 




The front element size is mainly determined by the degree to which designers want to reduce aberrations.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 29, 2022)

neurorx said:


> I was thinking that too. I was hoping for some more really innovative lenses but that really isn't what Canon is doing.


They need bread and butter lenses to pay the bills, though.


----------



## Keith Man (Jun 30, 2022)

sanj said:


> I would prefer 1.2 or at least 1.4.


Right, at f1.8 I will just stick with the 85mm f1.2. If they want to sell a lot of glass the 1.4 or 1.2 would be unique.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 30, 2022)

Since my R6 I m at a really bad state with my old lenses... they perform really bad in "fps" with the R6 and the mechanical shutter.
With the MK1 70-200 2.8 non-IS i only get 5-9fps with AI Servo on. Same with the 135 2.0!
This sucks .... Especially for indoor sports with balls (table tennis, socker etc), because of the rolling shutter with electronic shutter!


----------



## Keith Man (Jun 30, 2022)

With the 200MM F2 discontinued it would be nice to have a 135mm with epic shallow DOF as a replacement. 1.8 is not going to get me there.


----------



## Franklyok (Jul 1, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm personally hoping for a 135/1, that has perfectly round highlights in the corners by 1.4, and with a DS filter cutting transmission and DOF to f/2, but instead of hard-edged disks, it has fuzzy balls of about twice the size (by area). It'd be the ultimate portrait lens I think.


How many people can afford 7K lens  ? And probably no wife allows to buy such lens. You better start living in celibacy


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 1, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> ??? What are the deficiencies?


The deficiencies are not optical or anything specific about it's build. It's more to do with what if offers a photographer in terms of low light capability. I shoot a lot of weddings and compared to a 85mm f1.2, the 135L looses 2.3 stops in real world exposure settings. The 85mm is 1.3 stops brighter, the focal length allows for a faster shooting speed, 1/80th sec vs 150th sec. These add up and make the lens a lot less useful in low light situations. For moments inside a dimly lit English church (I once shot a wedding service in Canterbury Cathedral crypt by candle light), I wouldn't use a 135L. It's just not "fast" enough. Out side under normal (English) daylight it's fine. A 70-200 f2.8 LIS looses one stop in brightness to the 135mm, and should be shooting at 1/200th sec for sharpness. But it has a 4 stop IS unit...which helps bring the shutter speed down and the ISO values with it. The 135L doesn't come close to the low light abilities of either the 85 f1.2 or 70-200 f2.8 LIS. 
One of the issues a wedding photographer has is consolidating their lens list to the barest minimum. 
If the 135mm was roughly the same size and weight (which is one of it's key benefits - it's an awesome walk about tele lens) but gained a 4 or 5 stop IS unit...it would be even more versatile. If it gets heavier and larger, like pushing the aperture value / objective lens size to accommodate f1.8 then the lens becomes too heavy and burdensome compared to the current model. For weddings, the 135L is super discrete for shy guests. It's half the size of the big shouty white 70-200 and it's also half the weight, which is a lot easier to handle all day.


----------



## Darrell Cadieux (Jul 4, 2022)

sanj said:


> I would prefer 1.2 or at least 1.4.


It would weigh 10 lbs. I had a 200 f1.8...an absolute beast.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 5, 2022)

Keith Man said:


> Right, at f1.8 I will just stick with the 85mm f1.2. If they want to sell a lot of glass the 1.4 or 1.2 would be unique.


If they want to "sell a lot of glass", making it several times more expensive (as a very wide aperture would imply) is counterproductive.


----------



## Keith Man (Jul 7, 2022)

scyrene said:


> If they want to "sell a lot of glass", making it several times more expensive (as a very wide aperture would imply) is counterproductive.



They discontinued the 200m f2. I would like a current replacement for that. However I am sure not as many people would be willing to pay for it and they must go to the bigger market. Personal I would use the large glass for pro work.


----------



## willwest (Sep 3, 2022)

Is it safe to say this is canons next lens release?


----------



## dolina (Sep 3, 2022)

Ideally with IS or eve faster like f/1.4


----------



## willwest (Sep 3, 2022)

dolina said:


> Ideally with IS or eve faster like f/1.4


I rather have IS than 2/3 of a stop considering the weight increase


----------



## dolina (Sep 3, 2022)

willwest said:


> I rather have IS than 2/3 of a stop considering the weight increase


How about same weight but 2/3rd faster + IS?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Sep 3, 2022)

So are we agreed? A larger diameter front element, faster than 1.8, lighter body, IS and while we're talking crazy, less $$ than the EF counterpart. Please. I also want it to make me breakfast after shooting all night.


----------



## willwest (Sep 3, 2022)

Where do I sign this petition


----------



## Del Paso (Tuesday at 8:23 PM)

I'm a little bit shocked.
Just consulted the German Calumet website.
Sony 1,8/135: Euro 1549
Canon RF 1,8/135: Euro 2699
Price difference (both are quite new lenses) Euro 1159
Gaaaaasp !
Edit: 1150, of course


----------



## koenkooi (Tuesday at 8:27 PM)

Del Paso said:


> I'm a little bit shocked.
> Just consulted the German Calumet website.
> Sony 1,8/135: Euro 1549
> Canon RF 1,8/135: Euro 2699
> ...


€1150, so you can spend that other €9 on 3 cups of coffee


----------



## neuroanatomist (Tuesday at 8:37 PM)

Del Paso said:


> I'm a little bit shocked.
> Just consulted the German Calumet website.
> Sony 1,8/135: Euro 1549
> Canon RF 1,8/135: Euro 2699
> ...


I guess the lesson is don't buy Canon lenses in Europe, or at least don't buy the RF 135/1.8L in Europe. Meanwhile, on this side of the pond...






koenkooi said:


> €1150, so you can spend that other €9 on 3 cups of coffee


The $1 difference here won't even buy you a cup of coffee.


----------



## SwissFrank (Wednesday at 6:15 AM)

Del Paso said:


> Sony 1,8/135: Euro 1549
> Canon RF 1,8/135: Euro 2699
> Price difference (both are quite new lenses) Euro 1150


Does the Sony have IS?

Is the image quality and physical build comperable?


----------



## SNJ Ops (Wednesday at 8:12 AM)

SwissFrank said:


> Does the Sony have IS?
> 
> Is the image quality and physical build comperable?


No the Sony doesn’t have IS, build quality is GM level so comparable to Canon L and image quality the 135mm is one of best of any lens on any platform. In the US there’s a $1 difference in price between them but in here in the UK its $1215 (inclusive of tax) more for the Canon. In other European countries its a similar situation. I think its much more expensive in Australia as well.


----------



## Del Paso (Wednesday at 9:02 AM)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess the lesson is don't buy Canon lenses in Europe, or at least don't buy the RF 135/1.8L in Europe. Meanwhile, on this side of the pond...
> 
> View attachment 207178
> 
> ...


Funny, in the US, the Sony costs about $500 more than in Europe, and the Canon $500 less.
In the US, Canon's IS (main difference) is worth $1, in Europe about Euro 1100.


----------



## Del Paso (Wednesday at 12:00 PM)

SwissFrank said:


> Does the Sony have IS?
> 
> Is the image quality and physical build comperable?


To answer your second question: LensRentals has published the MTFs. They were more than impressed.
Quote: "that’s the highest MTF I’ve seen on a non-supertelephoto".
No doubt the RF will be at least as good. And, as you noted, with IS.


----------



## danfaz (Yesterday at 1:19 PM)

Estimated arrival is 2 weeks from today!


----------

