# Patent: Canon RF 130mm f/1.4L USM and other fast primes



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 29, 2021)

> Keith at Northlight has uncovered a patent showing optical formulas for three fast prime lenses, most notably a Canon RF 130mm f/1.4L USM. On my roadmap for Canon, we do have an RF 135mm f/1.4L USM listed, so this patent could potentially be related.
> Canon RF 130mm f/1.4L USM
> 
> Focal length: 131.00mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 29, 2021)

A RF 135mm f1.4L would be a great lens to offer, but I wonder just how big, heavy & expensive it would be? I'd probably prefer a 135 f1.8L to get the size & weight down to a more reasonable level, but this is obviously aiming for much higher levels (not to mention strong arms & big wallets  ). Also, I wonder what the max magnification would be with it? I'm guessing it will be relatively small as that's usually not the goal of such a wide aperture lens.

The 135 f2L would be the best choice for me, as it's probably the perfect size/weight I'd like. It's probably also got a bigger max. magnification than the f1.4L since a smaller aperture usually allows for designs with bigger max magnification. I assume that the much longer back focus length of 54mm is designed so that you can use a RF TC on it.

None of the lenses mention IS. I'd hope the 135 f2L had IS. But the RF 800 f11 patent didn't indicate IS ability yet it was there in production, so hopefully one or more of these lenses will have IS as well.


----------



## Joules (Apr 29, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Also, I wonder what the max magnification would be with it? I'm guessing it will be relatively small as that's usually not the goal of such a wide angle lens.


I guess you're talking about that 24 mm design... 135 mm is a bit much to be considered wide angle  

But the size of this looks really substantial. Nonetheless, this paired with a high res R could cover quite a lot of use cases.


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 29, 2021)

Rf 135mm f:2L, at last (I loved the EF 135mm f2L, despite its very old, never updated design), but where is the IS for the new lens? Or is this a subliminal way of saying "if you can afford L glass, we expect you to buy an R5 or R6 with IBIS". Lens IS is no longer a priority.


----------



## elias723 (Apr 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I will buy the 24mm if come for 1,699 or less. If it come for 2299 i prefer to buy a Rf 24-70


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 29, 2021)

elias723 said:


> I will buy the 24mm if come for 1,699 or less. If it come for 2299 i prefer to buy a Rf 24-70


A bit the same feeling r.e. the 135. If the 135 f2 has no IS, then the (soon to come) RF 70-135 f:2 (most probably _sans_ IS) makes just as much sense (apart from a probable doubling of the price)


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 29, 2021)

Joules said:


> I guess you're talking about that 24 mm design... 135 mm is a bit much to be considered wide angle
> 
> But the size of this looks really substantial. Nonetheless, this paired with a high res R could cover quite a lot of use cases.


Doh! - I meant to type "aperture" instead of "angle". (I've corrected my post - thanks, Joules!)
After considering the 135 f1.4L vs f2L, I'm sure I'd prefer the f2L. Let's hope it's got IS and a reasonably large max magnification.


----------



## csibra (Apr 29, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> A RF 135mm f1.4L would be a great lens to offer, but I wonder just how big, heavy & expensive it would be? I'd probably prefer a 135 f1.8L to get the size & weight down to a more reasonable level, but this is


According to tpe picture above the front element would be about 95-100mm in diameter.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 29, 2021)

csibra said:


> According to tpe picture above the front element would be about 95-100mm in diameter.


Yes, the picture seems to indicate that a full round f1.4 image bundle only applies to the very center of the image, and the image bundle would turn into a much smaller football shape as you move away from center, also resulting in significant vignetting in the corners. But I suppose that's fairly common in such fast aperture designs to keep the size & weight down.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 29, 2021)

I know of a very happy (and drooling) canon fanboy...


----------



## miketcool (Apr 29, 2021)

Cinema RF lenses


----------



## roby17269 (Apr 29, 2021)

Argh sad thin times for my bank account coming 

I've pre-ordered the 100 2.8L macro. I am waiting for a 35 1.2L and a 130/135 1.4L would be something to salivate after (135 is a great fl for kids photography).

I need more space for my camera stuff... and new ways to smuggle new toys under my wife's nose 

Seriously though, quite happy with the way Canon is fleshing out the RF lens stable


----------



## SteveC (Apr 29, 2021)

roby17269 said:


> Argh sad thin times for my bank account coming


Have you yet contemplated the pointless of having a spare kidney?

If not, it isn't serious yet.


----------



## roby17269 (Apr 30, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Have you yet contemplated the pointless of having a spare kidney?
> 
> If not, it isn't serious yet.


Not yet but never say never 
Although I'd argue my medium format rig puts me squarely in crazy territory already


----------



## navastronia (Apr 30, 2021)

Joules said:


> I guess you're talking about that 24 mm design... 135 mm is a bit much to be considered wide angle
> 
> But the size of this looks really substantial. Nonetheless, this paired with a high res R could cover quite a lot of use cases.


Maybe wide angle on an 8x10?


----------



## Pixel (Apr 30, 2021)

Is there any indication if a TC will fit on it?


----------



## davidcl0nel (Apr 30, 2021)

I love my EF 135 even more with my R5 and IBIS.. Stable, good and lightweight. If somebody say, its old, than he don't know about the capability of this lens.
I don't want a 1,5kg lens for 4000€. (price of RF85 + IS). Its good for marketing ok, but not for me. But ok, build it...


----------



## padam (Apr 30, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Doh! - I meant to type "aperture" instead of "angle". (I've corrected my post - thanks, Joules!)
> After considering the 135 f1.4L vs f2L, I'm sure I'd prefer the f2L. Let's hope it's got IS and a reasonably large max magnification.


It will probably closely match the 0.25x magnification of the Sony 135 GM, I would not expect any better and I would not expect IS either, none of the RF L primes have it, they aim for maximum image quality with a suitably fast AF speed.
Regarding pricing, it will be over 3000$.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 30, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Is there any indication if a TC will fit on it?


The Back Focus is 14mm for the 130 f1.4L and 54mm for the 135 f2L.
Therefore I predict that that the 130 f1.4L can NOT use a TC, while the 135 f2L CAN use a TC.
(but time will tell)


----------



## chasingrealness (Apr 30, 2021)

I recently bought the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 EF mount for my RP and while it is big and heavy, I love the rendering and quality of the images. A 130 f/1.4 would be amazing, but I would only replace my Sigma if the RF Canon version is optically near-perfect wide open as the other RF primes have been so far. That means bigger and heavier. I’m ok with that, and let’s be honest we all need the exercise. 

I’m still more compelled by a potential 70-135 f/2, and especially so if that lens is compatible with teleconverters. If the 135 f/2 is small, lightweight and compatible wit teleconverters that would also be something I might consider...


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 30, 2021)

padam said:


> It will probably closely match the 0.25x magnification of the Sony 135 GM, I would not expect any better and I would not expect IS either, none of the RF L primes have it, they aim for maximum image quality with a suitably fast AF speed.
> Regarding pricing, it will be over 3000$.


Well, I expect that all the super-tele prime RF L lenses in the future will have IS. The 135 is in a mid range so that I could see the f1.4L not having IS, while the f2L might (50-50 chance) have it. 

I'm guessing the max mag. for the 130 f1.4L is between .12 and .2 X, with the 135 f2L between .2 and .3X
I'm guessing the price of the 130 f1.4L is over $3k as well, with the 135 f2L between $1899 and $2199.

(time will tell)


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 30, 2021)

Just bring 135 f2.0/1.8 with IS and low weight! 

I love my 135 2.0! Its awesome sharp! I can't believe they need that much time to improve this epic lens...

f1.8 should be a great compromise between f1.4 and 2.0. Like the Sigma ones but please not that heavy! 
Canon should more look to Sonys newest lenses... they are all very very low weight!


----------



## Dragon (Apr 30, 2021)

Read carefully. These lenses have apodised front and rear elements so they are meant to be bokeh monsters, not speed burners.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2021)

Considering the probable size, weight and cost of an RF 135 F1.4 I’d think the EF 135 f2 would continue to be a standout lens even though it is ancient! Mind you I still have my FD 135 f2 and that is a beautiful lens and so small and light.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Considering the probable size, weight and cost of an RF 135 F1.4 I’d think the EF 135 f2 would continue to be a standout lens even though it is ancient! Mind you I still have my FD 135 f2 and that is a beautiful lens and so small and light.


I have the EF 135L and have always loved it, like many who've used it. A 135 f/1.4 would tempt me badly.

PBD, yesterday I got an FD to RF adapter in the post. I only have the Canon FD 50mm f/1.8. Slapped the lens and adapter on and I really like what I get from that cheap little lens. Still have not used the Canon A1 it came attached to.

Luckily my little wife has more sense than I. As tempting as it is to buy back in to RF lenses, I am prohibited by her to get more lenses until I buy a house.


----------



## padam (May 1, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Well, I expect that all the super-tele prime RF L lenses in the future will have IS. The 135 is in a mid range so that I could see the f1.4L not having IS, while the f2L might (50-50 chance) have it.


Just got an EF 200/2.8 L II, and I can get down to 1/25 sec or 1/13 with the electronic shutter and that's on the 45MP sensor and the upcoming firmware fix might make it behave even better.
I assume a native RF lens would perform at least 1-2 stops better, so I don't think it is really needed Sony does not put IS in any of their FE primes below f/2.8 either.
The only fast prime that has it is the EF 85/1.4 L IS but the RF 85/1.2 L is rated for more stops, it would be interesting to see if that holds true in practise but the IBIS is really good and it may be better still in future generations.

I guess an RF 135/2 version without IS would still be about 1600$ (which is what the EF 85/1.4 costs) or more and it may not sell well at that price point, so they might just skip it and the 28-70/2 might be successful enough to do a 70-135/2 some day.


----------



## Rivermist (May 1, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> I love my EF 135 even more with my R5 and IBIS.. Stable, good and lightweight. If somebody say, its old, than he don't know about the capability of this lens.
> I don't want a 1,5kg lens for 4000€. (price of RF85 + IS). Its good for marketing ok, but not for me. But ok, build it...


I agree r.e. the quality of the venerable EF 135L is fantastic, I would look for a refresh around the package (lens hood, focus ring, for RF the addition of the programmable ring, and if at all possible IS for those of us using non-IBIS bodies. But yes, if Santa puts an R5 in my stocking then a pre-owned EF 135 L costing $600 and an adapter could work wonders.


----------



## pedroesteban (May 2, 2021)

I love my EF 135 f/2 and it works even better on the R5 than it did on the 5D mk IV, due to IBIS and eye autofocus. I don't think that Canon will match the EF 135 price, size, weight or bokeh "creaminess" with the rumored RF 135, so I don't see myself buying it.


----------



## Ozarker (May 2, 2021)

pedroesteban said:


> I love my EF 135 f/2 and it works even better on the R5 than it did on the 5D mk IV, due to IBIS and eye autofocus. I don't think that Canon will match the EF 135 price, size, weight or bokeh "creaminess" with the rumored RF 135, so I don't see myself buying it.


Kinda tough for bokeh to not be creamy at 135mm f/1.4. I would think it would be even better. Absolutely will not be near the same price as the EF.


----------

