# A Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM gets a mention [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 7, 2020)

> An unknown source is claiming that Canon is actively testing an RF 70-135mm f/2L USM with a very small group of photographers and videographers.
> The same source claims that this lens will be announced in Q4 of 2020.
> With IBIS coming on the Canon EOS R6 and Canon EOS R5, it makes sense to leave IS out of this lens design, anything to save a bit of size and weight will be welcomed.
> This lens has been previously mentioned,but I caution that both of these reports come from unknown sources.



Continue reading...


----------



## slclick (May 7, 2020)

Canonfanboy giddyup!


----------



## edoorn (May 7, 2020)

wow! Would probably be a beast! Not my kind of lens I think (i'll get the 70-200) but for portrait photographers it could be a winner


----------



## Skux (May 7, 2020)

If it's anything like the 28-70 f2, get ready for a chonker...


----------



## Accutance (May 7, 2020)

The Sigma 50-100/1.8 is for APSc and it's 1.5 kg. Scaled up to 70-135 FF means it will very likely be HEAVY, even for mirrorless.


----------



## mb66energy (May 7, 2020)

Accutance said:


> The Sigma 50-100/1.8 is for APSc and it's 1.5 kg. Scaled up to 70-135 FF means it will very likely be HEAVY, even for mirrorless.


So you shoud use an RP to save weight!


----------



## Maximilian (May 7, 2020)

Will it come with a trial voucher for your local gym?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (May 7, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Will it come with a trial voucher for your local gym?


The way things are going we'll be able to buy this before the local gym reopens.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 7, 2020)

Accutance said:


> The Sigma 50-100/1.8 is for APSc and it's 1.5 kg. Scaled up to 70-135 FF means it will very likely be HEAVY, even for mirrorless.


Sigma is well known for building lenses with an excessively large front elements. 
A 75-130/2.0 lens with front element as small as 67mm is a possibility. Let’s see what happens.


----------



## derpderp (May 7, 2020)

I'd buy that lens in a heartbeat if the price is around $2999 or less.


----------



## Besisika (May 7, 2020)

Skux said:


> If it's anything like the 28-70 f2, get ready for a chonkier...


As long as it is as sharp as a 70-200 wide open, indeed, many portrait photographers like me will be interested.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (May 7, 2020)

You can't play with my nerves this way man! When I saw the picture I thought that it was for an EF lens...
Damn, I would love so much to see a new EF 135mm with IS alongside with a Canon 5D mark V !


----------



## slclick (May 7, 2020)

edoorn said:


> wow! Would probably be a beast! Not my kind of lens I think (i'll get the 70-200) but for portrait photographers it could be a winner


I could think of many ways to use this.


----------



## kten (May 7, 2020)

despite likely chunky heavy beast it's still going to be lighter and more compact in my kitbag than set of 85, 135 and maybe 105 primes. Compared to small 1.8 variants it's a better option and likely higher performance so wont miss much short of splashing for faster higher end primes. On that note probably same price tag as a single faster than 1.8 prime in that kind of range so I think this has a place in many portrait folks bags.


----------



## Maximilian (May 7, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The way things are going we'll be able to buy this before the local gym reopens.


I suppose you're wrong - at least for Germany, when I look at the reopening hysteria here throughout the last few days.


----------



## mccasi (May 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Sigma is well known for building lenses with an excessively large front elements.
> A 75-130/2.0 lens with front element as small as 67mm is a possibility. Let’s see what happens.


and the 28-70 has a 35mm lens diameter  dream on man - dont think it's a problem though very exciting lens - curious how much better than the 70-200 it's going to be.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (May 7, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> I suppose you're wrong - at least for Germany, when I look at the reopening hysteria here throughout the last few days.


In the UK, gyms could be among the last places to reopen - as late as October has been suggested. Hopefully that's wrong, since my daughter's income depends on the gym being open!


----------



## richperson (May 7, 2020)

This is on my definite buy list. I would love to run a f/2 trio: RF 28-70mm; RF 70-135mm; EF 200 f/2 adapted would cover a lot of ground for me. For some reason f/2 really seems to get me over the hump for most of what I shoot.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 7, 2020)

mccasi said:


> and the 28-70 has a 35mm lens diameter  dream on man - dont think it's a problem though very exciting lens - curious how much better than the 70-200 it's going to be.



1. 28-70/2.0 is a normal zoom. The 28mm at F2.0 dictates a necessity for a larger front element. Not the long 70mm end.
2. 70-135 zoom range is a bit different in that vignetting is not such a huge issue as with 28mm end of 28-70
Sure. Having a large front element would improve sharpness in mid frame and extreme corners, reduce vignetting wide open

but read my statement again. Front element could be made as small as. The question remains how Canon engineers view optical quality vs size / weight issue.
i would think that 82mm front element would be adequate.


----------



## Quackator (May 7, 2020)

Shut up Canon and take my money!


----------



## Shane (May 7, 2020)

I would love this. I am loving the RF28-70 for weddings and 135 is probably long enough for most indoor wedding work. It will have to be heavy. If it arrives before gyms open its real winner and I can just carry this all day and scrap the gym haha.


----------



## Maximilian (May 7, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> In the UK, gyms could be among the last places to reopen ...


No matter how long it takes, I hope the best to all of you and us and that the politicians listen as least as much to the scientists than to the lobbyists.
Reality seems to suggest the opposite


----------



## richperson (May 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> 1. 28-70/2.0 is a normal zoom. The 28mm at F2.0 dictates a necessity for a larger front element. Not the long 70mm end.
> 2. 70-135 zoom range is a bit different in that vignetting is not such a huge issue as with 28mm end of 28-70
> Sure. Having a large front element would improve sharpness in mid frame and extreme corners, reduce vignetting wide open
> 
> ...



Given the EF 135mm f/2, the RF 50mm f/1.2 and the RF 85mm f/1.2 all have front elements equal to, or less than 82mm, that would seem reasonable.


----------



## Andy Westwood (May 7, 2020)

All those monster lenses are mega and shows the true potential of the new RF mount, however please Canon give us some small, compact primes, a pancake would be nice or short range lightweight zooms, we only have the 35mm 1.8 so far.

After all, one of the most appealing features of mirrorless cameras is compact and lightweight so let’s have some more glass to support this.

Anyway, nice to hear more RF lenses are on their way.


----------



## AJ (May 7, 2020)

Accutance said:


> The Sigma 50-100/1.8 is for APSc and it's 1.5 kg. Scaled up to 70-135 FF means it will very likely be HEAVY, even for mirrorless.


This Sigma is said to cover the full image circle for APS-H


----------



## Del Paso (May 7, 2020)

Bad bad news...for my bank account.
I'm starting to consider selling Canon, to buy a cripple-hammered Soni.
Their lenses are not really tempting or mouthwateringly exotic, could save me from an expensive divorce or from insolvency...


----------



## Architect1776 (May 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Canon crushing the competition again.
2020 is proving to be interesting for Canon users and sour grapes for Sony fanboys.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

As much as I am heavily salivating, I will have to wait to purchase a small mortgage on a small house first. This is my dream lens. I’ll really be looking forward to see and read all about this one.


----------



## richperson (May 7, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> All those monster lenses are mega and shows the true potential of the new RF mount, however please Canon give us some small, compact primes, a pancake would be nice or short range lightweight zooms, we only have the 35mm 1.8 so far.



I'm looking forward to an RF 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4. I have yet to own a 50mm and don't want to pay >$2k for one.


----------



## Tom W (May 7, 2020)

This has every indications of being a very sweet lens - absolutely top-notch like its 28-70 cousin.

Not likely that I'll be buying it, but you never know. I seem to have a strong liking for the longer lenses these days. Plus, funds are not unlimited.

But who knows - it might grab my attention some day.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 7, 2020)

Would this replace the need for RF 135mm prime? I can't see a RF 135mm f/2 prime being as popular as the EF version if the RF 70-135mm f/2 comes to market. Would this push the RF 135mm prime to a larger max aperture? f/1.4?


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Would this replace the need for RF 135mm prime? I can't see a RF 135mm f/2 prime being as popular as the EF version if the RF 70-135mm f/2 comes to market. Would this push the RF 135mm prime to a larger max aperture? f/1.4?


That’s an interesting question. I think there will eventually be a wide aperture prime, but f/2 @ 135mm is already awesome. I am hoping it renders as nicely as the EF 135mm f/2. That will be hard to match. I’d imagine the zoom will be optimized for 135mm if I had to guess.


----------



## koenkooi (May 7, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Would this replace the need for RF 135mm prime? I can't see a RF 135mm f/2 prime being as popular as the EF version if the RF 70-135mm f/2 comes to market. Would this push the RF 135mm prime to a larger max aperture? f/1.4?



I bet that an RF 135mm f/2 prime would be a fraction of the cost and weight of that zoom. Now, an f/1.8 or f/1.4 version however....


----------



## slclick (May 7, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That’s an interesting question. I think there will eventually be a wide aperture prime, but f/2 @ 135mm is already awesome. I am hoping it renders as nicely as the EF 135mm f/2. That will be hard to match. I’d imagine the zoom will be optimized for 135mm if I had to guess.


My god man, do you know what you have done? Now those 3 guys who own the Sigma 135 will come out of their quarantine woodwork and lay down the smack about how the Siggy blows the Canon out of the water so hard you so just smash yours with a hammer from shame. Because how dare they use a lens designed before they were born!


----------



## DrToast (May 7, 2020)

I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

slclick said:


> My god man, do you know what you have done? Now those 3 guys who own the Sigma 135 will come out of their quarantine woodwork and lay down the smack about how the Siggy blows the Canon out of the water so hard you so just smash yours with a hammer from shame. Because how dare they use a lens designed before they were born!


This zoom is gonna be groovy, man.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

DrToast said:


> I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.


Having owned the EF 135mm f/2L and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I can assure you that there is a huge difference at 135mm between the two, both in bokeh and rendering. Must see and use to appreciate. In fact the benefit of f/2 will be even more pronounced at 70-135 than it is at 28-70.


----------



## DrToast (May 7, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Having owned the EF 135mm f/2L and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I can assure you that there is a huge difference at 135mm between the two, both in bokeh and rendering. Must see and use to appreciate.



No, I'm talking about comparing 70mm to 135m. I can totally understand buying a 135mm f/2. But I don't see a need for a 70-135 f/2.


----------



## padam (May 7, 2020)

DrToast said:


> I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.


The difference is always there. There will be no zoom that will render like a 70-135/2, against primes I don't think it is fair, they are different to use.

And based on the earlier lens patents, it is likely that the RF 70-135/2L will accept a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter and it will probably remain very sharp sharp as well.
The RF 70-200/2.8L IS is the smaller, lighter cheaper, more popular one, but it won't accept teleconverters.


----------



## slclick (May 7, 2020)

DrToast said:


> I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.


A great deal of folks thought the same about the Sigma 24-35 but it's really 3 primes in one. A wonderful lens.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 7, 2020)

The real question here is will it be a small white or a big black?


----------



## padam (May 7, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The real question here is will it be a small white or a big black?


If it accepts teleconverters (which I think is likely based on the patents where the rear element is farther from the mount) it will be white (and bigger than the 28-70/2)


----------



## slclick (May 7, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The real question here is will it be a small white or a big black?


I think you have the wrong forum dirty bird., sorry couldn't resist....


----------



## Besisika (May 7, 2020)

DrToast said:


> I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.


The way I see it is, that my preferred focal length for portrait is 135mm. The need for 200mm is caused by 2.8, but if I have 2.0 then 135mm is definitely my choice. It looks more pleasing to me. The need for zoom is justified by run and gun situation, hence the beauty of 70-135 range. I do see what you mean, though.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

DrToast said:


> No, I'm talking about comparing 70mm to 135m. I can totally understand buying a 135mm f/2. But I don't see a need for a 70-135 f/2.


That’s cool. As a portrait photographer, I do. Especially compared to a 70-200. That’s for my use, though. Everyone has their own preferences. Why 70-135? Because 85, 100, 120, 135mm. For my portraits I find myself almost always at 70mm+.


----------



## Eclipsed (May 7, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Would this replace the need for RF 135mm prime? I can't see a RF 135mm f/2 prime being as popular as the EF version if the RF 70-135mm f/2 comes to market. Would this push the RF 135mm prime to a larger max aperture? f/1.4?



For some, the prime would be more attractive at half the cost, half the weight, and probably wider aperture.


----------



## Romain (May 7, 2020)

Is "The Holy Graal" coming?.. Absolutely not, just a bazooka bro!..


----------



## Richard Anthony (May 7, 2020)

edoorn said:


> wow! Would probably be a beast! Not my kind of lens I think (i'll get the 70-200) but for portrait photographers it could be a winner


I have just ordered the RF 70- 200 F2.8 , so I will stick to that now , but I have ordered the 28-70 F2 also , so I'll just get a bit closer for portraits , the missus would have a heart attack if I ordered this as well


----------



## Romain (May 7, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> For some, the prime would be more attractive at half the cost, half the weight, and probably wider aperture.


But half the price and half the weight at 1.4 is very very very optimistic!..


----------



## richperson (May 7, 2020)

DrToast said:


> I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.



It would have somewhat limited appeal, but for sports, it would pair nicely with a 200-400mm lens. 70-135 would be great for some sports.


----------



## sanj (May 7, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That’s cool. As a portrait photographer, I do. Especially compared to a 70-200. That’s for my use, though. Everyone has their own preferences. Why 70-135? Because 85, 100, 120, 135mm. For my portraits I find myself almost always at 70mm+.


I do too!! Besides photography, it will be an awesome focal length of interviews. Will buy!


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

richperson said:


> It would have somewhat limited appeal, but for sports, it would pair nicely with a 200-400mm lens. 70-135 would be great for some sports.


I predict wide appeal. There are more portrait, event, and wedding photographers than any other genre.


----------



## herein2020 (May 7, 2020)

I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.

I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.


----------



## navastronia (May 7, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.
> 
> I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.



The two benefits of this lens are 1) a full stop of light faster than the 70-200 2.8, and 2) better/softer bokeh rendering. It's not about being a purist or not - that term doesn't mean anything, in my opinion. The lens is just a tool, and it's certainly different enough from the 70-200 2.8 to warrant use, in some situations. No one would tell a plumber there's no reason for him/her to carry a phillips head screwdriver when he/she already has a flathead. This is no different.


----------



## richperson (May 7, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Would this replace the need for RF 135mm prime? I can't see a RF 135mm f/2 prime being as popular as the EF version if the RF 70-135mm f/2 comes to market. Would this push the RF 135mm prime to a larger max aperture? f/1.4?



This is the big question. Would the majority of the people, that can afford $3000-4000 for such a lens, prefer a 70-135mm f/2 or a 135mm f/1.4? I love the flexibility of my 28-70mm f/2, but I still toss on the 35mm f/1.4 at times, and I know a lot of wedding people who would rather have their 50mm f/1.2.

I think for me, accessing f/2 with the zoom would win as it gives you the DOF and low light capabilities, and a lot of flexibility. But, I really also love my EF 200mm f/2, so would probably also really love a 135mm f/1.4.


CanonFanBoy said:


> I predict wide appeal. There are more portrait, event, and wedding photographers than any other genre.



I agree, but it is untested if such a photographer will give up their beloved primes for such a zoom. Since there are no dual card R models out, not as many top wedding photographers have adopted the platform. But, many like their 50mm prime and its unclear if they would be willing to lose 1-1.5 stops by going to the flexibility of the zoom. 

Personally, I love the idea of having one body at 28-70 and a second at 70-135 with an ultra wide and maybe a 200mm in the bag for extremes.


----------



## joestopper (May 7, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The real question here is will it be a small white or a big black?



White starts at 200.


----------



## richperson (May 7, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.
> 
> I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.



Part of that is how much light you usually get. Most of my tasks are either dark, quick moving, or both. F/2 or faster comes in very handy and often f/2.8 is just more noisy than I like.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

richperson said:


> This is the big question. Would the majority of the people, that can afford $3000-4000 for such a lens, prefer a 70-135mm f/2 or a 135mm f/1.4? I love the flexibility of my 28-70mm f/2, but I still toss on the 35mm f/1.4 at times, and I know a lot of wedding people who would rather have their 50mm f/1.2.
> 
> I think for me, accessing f/2 with the zoom would win as it gives you the DOF and low light capabilities, and a lot of flexibility. But, I really also love my EF 200mm f/2, so would probably also really love a 135mm f/1.4.
> 
> ...


True, but I will not be giving up my RF 85mm f/1.2L when I eventually get this zoom. Completely different tool for a different job, in my opinion. I also wouldn’t not get a 135mm RF prime of wider aperture. That said, I could very easily be happy with just the 28-70 and 70-135. I could not say the same if my choice was f/2.8 for my use. F/2 is a very utility sweet spot for me.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.
> 
> I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.


But you do own a bunch of lenses.  As far as satisfying clients, I am more concerned with making myself happy.


----------



## herein2020 (May 7, 2020)

navastronia said:


> The two benefits of this lens are 1) a full stop of light faster than the 70-200 2.8, and 2) better/softer bokeh rendering. It's not about being a purist or not - that term doesn't mean anything, in my opinion. The lens is just a tool, and it's certainly different enough from the 70-200 2.8 to warrant use, in some situations. No one would tell a plumber there's no reason for him/her to carry a phillips head screwdriver when he/she already has a flathead. This is no different.


Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.

I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.

I shoot everything from weddings to portraits to real estate to events...I just don't see this lens adding $3000 worth of value to my work.



richperson said:


> Part of that is how much light you usually get. Most of my tasks are either dark, quick moving, or both. F/2 or faster comes in very handy and often f/2.8 is just more noisy than I like.



That's why I said I'm not a purist, if I'm the only one that sees the noise then my mission is accomplished. Also I know that 99% of my clients will just post the footage to their Instagram, FB, or corporate website all of which will be too low resolution to ever see the noise. Every product I look at in terms of ROI, if a $3000 lens isn't going to pay for itself I'm not going to get it.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

Romain said:


> But half the price and half the weight at 1.4 is very very very optimistic!..


For reals.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.
> 
> I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.
> 
> ...


But let’s not forget, most buyers are not professionals and don’t care at all about ROI, myself included.  I do, though, fully understand and appreciate your position.


----------



## herein2020 (May 7, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> But let’s not forget, most buyers are not professionals and don’t care at all about ROI, myself included.  I do, though, fully understand and appreciate your position.


Oh I get it, I love new gear as much as the next person, I just don't like paying for it. If I weren't shooting professionally I would own a Canon Rebel with a kit lens that would probably only get used around the holidays.


----------



## slclick (May 7, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.
> 
> I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.


I am not a fan of the 70-200 focal length range, the 70-135 fits my style so much better. I'd much rather have a zoom lens that has little to no extraneous mm's and therefore a higher quality aka IQ resembling a prime, To each their own.

More choices, what's wrong with that? How does that make me a purist? Is being a so called purist a bad thing? WTF is with these idiot labels?

(Unless you're a crabby person who complains about Canon's R&D not suiting your personal wants and needs) Not directed at you, more of a universal rant against the selfish.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (May 7, 2020)

joestopper said:


> White starts at 200.


No - surely white 'starts' at 70, though it usually extends to at least 200 (70 -200)


----------



## herein2020 (May 7, 2020)

slclick said:


> I am not a fan of the 70-200 focal length range, the 70-135 fits my style so much better. I'd much rather have a zoom lens that has little to no extraneous mm's and therefore a higher quality aka IQ resembling a prime, To each their own.
> 
> More choices, what's wrong with that? How does that make me a purist? Is being a so called purist a bad thing? WTF is with these idiot labels?
> 
> (Unless you're a crabby person who complains about Canon's R&D not suiting your personal wants and needs) Not directed at you, more of a universal rant against the selfish.


No offense intended I was strictly sharing my veiwpoint of a lens like this that fits squarely within the focal range of another lens with what I consider marginal improvements in IQ. In other words I have no doubt this could take sharper images within its focal length range than my current 70-200, but for my own uses I don't consider it to be $3000 worth of improvement (or even $2000).

I applaud choices, I hope Canon keeps offering us as many as they can afford to create, but for me personally lenses like these don't make sense. Every lens I currently own clearly does something the other lenses simply cannot do; this lens for me since there is already a 70-200 does not have that same value proposition. But that's also why I only own 1 prime, what I'm getting out of my zooms is good enough for my typical client.

To me purist simply means someone willing to spend whatever it takes (or they can afford) to get the best IQ. I started out that way until I realized customers do not care about silly things like DR, or IQ, or noise, or bokeh, as long as they have something to share on their social media after the shoot they are happy. I still take pride in my work but I have accepted that professional photography is a dying art.


----------



## sanj (May 7, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.
> 
> I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.
> 
> ...


I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.


----------



## sanj (May 7, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.
> 
> I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.
> 
> ...


I will. I am a photographer first - who photographs for the joy, not just for a client. And my clients publish in magazines and on their websites.


----------



## sanj (May 7, 2020)

StoicalEtcher said:


> No - surely white 'starts' at 70, though it usually extends to at least 200 (70 -200)


I also believe white starts at 200mm.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2020)

sanj said:


> I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.


I really have a lot of admiration and envy for you guys that go all over the world.


----------



## sanj (May 7, 2020)

slclick said:


> I am not a fan of the 70-200 focal length range, the 70-135 fits my style so much better. I'd much rather have a zoom lens that has little to no extraneous mm's and therefore a higher quality aka IQ resembling a prime, To each their own.
> 
> More choices, what's wrong with that? How does that make me a purist? Is being a so called purist a bad thing? WTF is with these idiot labels?
> 
> (Unless you're a crabby person who complains about Canon's R&D not suiting your personal wants and needs) Not directed at you, more of a universal rant against the selfish.


I think there is a place for both these lenses in my bag. Each is a very different lens with a very different use. 
And I adore the word 'purist'. Love it. Idiot label or not.


----------



## joestopper (May 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Times have certainly changed: Months ago we heard that ten lenses would be released in 2020. While 2 lenses and and 2 extenders were announced (and might all come to market this year), it appears very unlikely that any other lenses will be released this year.
So, lets hope for 2021: Maybe 15 new lenses ...


----------



## brad-man (May 8, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Times have certainly changed: Months ago we heard that ten lenses would be released in 2020. While 2 lenses and and 2 extenders were announced (and might all come to market this year), it appears very unlikely that any other lenses will be released this year.
> So, lets hope for 2021: Maybe 15 new lenses ...


10? Really? Well here's the official roadmap for 2020 and it only has space for 9 lenses. Nine lenses are listed here, but I happen to know that 5 of them are fake...


----------



## dslrdummy (May 8, 2020)

sanj said:


> I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.


Love it sanjay. Better than a thousand words. Of course at the same distance and focal length the light gathering would be twice as good but the girl would be even more out of focus. Always compromises.


----------



## usern4cr (May 8, 2020)

In the coming months they're going to dribble out rumored specs for this 70-135 f2 lens. I hope one of those specs is the weight without tripod foot & ring. I could see how it would be really nice to have both this and the 70-200 f2.8 as they have different uses, but for me (on a budget) I would probably only be able to justify (re. cost) buying just one of them. So knowing at least the weight of both would help in making that decision.


----------



## highdesertmesa (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> 1. 28-70/2.0 is a normal zoom. The 28mm at F2.0 dictates a necessity for a larger front element. Not the long 70mm end.
> 2. 70-135 zoom range is a bit different in that vignetting is not such a huge issue as with 28mm end of 28-70
> Sure. Having a large front element would improve sharpness in mid frame and extreme corners, reduce vignetting wide open
> 
> ...



Why not go 95mm so we can use our $500 95mm CPL on all of the f/2 trinity lenses


----------



## herein2020 (May 8, 2020)

sanj said:


> I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.


See that's what I love about photography....100 people can look at the same image and see 100 different things. To me that image actually reinforces my point...I don't think the noise in that image is unuseable for social media, and websites; prints of course is a different story. To the untrained eye there is no noise in that image, and if you run a denoiser in post there would be even less. I'm not even convinced that another stop of light would have removed as much noise as a denoiser in post could remove.

Of course an additional stop of light would have been nice...would I have paid $2000+ for that stop of light....just to remove some noise that can only be seen at higher resolutions than it will probably be displayed at...no. Also, for that situation I would have used my 24-70 F2.8 to get a wider FOV if that was your desire since you mentioned it was a small room (something the 70-135 could not have helped with), and I probably could have gotten that additional stop of light out of the 24-70 by shooting with a slower shutter speed since it is a shorter focal length or add a monopod to the mix for additional stability and even slower shutter speeds for about $150.

I hope Canon sells these lenses in droves, the better Canon does the more products they can make, and the more gear that I have to pick from. But in my opinion there simply is not a single scenario out there for me where this lens will make the photographer $3000.00 better than what the 70-200 F2.8 already can offer.


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2020)

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that this lens will have a BR element like the awesome EF 35mm f/1.4L II and RF 85mm f/1.2L lenses. The only problem with the EF 135mm f/2L is the chromatic abberations, in my opinion. IS would be nice, but probably won’t happen.


----------



## joestopper (May 8, 2020)

brad-man said:


> 10? Really? Well here's the official roadmap for 2020 and it only has space for 9 lenses. Nine lenses are listed here, but I happen to know that 5 of them are fake...
> View attachment 190315



The first 4 are correct, the others are not. I thought 10 but maybe only 9.


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (May 8, 2020)

If this lens is as good as the glorious EF 135 f/2 then TAKE. MY. MONEY.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2020)

MaximPhotoStudio said:


> If this lens is as good as the glorious EF 135 f/2 then TAKE. MY. MONEY.



May I ask you, how much are you prepared to spend on such a lens blindly?


----------



## derpderp (May 8, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Would this replace the need for RF 135mm prime? I can't see a RF 135mm f/2 prime being as popular as the EF version if the RF 70-135mm f/2 comes to market. Would this push the RF 135mm prime to a larger max aperture? f/1.4?



I anticipate a 135mm F1.2, fitting into the line up of 35mm f1.2 (soon to be released), 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2.


----------



## derpderp (May 8, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The real question here is will it be a small white or a big black?



WORD!! Personally, I'd prefer a big black... but i don't want to attract unnecessary attention.


----------



## derpderp (May 8, 2020)

slclick said:


> I think you have the wrong forum dirty bird., sorry couldn't resist....



Well your profile pic is rather suggestive....


----------



## derpderp (May 8, 2020)

Richard Anthony said:


> I have just ordered the RF 70- 200 F2.8 , so I will stick to that now , but I have ordered the 28-70 F2 also , so I'll just get a bit closer for portraits , the missus would have a heart attack if I ordered this as well



Just buy it! Just write it off as a business expense...


----------



## sanj (May 8, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> See that's what I love about photography....100 people can look at the same image and see 100 different things. To me that image actually reinforces my point...I don't think the noise in that image is unuseable for social media, and websites; prints of course is a different story. To the untrained eye there is no noise in that image, and if you run a denoiser in post there would be even less. I'm not even convinced that another stop of light would have removed as much noise as a denoiser in post could remove.
> 
> Of course an additional stop of light would have been nice...would I have paid $2000+ for that stop of light....just to remove some noise that can only be seen at higher resolutions than it will probably be displayed at...no. Also, for that situation I would have used my 24-70 F2.8 to get a wider FOV if that was your desire since you mentioned it was a small room (something the 70-135 could not have helped with), and I probably could have gotten that additional stop of light out of the 24-70 by shooting with a slower shutter speed since it is a shorter focal length or add a monopod to the mix for additional stability and even slower shutter speeds for about $150.
> 
> I hope Canon sells these lenses in droves, the better Canon does the more products they can make, and the more gear that I have to pick from. But in my opinion there simply is not a single scenario out there for me where this lens will make the photographer $3000.00 better than what the 70-200 F2.8 already can offer.



This photo was taken with 1dx2 and the latest 35mm f1.4 at @ f1.4. ISO 3200. FYI


----------



## sanj (May 8, 2020)

dslrdummy said:


> Love it sanjay. Better than a thousand words. Of course at the same distance and focal length the light gathering would be twice as good but the girl would be even more out of focus. Always compromises.


It was 35mm @ f1.4


----------



## sanj (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> May I ask you, how much are you prepared to spend on such a lens blindly?


I would be delighted with around $1500. Buy it for $3000. Sell it for $1500 after 10 years. And create priceless photos and videos in between. CHEAP at $3000 or $3200.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2020)

sanj said:


> I would be delighted with around $1500. Buy it for $3000. Sell it for $1500 after 10 years. And create priceless photos and videos in between. CHEAP at $3000 or $3200.


with 28-70/2 being RRP $2999, 70-135/2 is likely in $3,300-$3,500 territory when released. It would (extremely likely) be positioned above 70-200/2.8 price wise.


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> with 28-70/2 being RRP $2999, 70-135/2 is likely in $3,300-$3,500 territory when released. It would (extremely likely) be positioned above 70-200/2.8 price wise.


That’s what I figure. Ours is an expensive hobby when only willing to spend for high end stuff. Relatively though, I can think of much more expensive ones: ATVs, bass boats, toy haulers, 4x4s, classic car restoration, racing etc. Since this photography stuff is my single hobby, I consider it quite economical. I’ll never wear out my gear, so the only replenishibles are batteries, bulbs and cards... which are very nominal expenses. This will be my last round. These latest offerings are so dang good I don’t think I will be heavily motivated to keep adding to it all. 28-70, 85, 70-135 should do it for me.


----------



## derpderp (May 8, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That’s what I figure. Ours is an expensive hobby when only willing to spend for high end stuff. Relatively though, I can think of much more expensive ones: ATVs, bass boats, toy haulers, 4x4s, classic car restoration, racing etc. Since this photography stuff is my single hobby, I consider it quite economical. I’ll never wear out my gear, so the only replenishibles are batteries, bulbs and cards... which are very nominal expenses. This will be my last round. These latest offerings are so dang good I don’t think I will be heavily motivated to keep adding to it all. 28-70, 85, 70-135 should do it for me.



What if they made a 14-28mm F2?


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2020)

derpderp said:


> What if they made a 14-28mm F2?


I don't really have a use for UWA. That could always change, but I doubt it. My EF years taught me what I really use and like. I had a lot of EF "L" lenses and even more non-L and EF-s lenses. To be honest, 28mm is wider than I need. Now, if I buy a house with some land I might consider a single super-tele for birds... probably used EF.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That’s what I figure. Ours is an expensive hobby when only willing to spend for high end stuff. Relatively though, I can think of much more expensive ones: ATVs, bass boats, toy haulers, 4x4s, classic car restoration, racing etc. Since this photography stuff is my single hobby, I consider it quite economical. I’ll never wear out my gear, so the only replenishibles are batteries, bulbs and cards... which are very nominal expenses. This will be my last round. These latest offerings are so dang good I don’t think I will be heavily motivated to keep adding to it all. 28-70, 85, 70-135 should do it for me.


you may also consider giving your 85/1.2 a flick as 135mm at *F2.8* offers an equally shallow DOF as 85mm at F1.2 does! 

that is only provided the 70-135 is a nice lens with distortions, CA levels, vignetting, focus shift and focus transition / bokeh being well under control and worth your money.

your 28-70/2 is a completely different animal all together. and is more about ability to shoot in low light at either a lower ISO or faster shutter speed.
so.. you may as well "invest" in R5 or 70-200/2.8 as in give up your R and 85/1.2 for R5 + 70-200/2.8 

p.s. with IS and IBIS


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> you may also consider giving your 85/1.2 a flick as 135mm at *F2.8* offers an equally shallow DOF as 85mm at F1.2 does!
> 
> that is only provided the 70-135 is a nice lens with distortions, CA levels, vignetting, focus shift and focus transition / bokeh being well under control and worth your money.
> 
> ...


Well, the 85mm has a permanent home, but you are right. I have no need for the R5 and I am done with the 70-200 focal length. I'd be more interested in an R Mark II with IBIS.

My 28-70 is all about shallow DOF and bokeh for me. I almost always use flash. Low light, yes, when shooting the grandson indoors. That's about it. I see vignetting as a benefit. Focus shift (breathing?) doesn't bother me.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 8, 2020)

joestopper said:


> White starts at 200.



The EF 200mm f/2.8 is black.

White vs black is not a style decision by Canon, it's a technical decision based on reducing heating of lenses used in strong daylight. 

So, it will be white if it needs to be for heat dissipation reasons, and black if not. Generally this means more complex lenses with a longer reach, but there's nothing stopping Canon putting an ultrawide lens in a white shell if they feel it's the best way to reduce heat buildup.

I also wonder whether it'd be better if pro bodies were white rather than black for the same reason.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 8, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The EF 200mm f/2.8 is black.
> 
> White vs black is not a style decision by Canon, it's a technical decision based on reducing heating of lenses used in strong daylight.
> 
> ...



Form what I gathered the white was originally so they stood out against the Nikon lenses when Nikon was king. And speaking of Nikon super tele lenses are taken to the same extremes without white paint. I am sure there is something to keeping the lenses cooler in direct sunlight, but I think it is marketing thing like that distinctive red ring.


----------



## Del Paso (May 8, 2020)

DrToast said:


> No, I'm talking about comparing 70mm to 135m. I can totally understand buying a 135mm f/2. But I don't see a need for a 70-135 f/2.


Especially when you look at the sales-price of the EF 135 f/2, best value for the money, and one of the greatest Canon lenses ever!


----------



## Del Paso (May 8, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The EF 200mm f/2.8 is black.
> 
> White vs black is not a style decision by Canon, it's a technical decision based on reducing heating of lenses used in strong daylight.
> 
> ...


Death Valley in August made me HATE black tele-lenses as well as black bodies !


----------



## DBounce (May 8, 2020)

I already own the RF 70-200. I’ll skip this one... I have no use for a large/heavy non-stabilized zoom.


----------



## Etienne (May 8, 2020)

Surely Canon will build some modest primes for the R5, but when?
These f/1.2 primes and f/2 zooms are cool and all, but the size and weight are even more prohibitive than the price.
The only RF lens that appeals to me so far is the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I don't need many more lenses: a 16-35 f/4L and a 50 f/1.4 (yes, I'd like IS) Thats it, that's enough. I'd even run with a small 20 or 24mm f/2.8 prime instead of the 16-35.
I just can't lug around all the weight anymore.


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Death Valley in August made me HATE black tele-lenses as well as black bodies !


Sadly, I grew up in SoCal and also lived in Nevada for 6 years. I never did get to Death Valley.


----------



## filmmakerken (May 8, 2020)

I own the 28-70 f/2 and love the images it produces. Yes, it's heavy. I can't use its for video without a tripod and it's too heavy for a gimbal. But for still photos... it is like having a series of primes. I would expect the same from the RF 70-135/2L. Most prime lens packages (at least in film production) have a 70mm, 75mm or 85mm and then jump to a 105mm or 135mm. Having all those options in a single, quality lens is appealing....especially when the R5 comes out. Keep in mind that Canon doesn't offer Cinema Primes in the RF mount nor are they currently licensing the RF mount to other lens manufacturers like Zeiss and Cooke.


----------



## Daner (May 8, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Will it come with a trial voucher for your local gym?



Lenses like this are why I have been doing CrossFit since 2008.


----------



## usern4cr (May 8, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, the 85mm has a permanent home, but you are right. I have no need for the R5 and I am done with the 70-200 focal length. I'd be more interested in an R Mark II with IBIS.
> 
> My 28-70 is all about shallow DOF and bokeh for me. I almost always use flash. Low light, yes, when shooting the grandson indoors. That's about it. I see vignetting as a benefit. Focus shift (breathing?) doesn't bother me.


Very nice picture! Since you are into big beautiful bokeh and portraits and have the 85 f1.2, have you ever tried the DS version of it? I'm just curious. I know the DS bokeh has a unique smooth edge falloff but has a smaller wide open average blur diameter(about half), which quickly becomes the same as the non-DS version when stopped down. If you have suggestions regarding the two it'd be interesting to hear for those that might buy one of them in the future.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 8, 2020)

Accutance said:


> The Sigma 50-100/1.8 is for APSc and it's 1.5 kg. Scaled up to 70-135 FF means it will very likely be HEAVY, even for mirrorless.


Unless Canon decided to use plastic lenses, such as Lomo cameras have


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 8, 2020)

slclick said:


> I could think of many ways to use this.


I use my ol' EF 500mm F/4.5 as a club, if I get with that gear in trouble somewhere out in the wilderness. A large mass in your hand can sometimes be a decisive advantage, if you get attacked...


----------



## IcyBergs (May 8, 2020)

Daner said:


> Lenses like this are why I have been doing CrossFit since 2008.



Shooting with lenses like this is why you won't need to workout anymore


----------



## Fran Decatta (May 8, 2020)

I bet that will be a 2 kilogram lens, at least. Anyways, work with the 28-70 f2 is a pure joy, I expect that will be the same with this lens, even if I dont need it for my work, for the moment  Wish to see how will looks!


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Very nice picture! Since you are into big beautiful bokeh and portraits and have the 85 f1.2, have you ever tried the DS version of it? I'm just curious. I know the DS bokeh has a unique smooth edge falloff but has a smaller wide open average blur diameter(about half), which quickly becomes the same as the non-DS version when stopped down. If you have suggestions regarding the two it'd be interesting to hear for those that might buy one of them in the future.


I've not tried the DS and am not interested in it. I thought I might regret getting the non-DS once the DS came out, but no. The effect, from what I understand, disappears as one stops down. I prefer the hard edge on bokeh light balls on the rare occasion they are in the background.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 8, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Form what I gathered the white was originally so they stood out against the Nikon lenses when Nikon was king. And speaking of Nikon super tele lenses are taken to the same extremes without white paint. I am sure there is something to keeping the lenses cooler in direct sunlight, but I think it is marketing thing like that distinctive red ring.



I did speak once to an ex war photojournalist who said that white lenses were far preferred because they were less likely to be mistaken for some kind of weapon. But again, I don't think that's primary reason.


----------



## SteveC (May 9, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I did speak once to an ex war photojournalist who said that white lenses were far preferred because they were less likely to be mistaken for some kind of weapon. But again, I don't think that's primary reason.



OK, so weapons manufacturers will now start painting them white so they'll be mistaken for fancy camera lenses. Check.


----------



## joestopper (May 9, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The EF 200mm f/2.8 is black.



So, white still starts at 200 and not below (or for zooms: longest focal length at least 200). Does not exclude 200 f/2.8 being black. 




jolyonralph said:


> White vs black is not a style decision by Canon, it's a technical decision based on reducing heating of lenses used in strong daylight.



There are many myths why big lenses are white. And, BTW, many aren't white. Look at Sigma, for example. Certainly Canon uses those myths to keep the glory of their early big white lenses even though it is technically not necessary. The RF 70-200 is such a case.



jolyonralph said:


> So, it will be white if it needs to be for heat dissipation reasons, and black if not. Generally this means more complex lenses with a longer reach, but there's nothing stopping Canon putting an ultrawide lens in a white shell if they feel it's the best way to reduce heat buildup.



A lens is not dissipating any heat. If it were about dissipating, it would need a heat sink and not white color.
It is about light reflection where white color helps.


----------



## joestopper (May 9, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Sadly, I grew up in SoCal and also lived in Nevada for 6 years. I never did get to Death Valley.



Big mistake. Death Valley has very dark night skies of Bortle 1-2. Excellent place for astro photography or just stargazing.


----------



## joestopper (May 9, 2020)

filmmakerken said:


> I own the 28-70 f/2 and love the images it produces. Yes, it's heavy. I can't use its for video without a tripod and it's too heavy for a gimbal. But for still photos... it is like having a series of primes. I would expect the same from the RF 70-135/2L. Most prime lens packages (at least in film production) have a 70mm, 75mm or 85mm and then jump to a 105mm or 135mm. Having all those options in a single, quality lens is appealing....especially when the R5 comes out. Keep in mind that Canon doesn't offer Cinema Primes in the RF mount nor are they currently licensing the RF mount to other lens manufacturers like Zeiss and Cooke.



"But for still photos... it is like having a series of primes."

It does not have the quality of a prime: The color rendering, for example, of the RF 50 1.2 is far better than RF 28-70


----------



## Ozarker (May 9, 2020)

joestopper said:


> "But for still photos... it is like having a series of primes."
> 
> It does not have the quality of a prime: The color rendering, for example, of the RF 50 1.2 is far better than RF 28-70


Nah.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 9, 2020)

joestopper said:


> "But for still photos... it is like having a series of primes."
> 
> It does not have the quality of a prime: The color rendering, for example, of the RF 50 1.2 is far better than RF 28-70


Spot on. 28-70/2 distortion level @28mm is: barrel, around 3.6%. Good to Soft mid frame and corners wide open. Much better at F2.8.


----------



## navastronia (May 9, 2020)

joestopper said:


> "But for still photos... it is like having a series of primes."
> 
> It does not have the quality of a prime: The color rendering, for example, of the RF 50 1.2 is far better than RF 28-70



Can you point us to any examples?


----------



## Del Paso (May 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Form what I gathered the white was originally so they stood out against the Nikon lenses when Nikon was king. And speaking of Nikon super tele lenses are taken to the same extremes without white paint. I am sure there is something to keeping the lenses cooler in direct sunlight, but I think it is marketing thing like that distinctive red ring.


NO!
It happened when Canon started using fluorite lenses, which are far more sensitive to heat.
Additionally, when exposed to sunshine in hot environments, you'd need gloves to handhold a heavy black lens.
That's why I never understood Nikon, and jumped aboard the Canon ship.
Even the bayonet- hammer-crippled Soni tele-lenses are white, and certainly not to make them look like Canons.
PS: the front lens of my Leica Apo Telyt 180mm cracked in Death Valley, the lens was so hot I could no longer focus it...
PPS: In winter time, in snowy countries, canons (the real ones), are often camouflaged using white paint, so you'd better not put a "big white" on display...


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Can you point us to any examples?


I am interested too in seeing the examples. Or even a link. Thank you.
I do believe the prime will be better but want to see the real-life examples, difference.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 9, 2020)

sanj said:


> I am interested too in seeing the examples. Or even a link. Thank you.
> I do believe the prime will be better but want to see the real-life examples, difference.











Canon RF 28-70mm F2 L USM Review


The Canon RF 28-70mm F2 L USM is a one-of-a-kind zoom lens, combining an aperture typically reserved for primes and a 2.5x zoom range, without sacrificing image quality.




www.pcmag.com





please read in its entirety.. there are images that demonstrate some points joestopper have made.
Personally I have a limited experience with the RF 85/1.2 and 28-70/2. just about 30 min each. however, my opinion is that 85/1.2 is an amazing tool.
at F2.0 sharpness, CA levels, distortions, bokeh quality, focus to out of focus transitions, contrast, colours and overall rendition is s.u.p.e.r.b full stop.. just out of this world. amazing lens.

I am going to own this tools when opportunity presented itself.
on the other hand, 28-70/2 while is a unique lens.. I was not convinced enough there.. anyway...
all of the above is only my personal point of view.


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> http://[URL]https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/canon-rf-28-70mm-f2-l-usm[/URL]
> 
> please read in its entirety.. there are images that demonstrate some points joestopper have made.
> Personally I have a limited experience with the RF 85/1.2 and 28-70/2. just about 30 min each. however, my opinion is that 85/1.2 is an amazing tool.
> ...


Thank you. But it does not really compare it with the 50 mm.


----------



## Del Paso (May 9, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Sadly, I grew up in SoCal and also lived in Nevada for 6 years. I never did get to Death Valley.


It's never too late and why not, a good occasion to test the 70-135 f/2....


----------



## Del Paso (May 9, 2020)

derpderp said:


> I anticipate a 135mm F1.2, fitting into the line up of 35mm f1.2 (soon to be released), 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2.


This would be one more nail into Soni's coffin !


----------



## SecureGSM (May 10, 2020)

sanj said:


> Thank you. But it does not really compare it with the 50 mm.


no, it does not directly compare these too lenses, but look at the B&W shot here:









Canon EOS R Review - Page 3 of 8 - Photography Life







photographylife.com





(Canon EOS R + RF50mm F1.2 L USM @ 50mm, ISO 100, 1/200, f/5.6)

rendition, contrast and punch is amazing.
What else could one expect from a lens (tool) designed to help creatives unleashing their inner talent and creativity?

Admittedly, 50mm is not my thing. However 85mm.. is a completely different story


----------



## Ozarker (May 15, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> It's never too late and why not, a good occasion to test the 70-135 f/2....


Well, in Texas now. However, my dad is still in Nevada. When all this is over I will probably go the next time I drive out.


----------



## TomR (Jul 16, 2020)

this lens would be my dream lens to pair with the R5


----------



## Richard Anthony (Jul 16, 2020)

I already have the the 28-70 F2 , so this lens would compliment that and my R5 when it comes , what an expensive year this is turning into lol


----------

