First look at the New CANON 135mm 1.8

Seems to be sharper then the rf 85 1.2 according to the review.

https://youtu.be/kBLjW​BKkD0Q

It is here !

Time to sell my EF 135mm f/2L

If $$$ is not an issue Damn

Just about $3,000

I thought it was about 2100 us.

DCBB Photography wrote in post #19442424
I thought it was about 2100 us.

That would be better. The Park Camera link in that video has it at £2,599.00

This may turn into a mild rant.

For several reasons, I'm becoming somewhat disenchanted with Canon as of late. Each time a new lens is announced, it seems to become more clear why Canon banned 3rd parties from creating RF mount options. Maybe I was expecting too much, but I continue to be largely underwhelmed by the RF lens lineup. We've come to a point with optics where it's harder to sell me a lens based on sharpness, contrast, color, etc. Image quality is easily "good enough", and in many cases, far better than what our eyes can discern. It's hard to be impressed by the technical data anymore, and less so when even the smallest improvement on an MTF chart results in a significant increase in price.

I'm wondering what the new RF 135 will do (in real-life rather than on paper) that is significantly better than the EF 135. All of this is obviously opinion, but image stabilization on this particular lens seems a waste, especially when you consider the higher end R bodies have IBIS. And do we really need/want f/1.8 rather than f2? These 2 "upgrades" are certainly being used to justify the price tag, but the functionality, for me, is questionable. So, I'm left looking at a lens that is larger, heavier, and more costly than it's predecessor...but the only feature that truly interests me is the RF style mount so I can eliminate an adapter.

Would love to try this for indoor sports but at the price, probably not going to happen.

Wasn’t the predecessor launched over 20 years ago? It would be a tall task to be able to release a lens now at the same price point or anywhere close to it wouldn’t it?

I am interested in seeing the comparison with this lens and my R5 adapted Sigma 135 Art.

DCBB Photography wrote in post #19442492
Wasn’t the predecessor launched over 20 years ago? It would be a tall task to be able to release a lens now at the same price point or anywhere close to it wouldn’t it?

I believe the EF launched at around $1000-ish in 1997. So, we're now more than double the price. For reference, I think the EF 50L started at about $1500 in 2007, with the new RF starting at about $2000, give or take.

Over the years, my sense of value/cost in the world of photography has been appropriately blunted so that I'm typically not shocked by prices, but I'm having a hard time with this one. Imagine shopping for a work truck and realizing they all come with full explosives armor as a standard option. I don't drive through active warzones anymore, so I don't really need the armor, but there is no non-armored alternative, so now I'm stuck buying an armored vehicle to drive around town lol. Perhaps the ban on 3rd party lenses is playing a role in how I'm interpreting things, but I can't help but feel as though Canon is trying very hard to force the consumer into spending more money per lens by adding features like this instead of doing the R&D to truly develop something more meaningful.

Good news if you don't mind the adaptor is I'm sure you can get the outstanding 135L relatively cheap now. The EF 50L and 135L are probably the only EF lenses I see keeping long term.

Price is $2099 on BH.

Had the EF version, seeing them for about $700 in excellent condition in the used market. Would love to have the RF version, it's a lot less $$$ than I initially thought it would be.

mannetti21 wrote in post #19442512
I believe the EF launched at around $1000-ish in 1997. So, we're now more than double the price. For reference, I think the EF 50L started at about $1500 in 2007, with the new RF starting at about $2000, give or take.

Over the years, my sense of value/cost in the world of photography has been appropriately blunted so that I'm typically not shocked by prices, but I'm having a hard time with this one. Imagine shopping for a work truck and realizing they all come with full explosives armor as a standard option. I don't drive through active warzones anymore, so I don't really need the armor, but there is no non-armored alternative, so now I'm stuck buying an armored vehicle to drive around town lol. Perhaps the ban on 3rd party lenses is playing a role in how I'm interpreting things, but I can't help but feel as though Canon is trying very hard to force the consumer into spending more money per lens by adding features like this instead of doing the R&D to truly develop something more meaningful.

I can’t say you are wrong although personally I don’t think that’s the case. I just think they are stepping up the game. I mean how much grief did Canon catch because “Sony was ahead”? So they are addressing it, and on the surface they are going high end before low end.


My perspective is perhaps different because I typically shot with MF Zeiss glass anyway so the pricing doesn’t seem that much different to me.

I do wonder at all the fairly slow glass (f7.1) stuff. Seems to be a wide gap, but I also know with higher ISO ability of Tandy’s sensors the glass doesn’t have to be as fast …for focusing either. Perhaps that explains it.