the EF135/2 was my favorite lens from 1997 to, well, actually it was the only one of 15 lenses I kept when I switched to RF. But the RF135 is shockingly good. Wide open, the 135/1.8's CORNERS are sharper than the 135/2's CENTER. My test target has 55lp/mm, meaning the lines are only 2 pixels thick on the R5 sensor, but it renders them very sharply anyway. The AF is somewhat faster and I assume more accurate. The IS is definitely not the 8 stops (on an R5) that Canon claims but is still probably 2 stops better than the 135/2 would be.
As someone who adores my Sony 135 f1.8 GM - the inclusion of stabilization on this lens is definitely a source of envy. I would certainly short-list this lens if I was on the Canon system
@@thephotoyak For stills, honestly, no, the IBIS is plenty as long as it's not *horribly* low-light. This is coming from the A7R IV for reference. I generally shoot in aperture priority, targeting 1/125th of a second when I use the lens
It is true that almost all high-end RF lenses have IS, however they are very expensive. Sony has the advantage of having third-party alternatives at great prices. Greetings from Chile.
The EF135/2 was my favorite lens from 1997 to, well, actually it was the only one of 15 lenses I kept when I switched to RF! But the RF135 is shockingly good. Wide open, the 135/1.8's CORNERS are sharper than the 135/2's CENTER. My test target has 55lp/mm, meaning the lines are only 2 pixels thick on the R5 sensor, but it renders them very clearly anyway. The AF is somewhat faster and I assume more accurate. The IS is definitely not the 8 stops (on an R5) that Canon claims but is still probably 2 stops better than the 135/2 would be. I'm also happy with the RF 100 macro with 1.4x and defocus ring, but I can't compare it to the EF.
That has to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made! I've been watching a bunch of your videos and I don't think I've seen anything quite like this before.
It's not as sharp as the Samyang AF 135mm f1.8 FE, but only Sony users have access to that beauty. Such as shame Canon won't allow third party lens manufacturers to have access to the RF mount. This new Canon is probably the best 135mm lens available for Canon RF at the moment though, if not the best RF lens currently available.
@@kilaueaproductions4210 You can use the Sigma 135mm f1.8 EF with an adapter. And the Sigma 135mm f1.8 is the sharpest of them all. And it has a good price.
For anyone who doesn't have money they are trying to burn, the EF 135L is still amazing and works beautifully on an EF-RF adapter. They are downright cheap in comparison.
Also the Sigma Art 135 f1.8 is nothing short of outstanding, it has been for years the sharpest lens Chris had tested; I use it adapted on my R6 and I've nothing to cry about, even compared to this new RF version.
@@Ali80D That may be true, but you can sometimes find the EF 135L for close to $500 used. And it almost seems irrelevant that things are sharper, because the old L is as sharp as you'd ever need even for pro work.
Too bad Canon is anti third party, the Samyang AF 135mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens and much cheaper as well. EF lenses wouldn't be needed if third party lenses were allowed, hence why Canon isn't allowing it.
Don't shoot Canon but I've still been looking forward to your review of this lens. My nikon 105mm f/1.4 is being repaired and this video is making me miss it!
Christopher, when you use a RF full frame lens on an APSC camera, such as the Canon R7, does the lens retain all it's qualities? I wondered if an RF lens that was soft on the edges, would actually be better on a crop sensor since (presumably) the edges of the lens are not used on a crop sensor camera?
I use to use the 70-200 for event second camera. I still use the 24-70 but put the 135 on the other body. It is so sharp that I can crop to get the 70-200 shots. I love the faster glass and a more unique look.
@@tonygreenmike There are no cons. The adapter has no electronic neither optics, it is just the extension tube with electrical contacts. So it does not affect at all neither the IQ nore the AF performance.
Been a sub since your early days. Would LOVE to see a review for the Leica SL series of lenses. Want to know how character vs image quality works price non withstanding. Thanks!
1:50 it's just OVER a kilo, I measure 1060g. That said, the 1996 EF 135mm f/2.0L, with EF->RF adapter, together are 935g, so it's actually about 10% LESS heavy for a given amount of light-collecting ability.
Both sigma and the old canon will give an excellent images in real world scenarios. This canon is perfect, and AF will give a better hit rate with tracking autofocus, but the price is.... The old canon is quite simple and reliable lens, it is relatively safe to buy used. Speaking of Europe, this can mean 4 times price difference. I am slightly disappointed that Canon again went down the path of maximalism and gigantism. A more modest lightweight 135 2 would be a great option. Just a little sharper, with protection and a new autofocus.
I don't see any problem Canon having a toe-to-toe top lens against Sony 135GM. The old EF can adapt well on RF, and the ability to mount extender is something E mount's 135mm(Sony and Samyang) unable to do.
Nah. Canon needed to answer Sony's 135 1.8, which is a top seller for portrait/wedding photogs. They hit it out of the park, this lens is better than the EF in every single way, and is actually lighter than the Sony.
Canon has decided they either go hard or go home. Go middle of the road will be like Nikon, no ambition to chase top two, a bunch of f1.8 so called value prime lenses ended up not saving anything for owners. The good old Digital SLR days have long gone and camera lens market has shrunken to the size it was in 1990s, aka film SLR era. There is a rapid diminishing semi serious hobbyist market and it is not worthy enough for manufacturer to invest a third lineup of lenses between the top tier L and entry level kit lens. A lot of people may not like this strategy but in the end, pay for the L if they stay in RF long enough.
@@zegzbrutal their f1.2 and f0.95 are even more oversized. No body dislikes Nikon but their lack of ambition to be number one again is so obvious. They want to secure their small 5% marketshare then milk as much profit as possible from those 5% owners. It is not a sustainable strategy.
great in depth review, love it. i like the 135mm range more than the 85. too bad the 135 wasn't available when i got the 85mm. now i've got to sell the 85 get the 135 and 50mm combo, great video as always!
It destroys de EF counterpart, and every 135 in the world, including the CZ Milvus, that is a lot to say. Look at The digital picture image quality tests.
Hey Chris. I was wondering about something and thought it might be interesting. A lot of people are using diffusion filters (BPM 1/4; Cinebloom 10%; Glimmerglass 1 etc.) nowadays for their photographs. I think it would be interesting to see the characteristics of these filters and how they manipulate the image when tested the same way you do your regular lens tests. You could use the sharpest standard lens you have to keep results as neutral as possible
Thanks for the great review, I was waiting for it! Now hope my copy arrives sooner than later. But Canon starts to apologize again for the late delivery….
When Canon is bringing out cheap lens that has obvious strengths and weaknesses. Non-RF users complain about it being worse than 3rd party E mount lens. When Canon is bringing out top notch lens that actually beats other equivalent. The comments will still have complaints about it cost more than 3rd party E mount lens. Can we stop being pedantic?
You stated the Sigma ART 135 f1.8 was the sharpest lens you've ever tested. You said this one wasn't the sharpest until F4.0 ish. I have the sigma, why should I upgrade, if cost isn't a concern?
6:02 If this could have maintained image clarity at MFD and doubled as a pseudo-macro lens I probably would have bought one. Of course this is a portrait lens first and it's scary how perfect it is in that application. Realistically the 85f2 Macro should be the lens for me but even on that lens MFD image quality is still a bit lacking.
I just compared this review to Christopher's review of the Samyang, and the Samyang puts this Canon to shame! The only advantage for the Canon is the IS.
@cquezadak really? Funny how he says in this review the Canon is the best 7:42. Samyang AF was questionable and build quality not impressive. Sharpness at MFD was the only area I saw the Canon falling behind.
This lens is a sheer winner. Stunning images. Move aside, Fujifilm and Viltrox! When people don't know why photographers still use full frame cameras or what a top notch lens is, point them to a lens like this Canon RF 135mm! :)
Boy, the Viltrox 75mm 1,2 is as sharp as this overpriced Canon lens for less than 1/4 of the cost!😂 And at the minimum focus distance it blows away the Canon completly in terms of sharpness and contrast☺.
Is that stable photo/video output results can we achievement also on i.e. R8 without embedded IBIS? Can we rely on lens stabilization on lower-price bodies like RP/R/R8, etc.?
Many older cameras didnt have ibis and it worked just fine. Not as good but still usable. I for one have shaky hands and have no problem without ibis but it depends. The benefit of such fast lenses is that you can have faster shutter speed. A lens at this price should be tested before buying though for sure.
How is it similar price? You can get the 135 GM for £1500-1600 and this 135 canon lens is like a £1000 more, give or take... I had the 135 GM and it is an absolute beast, it just lacks IS. Thus 135 is very impressive too but an extra £1000 for IS?? Nah lol
@@themarksmanABP You're right. I was actually talking about prices on bhphoto US website; where both sell for $2098. But in the UK, the price difference is indeed astronomical.
Canon's image quality in the field would be better because of the lens IS. In telephoto, the effect of Lens IS is much greater than that of sensor(in-body) IS. So the RF 135 can shoot with much more lower shutter speed,which means it is possible to shoot at a lower ISO. The AF speed is fast for both Sony and Canon, but since Sony doesn't cut costs on the AF motor(Dual XD Linear), if you use it with the a1, the Sony will probably be slightly faster. For Bokeh, the GM is better. So i use sony. But I don't think that's a difference enough to have a big impact on choosing between the two products. However, when using the 135 in Sony, it is difficult to lower the shutter speed(no image stabilization). So you have to shoot at a high ISO. This is a big downside. I am a Sony shooter, but I think the RF 135 is a more advanced one.
@@_minimal_bear I am sure that the IS of the RF135 would do better for static sceneries. But for portraits and events, I wonder if stabilization would affect the final image by much.
@@_minimal_bear how slow do you need shutter speed to be? If your subject is living there’s only so much room you can play with until things start to have movement blur.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 You're right. In the case of outdoor shooting, both Sony and Canon have so much room for shutter speed. Shootings with lighting will be similar. The Canon 135's built-in image stabilization probably shines indoors, hand-held, and when you need a deeper DOF. It will also help reduce subtle blur on high resolution cameras like the EOS R5 at fast paced events(Compared to the combination of A7R4 and 135gm, you don't have to be more careful when pressing the shutter). Nevertheless, there will be little benefit from RF135's built-in image stabilization for fast shooting above a certain shutter speed. (You are already using fast enough shutter speed that there is no hand blur.) In the comment, it was written that the fact that 135gm does not have bulit-in image stabilization is a big issue, but it seems appropriate to see this as a big advantage of the RF135 rather than a problem with the 135gm.
@@livejames9374 I agree. As a hobby photographer, if i want to get the best image quality with less noise, it can be helpful to shoot with a slow shutter speed even if the photos are occasionally blurry. There's time to shoot it again. But Especially in commercial photography where there are many restrictions on the situation, I doubt they will use slow shutter speeds just to lower the iso a bit. And if blur occurs due to a slow shutter speed, the efficiency of work decreases as a result. We can use pictures that have a little noise, but it is difficult to use pictures that are shaken due to the problem of shutter speed.
Sharp on an R7, so the tech is there. An RF-S version would be most welcome. It would weigh a lot less... and we would not mind shelling out 1000€ or so... :-)
the sigma 135 art is quite old but better built and of course you get a solid case. the AF of the canon is impressive though. All in all i the lens is very good but nothing new. isn't the review a bit canon fan boyish?? ;)
I usually don't make comments like that but @7:20 your gorgeous wife looks even greater than usual and I wonder how much of that is thanks to this magnificent piece of glass.
Too expensive to ditch my amazing Sigma 135 Art, but IQ is really stellar; BUT the short 70cm mfd should be there to take advantage of dreamy details with a super shallow DoF...but the close up IQ really s*cks to be honest, my Sigma is WAY sharper at mfd. If you have to close to f2.8 to have high IQ, then there's no point in having such a short mfd with the wide aperture, you probably will get more bokeh at f1.8 from a std focus distance. Such a shame.
if the canon 135 was tested at the same close focus distance as the sigma the canon may fair better ..the sigma min focus distance is 7 inches further away than the canon ... being able to focus closer than the sigma but needing to stop down to F2.8 is not a negative ..it still has an ability over the sigma of very sharp considerably closer but F2.8+ images
@@ritrattoaziendale they did..its very sharp at 7 inches closer at F2.8+...its very hard to make a fast lens focus closer and be sharp.. there may have had to be optical compromises else were if they did
Why would it have a carry case? It's not a large lens, like the EF 70-200, or RF 100-500. The RF 85 1.2 is bigger than this lens, also, and does not come with a case.
i'm baffled...$2100 for a 135mm f1.8? The Sigma Art which i think you said was the sharpest lens you ever tested is $1089 🤔💀 I'm not seeing how Canon can justify that price...even with stabilization
It's new, it's still sharper than Sigma, perfect wide open, has IS, and finally has L series build quality and reliability. Yes, it's expensive but still worth it for the pros.
Chris, you must have a very short memory as you seem to have forgotten that you have already clearly shown that the Samyang AF 135mm f1.8 FE has got the best optics in the world. It's just as sharp as the Canon right across the frame but then it beats the Canon RF, as it has no LoCA, even when wide open, whereas you have shown that the Canon has to be stopped down to f2.8 to get rid of it. You also showed the Samyang has perfect image quality wide open at it's MFD, whereas the Canon has to be stopped down to f4 to get good image quality at it's MFD. The Canon starts to get soft from diffraction at f11 whereas the Samyang is still razor sharp at f16 and doesn't get soft from diffraction till f22! And the Samyang has better flare resistance too. It would be far more accurate to say the Canon RF 135mm 1.8 has the best optics of any RF lens yet released, but obviously it still can't match the Samyang for optical quality.
Thanks for your comment! I did actually go back and check the test results. The Canon seems just a touch sharper on its APS-C test images when looking at the pictures on my hard drive. The Canon is also slightly better at working against bright lights. IMO. You are correct though that the Samyang is a lot sharper when shooting close up. Overall though you really could toss a coin between the two which is a testimony to how great the Samyang lens is.
@@christopherfrost Indeed...And I don't think it will be long before Sigma release a smaller and lighter DG DN mirrorless version of their bulky 135mm f1.8 DG HSM for DSLR's, as they have already brought out a 50mm and 85mm DG DN. When they do it will be very interesting to see how it compares with the other four 135mm f1.8's that have AF...I will be waiting for your review with baited breath.
as I would also use this lens for sport photography, the lightening fast canon AF would help deliver sharp images where the samyang may not even be able to take a shot. appart from that, I would love to get my hands on a RF version of the samyang...one can dream... may be, sigma will make it true...in a long while. it seems to me that canon will protect their RF monopole for a while. too bad, a 105 and 135 RF would instantly make their way into my bag
Chris, it isn’t plastic - it’s called industrial composite as you wouldn’t be able to produce a high tech, micro millimetre precise Instrument from plastic. A formula 1 car, a modern bicycle or modern skies aren’t made of plastic either. It’s all sorts of composites, sometimes mixed with carbon fibre or sometimes, based on what you want to achieve with it, pure carbon fibre (which sadly will crack quickly once falling down). Just saying…
This is an example of the printer vs ink situation, Canon is making their bodies more affordable, knowing that they will have themonopoly on the lenses for their RF mount, so, if you want a great lens for your EOS Rx model, you're gonna have to spend the pretty penny in it. Just like with some printers, they don't cost as much as they should because the ink or toner costs a fucking lot.
Astonishing as was expected from day one, Canon, Sony Sigma and Samyang tuned out maximum from those 135s. /rather too much political attention in yours videos recently/
In my EF lenses, my EF 135 F/2 is by far my best lens! ❤️ my 135
I’ve been tell people the EF 135 f/2 is one of the best lenses I’ve ever used on canon. And you can use the 2x Extender with it.
@@marlonking5924 exactly.. The EF 135 takes the x2 extender better than most lenses
This is the review I was waiting for. Thanks for reviewing this.
the EF135/2 was my favorite lens from 1997 to, well, actually it was the only one of 15 lenses I kept when I switched to RF. But the RF135 is shockingly good. Wide open, the 135/1.8's CORNERS are sharper than the 135/2's CENTER. My test target has 55lp/mm, meaning the lines are only 2 pixels thick on the R5 sensor, but it renders them very sharply anyway. The AF is somewhat faster and I assume more accurate. The IS is definitely not the 8 stops (on an R5) that Canon claims but is still probably 2 stops better than the 135/2 would be.
Scary how optically precise the RF L lineup is
And how expensive they are 😵💫
Buy once, cry once 🤡
Love this lens. I rented it myself recently and immediately fell in love with it. Cannot wait until I can get my hands on a permanent copy.
As someone who adores my Sony 135 f1.8 GM - the inclusion of stabilization on this lens is definitely a source of envy. I would certainly short-list this lens if I was on the Canon system
Do you find IBIS lacking at 135mm? How many stops are you getting from IBIS?
@@thephotoyak For stills, honestly, no, the IBIS is plenty as long as it's not *horribly* low-light. This is coming from the A7R IV for reference. I generally shoot in aperture priority, targeting 1/125th of a second when I use the lens
It is true that almost all high-end RF lenses have IS, however they are very expensive. Sony has the advantage of having third-party alternatives at great prices. Greetings from Chile.
135 1.8 GM can be had for literally half the price of this RF 135 1.8, there’s absolutely nothing to be envious about.
@@frostybe3r it has IBIS dude,. and having IBIS is much better than having none,.
Would love you tackling those 200mm f/2 beasts too at some point.
i have the 200mm 1.8L....but i think (a lot of) about this 135RF....OMG
Great review. Thanks a lot!
The EF 135, 100 macro IS, and 85 1.4 are my favorites adapted on my R5/R6 bodies.
The EF135/2 was my favorite lens from 1997 to, well, actually it was the only one of 15 lenses I kept when I switched to RF! But the RF135 is shockingly good. Wide open, the 135/1.8's CORNERS are sharper than the 135/2's CENTER. My test target has 55lp/mm, meaning the lines are only 2 pixels thick on the R5 sensor, but it renders them very clearly anyway. The AF is somewhat faster and I assume more accurate. The IS is definitely not the 8 stops (on an R5) that Canon claims but is still probably 2 stops better than the 135/2 would be. I'm also happy with the RF 100 macro with 1.4x and defocus ring, but I can't compare it to the EF.
135mm is my favorite focal length. This lens is very sharp!
Disapponited in the soft image quality at the closest focusing distance. Not nice at all for a 2700 € lens.
That has to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made! I've been watching a bunch of your videos and I don't think I've seen anything quite like this before.
It's not as sharp as the Samyang AF 135mm f1.8 FE, but only Sony users have access to that beauty. Such as shame Canon won't allow third party lens manufacturers to have access to the RF mount.
This new Canon is probably the best 135mm lens available for Canon RF at the moment though, if not the best RF lens currently available.
@@alfoutdoors9660 I can't use either of them. XP I have a Panasonic Lumix S5.
@@kilaueaproductions4210
You can use the Sigma 135mm f1.8 EF with an adapter. And the Sigma 135mm f1.8 is the sharpest of them all. And it has a good price.
I just purchased a copy of this lens and it does come with a case.
My dream lens
Bought this lens 3 weeks ago. Awesome lens.
I can't wait to see the review of the last of the nikon Z trinity, the Z 70-200 f2.8 S.
hello, could you make a comparison between this 135mm RF vs 135mm EF? It would be fantastic!! thank you.
This is definitely my next lens
For anyone who doesn't have money they are trying to burn, the EF 135L is still amazing and works beautifully on an EF-RF adapter. They are downright cheap in comparison.
Also the sigma 135mm F1.8 Art is great option under $1500, and it's sharper than the EF 135L.
Also the Sigma Art 135 f1.8 is nothing short of outstanding, it has been for years the sharpest lens Chris had tested; I use it adapted on my R6 and I've nothing to cry about, even compared to this new RF version.
@@ritrattoaziendale That's nice to hear!, thanks for your reply.
@@Ali80D That may be true, but you can sometimes find the EF 135L for close to $500 used. And it almost seems irrelevant that things are sharper, because the old L is as sharp as you'd ever need even for pro work.
Too bad Canon is anti third party, the Samyang AF 135mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens and much cheaper as well. EF lenses wouldn't be needed if third party lenses were allowed, hence why Canon isn't allowing it.
Has the Canon RF 135mm f/1.8 replaced the Sigma Art 105mm f/1.4 as your favorite portrait lens? 🙂
Nah haha
Don't shoot Canon but I've still been looking forward to your review of this lens. My nikon 105mm f/1.4 is being repaired and this video is making me miss it!
Christopher, when you use a RF full frame lens on an APSC camera, such as the Canon R7, does the lens retain all it's qualities? I wondered if an RF lens that was soft on the edges, would actually be better on a crop sensor since (presumably) the edges of the lens are not used on a crop sensor camera?
dream lens
I'm amazed by how it performs on the R7. Not a fan of the focal length, but what a sharp lens.
That sharpness at f/1.8 was amazing! I don't know that I would use this focal length very often but maybe I should challenge myself to do so.
I use to use the 70-200 for event second camera. I still use the 24-70 but put the 135 on the other body. It is so sharp that I can crop to get the 70-200 shots. I love the faster glass and a more unique look.
Are you going to review the Tamron 20-50mm f/2?
superb lens
It looks excellent, but I am still very happy with the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 on the R5, which is another great performer.
Hi, could you please share your experience with the Sigma lens on the R body of Canon. Does the adapter do justice ? Any cons ?Thank you.
@@tonygreenmike There are no cons. The adapter has no electronic neither optics, it is just the extension tube with electrical contacts. So it does not affect at all neither the IQ nore the AF performance.
WOW - what a dream lens. Maybe one day....
How about the autofocus speed vs a sigma 135mm 1.8 art? which one is faster?
How does this compare to the legendary Zeiss Milvus 135?
Any Chance of you putting the 24-70 on that Hungry R7 ?
Been a sub since your early days. Would LOVE to see a review for the Leica SL series of lenses. Want to know how character vs image quality works price non withstanding. Thanks!
I think it will be fun if you make bts of lens review, especially when with telephoto lens 👍
1:50 it's just OVER a kilo, I measure 1060g. That said, the 1996 EF 135mm f/2.0L, with EF->RF adapter, together are 935g, so it's actually about 10% LESS heavy for a given amount of light-collecting ability.
Given this runs for the same price as the rf 50mm 1.2, is the rf 50mm 1.2 a better option?
A great one!
With US prizing I would already have set my order.
Prizing in Europe is not OK which keeps my Milvus 135 hot.
I got a chance to try this lens out in a outdoor portrait session. I used this lens on a Canon R6, and oh boy this thing is sharp as hell.
The Sigma 135mm f1.8 is sharper and has creamier bokeh than the Canon RF.
Both sigma and the old canon will give an excellent images in real world scenarios. This canon is perfect, and AF will give a better hit rate with tracking autofocus, but the price is.... The old canon is quite simple and reliable lens, it is relatively safe to buy used. Speaking of Europe, this can mean 4 times price difference.
I am slightly disappointed that Canon again went down the path of maximalism and gigantism. A more modest lightweight 135 2 would be a great option. Just a little sharper, with protection and a new autofocus.
I don't see any problem Canon having a toe-to-toe top lens against Sony 135GM.
The old EF can adapt well on RF, and the ability to mount extender is something E mount's 135mm(Sony and Samyang) unable to do.
Nah. Canon needed to answer Sony's 135 1.8, which is a top seller for portrait/wedding photogs. They hit it out of the park, this lens is better than the EF in every single way, and is actually lighter than the Sony.
Canon has decided they either go hard or go home. Go middle of the road will be like Nikon, no ambition to chase top two, a bunch of f1.8 so called value prime lenses ended up not saving anything for owners. The good old Digital SLR days have long gone and camera lens market has shrunken to the size it was in 1990s, aka film SLR era. There is a rapid diminishing semi serious hobbyist market and it is not worthy enough for manufacturer to invest a third lineup of lenses between the top tier L and entry level kit lens. A lot of people may not like this strategy but in the end, pay for the L if they stay in RF long enough.
@@frankluo230 Nikon f1.8s are a bit oversize compared to equivalent, and they aren't stabilised. Enthusiasts may love but not everyone
@@zegzbrutal their f1.2 and f0.95 are even more oversized. No body dislikes Nikon but their lack of ambition to be number one again is so obvious. They want to secure their small 5% marketshare then milk as much profit as possible from those 5% owners. It is not a sustainable strategy.
My wish is to see how good the AF works with this lens on the Red V Raptor.. Has anyone tested this equation?
great in depth review, love it. i like the 135mm range more than the 85. too bad the 135 wasn't available when i got the 85mm. now i've got to sell the 85 get the 135 and 50mm combo, great video as always!
You will be happy with the 50 as I am!
With the 135 I can't give you expertise ;-) (some day I will be able)
With 85 I will stay on the EF 85 1.4 IS
135 and 50 1.2? This is top notch setup! Waiting for 24 1.4 and I’m set for another 20 more years
@@rbfndzawesome, thanks for the comment. Should be fun times ahead
@@peterebel7899I lo e the 50mm focal length
@@rbfndz 24 or 28 for the wide??
Thanks for the great review. Can you do a comparison between RF and EF 135mm lenses?😀😀
It destroys de EF counterpart, and every 135 in the world, including the CZ Milvus, that is a lot to say. Look at The digital picture image quality tests.
Thank you again.
I would rather get the 85 f/1.2 right?
This lens has a very nice, airy rendering.
Why no coma test? 135mm are pretty often used in astrophotography, so it would be interesting for many people
The Zeiss Batis 135 2.8 was the first 135mm image stabilized lens on the market
I am curious about comparing this 135 on R5 and the 85 1.2 DS on an R7. For almost identical FOV and DOF, which one will deliver better image quality?
I put my bet on 135L
Both are pretty incredible to be honest, I suspect the RF 85mm f1.2 to stand out as well.
Hey Chris. I was wondering about something and thought it might be interesting. A lot of people are using diffusion filters (BPM 1/4; Cinebloom 10%; Glimmerglass 1 etc.) nowadays for their photographs. I think it would be interesting to see the characteristics of these filters and how they manipulate the image when tested the same way you do your regular lens tests. You could use the sharpest standard lens you have to keep results as neutral as possible
Thanks for the great review, I was waiting for it!
Now hope my copy arrives sooner than later.
But Canon starts to apologize again for the late delivery….
Same here. Last I read, B&H is expecting new stock on March 3rd; just hope mine is among them.
@jghop After waiting nearly 2 months and still nothing... they aren't receiving anything until June the last I was told.
@@ashleyabate-berry4322 1st world problems, for sure, but I’ve never been so anxious for a delivery.
wow!!! finally
Great review, as always, but I'm still loving my EF 135 (with the RF adapter). They'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands. 😅😅
Id have this lens in my dreams 😭
Thanks Christopher. This optic is gobsmacking….
We need that 100MP R Camera that's been rumored for years to really test this lens.
Why do you need 100MP?
When Canon is bringing out cheap lens that has obvious strengths and weaknesses. Non-RF users complain about it being worse than 3rd party E mount lens.
When Canon is bringing out top notch lens that actually beats other equivalent. The comments will still have complaints about it cost more than 3rd party E mount lens.
Can we stop being pedantic?
You stated the Sigma ART 135 f1.8 was the sharpest lens you've ever tested. You said this one wasn't the sharpest until F4.0 ish. I have the sigma, why should I upgrade, if cost isn't a concern?
Canon's ultimate portrait lens, that can double as sports photography lens?
I see "The Chosen" .... nice! 😇
My fav🎉
This lens just became more legendary! Indeed The Lord of the Red Rings
bro stunned people when image stabilization on
6:02 If this could have maintained image clarity at MFD and doubled as a pseudo-macro lens I probably would have bought one.
Of course this is a portrait lens first and it's scary how perfect it is in that application.
Realistically the 85f2 Macro should be the lens for me but even on that lens MFD image quality is still a bit lacking.
This one is optically perfect and has IS built in and the faster USM AF than the Nikon’s plena
I have the samyang version on Sony and is just as sharp and got it for a fraction of the price
jUsT aS ShArP
I just compared this review to Christopher's review of the Samyang, and the Samyang puts this Canon to shame! The only advantage for the Canon is the IS.
@cquezadak really? Funny how he says in this review the Canon is the best 7:42. Samyang AF was questionable and build quality not impressive. Sharpness at MFD was the only area I saw the Canon falling behind.
that is sharp....
This lens is a sheer winner. Stunning images.
Move aside, Fujifilm and Viltrox!
When people don't know why photographers still use full frame cameras or what a top notch lens is, point them to a lens like this Canon RF 135mm! :)
Boy, the Viltrox 75mm 1,2 is as sharp as this overpriced Canon lens for less than 1/4 of the cost!😂 And at the minimum focus distance it blows away the Canon completly in terms of sharpness and contrast☺.
Viltrox 35mm 1.4 is razor sharp
funny enough I brought the EF 135 f/2 just this morning, this is a goo-HOW MUCH!?
I paid $600usd for the Samyang 135 1.8
I'm extremely pleased.
Is that stable photo/video output results can we achievement also on i.e. R8 without embedded IBIS? Can we rely on lens stabilization on lower-price bodies like RP/R/R8, etc.?
Many older cameras didnt have ibis and it worked just fine. Not as good but still usable. I for one have shaky hands and have no problem without ibis but it depends. The benefit of such fast lenses is that you can have faster shutter speed. A lens at this price should be tested before buying though for sure.
7:25 Not a happy lemur!
Next video, please: How does it compare against similarly-priced Sony 135 GM.
How is it similar price? You can get the 135 GM for £1500-1600 and this 135 canon lens is like a £1000 more, give or take... I had the 135 GM and it is an absolute beast, it just lacks IS. Thus 135 is very impressive too but an extra £1000 for IS?? Nah lol
@@themarksmanABP You're right. I was actually talking about prices on bhphoto US website; where both sell for $2098. But in the UK, the price difference is indeed astronomical.
@@themarksmanABP
All lenses are sold for $2100 in America.
The problem is in your market
Close up performance at f1,8 is little bit disappointing for the price tag of this lens.
not many times you will shoot wide open at MFD tho
Better than the sony FE 135 GM or Samyang´s AF 135??
Canon's image quality in the field would be better because of the lens IS.
In telephoto, the effect of Lens IS is much greater than that of sensor(in-body) IS.
So the RF 135 can shoot with much more lower shutter speed,which means it is possible to shoot at a lower ISO.
The AF speed is fast for both Sony and Canon, but since Sony doesn't cut costs on the AF motor(Dual XD Linear), if you use it with the a1, the Sony will probably be slightly faster.
For Bokeh, the GM is better. So i use sony. But I don't think that's a difference enough to have a big impact on choosing between the two products.
However, when using the 135 in Sony, it is difficult to lower the shutter speed(no image stabilization).
So you have to shoot at a high ISO. This is a big downside.
I am a Sony shooter, but I think the RF 135 is a more advanced one.
@@_minimal_bear I am sure that the IS of the RF135 would do better for static sceneries. But for portraits and events, I wonder if stabilization would affect the final image by much.
@@_minimal_bear how slow do you need shutter speed to be? If your subject is living there’s only so much room you can play with until things start to have movement blur.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 You're right. In the case of outdoor shooting, both Sony and Canon have so much room for shutter speed. Shootings with lighting will be similar.
The Canon 135's built-in image stabilization probably shines indoors, hand-held, and when you need a deeper DOF. It will also help reduce subtle blur on high resolution cameras like the EOS R5 at fast paced events(Compared to the combination of A7R4 and 135gm, you don't have to be more careful when pressing the shutter).
Nevertheless, there will be little benefit from RF135's built-in image stabilization for fast shooting above a certain shutter speed. (You are already using fast enough shutter speed that there is no hand blur.)
In the comment, it was written that the fact that 135gm does not have bulit-in image stabilization is a big issue, but it seems appropriate to see this as a big advantage of the RF135 rather than a problem with the 135gm.
@@livejames9374 I agree. As a hobby photographer, if i want to get the best image quality with less noise, it can be helpful to shoot with a slow shutter speed even if the photos are occasionally blurry.
There's time to shoot it again.
But Especially in commercial photography where there are many restrictions on the situation,
I doubt they will use slow shutter speeds just to lower the iso a bit.
And if blur occurs due to a slow shutter speed, the efficiency of work decreases as a result.
We can use pictures that have a little noise, but it is difficult to use pictures that are shaken due to the problem of shutter speed.
I see what you did there..."the stabilization isn't 'rock steady'..." :)
I like the 3D pop of this lens. It's similar to my Zeiss Apo 135mm f2, but with better control of LoCA. Great review as always! ✌
How come that I stop listening every time a portret of your lovely wife is shown 😊?
Sharp on an R7, so the tech is there. An RF-S version would be most welcome. It would weigh a lot less... and we would not mind shelling out 1000€ or so... :-)
the sigma 135 art is quite old but better built and of course you get a solid case. the AF of the canon is impressive though. All in all i the lens is very good but nothing new. isn't the review a bit canon fan boyish?? ;)
Wow.
Wow
The samyang 135mm is still unbeatable - I got it for US$841. So sad Cannon users can’t enjoy this.
This rf 135mm kicked the samyang ass
@@mbismbismb in price…?
@@bikingmoments price and quality
I usually don't make comments like that but @7:20 your gorgeous wife looks even greater than usual and I wonder how much of that is thanks to this magnificent piece of glass.
Is that IS worth for that price?
Only if your camera does not feature IBIS IMO
I think I saw nor r5
Why is nobody talking about how fat it is? I tried it on my R6 and I cant fit my fingers between the handle and the lens!
samyang truely winner. Lens around this focal length can't see much difference.
So expensive, would be nice to have a comparison with the new Viltrox 72 1.2 on aps-c, see if it's 5 times better.
Too expensive to ditch my amazing Sigma 135 Art, but IQ is really stellar; BUT the short 70cm mfd should be there to take advantage of dreamy details with a super shallow DoF...but the close up IQ really s*cks to be honest, my Sigma is WAY sharper at mfd. If you have to close to f2.8 to have high IQ, then there's no point in having such a short mfd with the wide aperture, you probably will get more bokeh at f1.8 from a std focus distance. Such a shame.
if the canon 135 was tested at the same close focus distance as the sigma the canon may fair better ..the sigma min focus distance is 7 inches further away than the canon ... being able to focus closer than the sigma but needing to stop down to F2.8 is not a negative ..it still has an ability over the sigma of very sharp considerably closer but F2.8+ images
@@77appyi I agree, but seeing the price they sell the thing, they definitely could have done something better at the mfd
@@ritrattoaziendale they did..its very sharp at 7 inches closer at F2.8+...its very hard to make a fast lens focus closer and be sharp.. there may have had to be optical compromises else were if they did
No case at that price?!!!
Why would it have a carry case? It's not a large lens, like the EF 70-200, or RF 100-500. The RF 85 1.2 is bigger than this lens, also, and does not come with a case.
i'm baffled...$2100 for a 135mm f1.8? The Sigma Art which i think you said was the sharpest lens you ever tested is $1089 🤔💀 I'm not seeing how Canon can justify that price...even with stabilization
$1000 for the brand's money
Canon. Worth every penny.
Why compare with 3rd party when the Sony 135GM is equally expensive
It's new, it's still sharper than Sigma, perfect wide open, has IS, and finally has L series build quality and reliability. Yes, it's expensive but still worth it for the pros.
ur lady knew how good she was gonna look with this lens bc she flossin
Hubba Hubba
Chris, you must have a very short memory as you seem to have forgotten that you have already clearly shown that the Samyang AF 135mm f1.8 FE has got the best optics in the world.
It's just as sharp as the Canon right across the frame but then it beats the Canon RF, as it has no LoCA, even when wide open, whereas you have shown that the Canon has to be stopped down to f2.8 to get rid of it.
You also showed the Samyang has perfect image quality wide open at it's MFD, whereas the Canon has to be stopped down to f4 to get good image quality at it's MFD.
The Canon starts to get soft from diffraction at f11 whereas the Samyang is still razor sharp at f16 and doesn't get soft from diffraction till f22!
And the Samyang has better flare resistance too.
It would be far more accurate to say the Canon RF 135mm 1.8 has the best optics of any RF lens yet released, but obviously it still can't match the Samyang for optical quality.
Thanks for your comment! I did actually go back and check the test results. The Canon seems just a touch sharper on its APS-C test images when looking at the pictures on my hard drive. The Canon is also slightly better at working against bright lights. IMO. You are correct though that the Samyang is a lot sharper when shooting close up. Overall though you really could toss a coin between the two which is a testimony to how great the Samyang lens is.
@@christopherfrost Indeed...And I don't think it will be long before Sigma release a smaller and lighter DG DN mirrorless version of their bulky 135mm f1.8 DG HSM for DSLR's, as they have already brought out a 50mm and 85mm DG DN. When they do it will be very interesting to see how it compares with the other four 135mm f1.8's that have AF...I will be waiting for your review with baited breath.
as I would also use this lens for sport photography, the lightening fast canon AF would help deliver sharp images where the samyang may not even be able to take a shot.
appart from that, I would love to get my hands on a RF version of the samyang...one can dream...
may be, sigma will make it true...in a long while.
it seems to me that canon will protect their RF monopole for a while.
too bad, a 105 and 135 RF would instantly make their way into my bag
@@igorrutsch The Samyangs AF speed is on par with the Sony GM version, and that ain't no slouch in the sport photography department.
@@alfoutdoors9660 good to know !
thank you.
waiting for a rf version
Chris, it isn’t plastic - it’s called industrial composite as you wouldn’t be able to produce a high tech, micro millimetre precise Instrument from plastic. A formula 1 car, a modern bicycle or modern skies aren’t made of plastic either. It’s all sorts of composites, sometimes mixed with carbon fibre or sometimes, based on what you want to achieve with it, pure carbon fibre (which sadly will crack quickly once falling down). Just saying…
Looks like a Tamron wonder if they're the oem
So not as good as the Samyang. History repeats from the EF days where the Canon L was also worse than the manual F2 Samyang 135mm
I think his review suggests otherwise.
This is an example of the printer vs ink situation, Canon is making their bodies more affordable, knowing that they will have themonopoly on the lenses for their RF mount, so, if you want a great lens for your EOS Rx model, you're gonna have to spend the pretty penny in it. Just like with some printers, they don't cost as much as they should because the ink or toner costs a fucking lot.
Buy an EF-RF adapter. Problem solved.
Their R bodies are definitely not affordable, believe me I have two of them ahah
Greetings from Ukraine! Thanks for reviews :)
Error 404, country not found.
I hope the situation could improve soon
@@lets_go_brandon99 what an insensitive thing to say to someone from a country being invaded.
Shame on Russia!
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
@@EverythingCameFromNothing Thank you. In the end of this video the flag of Ukraine appeared, and it's so nice to see it.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 Thanks !
Astonishing as was expected from day one, Canon, Sony Sigma and Samyang tuned out maximum from those 135s.
/rather too much political attention in yours videos recently/