RF 135 f1.8 vs EF 135 f/2.0 Any experiences?

Basil Fawlty said:

I currently have an EF 135 f/2 that I use with an adapter on my R5. I am just wondering if anyone here has experience with the EF 135 vs the RF 135 f/1.8? My EF version is quite nice but wondering if the f1.8 would be worth the upgrade (I don't care about the control ring functionality).

I know I could rent one but I'd like to hear from folks wh actually have experience with both - how much if any difference is there?

Click to expand...

Canon_Guy said:

The RF is defifitely much better lens than the old 135/2. Very sharp and contrasty wide opened, very fast focusing, very reduced aberrations.

But I do not think it is worth its price when there is optically also excellent Sigma 135/1.8 for much lower price. Plus it is fully metal constructed.

Click to expand...

RDM5546 said:

Canon_Guy said:

The RF is defifitely much better lens than the old 135/2. Very sharp and contrasty wide opened, very fast focusing, very reduced aberrations.

But I do not think it is worth its price when there is optically also excellent Sigma 135/1.8 for much lower price. Plus it is fully metal constructed.

Click to expand...

I have EF135f2 and Sigma Art 135/f1.8. I bought RF135f1.8 from B&H Photo Nov 6 just a couple of days before the official announcement yet I am still waiting to receive mine after more than 3 months of deliveries. I bought the RF lens because I expect will focus faster and better as well as having IS. My other two 135 lenses do not have IS. I have RF70-200F2.8L IS and it has has IS and speed. However, f2.8 is not as good as f1.8 sometimes in low light and providing bokeh pop.

Click to expand...

Basil Fawlty said:

I currently have an EF 135 f/2 that I use with an adapter on my R5. I am just wondering if anyone here has experience with the EF 135 vs the RF 135 f/1.8? My EF version is quite nice but wondering if the f1.8 would be worth the upgrade (I don't care about the control ring functionality).

I know I could rent one but I'd like to hear from folks wh actually have experience with both - how much if any difference is there?

Click to expand...

drsnoopy said:

Basil Fawlty said:

I currently have an EF 135 f/2 that I use with an adapter on my R5. I am just wondering if anyone here has experience with the EF 135 vs the RF 135 f/1.8? My EF version is quite nice but wondering if the f1.8 would be worth the upgrade (I don't care about the control ring functionality).

I know I could rent one but I'd like to hear from folks wh actually have experience with both - how much if any difference is there?

Click to expand...

Perhaps the answer would be another question -

“what could you do with the $/€/£2000 you will save by not buying one?”

Click to expand...

Canon_Guy said:

RDM5546 said:

Canon_Guy said:

The RF is defifitely much better lens than the old 135/2. Very sharp and contrasty wide opened, very fast focusing, very reduced aberrations.

But I do not think it is worth its price when there is optically also excellent Sigma 135/1.8 for much lower price. Plus it is fully metal constructed.

Click to expand...

I have EF135f2 and Sigma Art 135/f1.8. I bought RF135f1.8 from B&H Photo Nov 6 just a couple of days before the official announcement yet I am still waiting to receive mine after more than 3 months of deliveries. I bought the RF lens because I expect will focus faster and better as well as having IS. My other two 135 lenses do not have IS. I have RF70-200F2.8L IS and it has has IS and speed. However, f2.8 is not as good as f1.8 sometimes in low light and providing bokeh pop.

Click to expand...

Yes, the instant availability of Sigma is another plus.

My Sigma 105/1.4 is roughly on par with the AF speed of 70-200/2.8 II, so very fast. From what I heard of S. 135/1.8 it shoul be similar.

On IBIS bodies I do not find OIS too beneficial with 135mm. It is fully useless for fast action. For portraits IBIS is fully sufficient simce we need times of 1/50 or shorter to eliminate motion blur.

And IBIS allows up to 1/10s of reliably sharp images. How longer times are needed for regular usage of such lens? How longer times OIS allows? Maybe 1/4s? Is the difference worth that massive price difference?

Just my thoughts for OP's consideration.

Click to expand...

RDM5546 said:

Canon_Guy said:

RDM5546 said:

Canon_Guy said:

The RF is defifitely much better lens than the old 135/2. Very sharp and contrasty wide opened, very fast focusing, very reduced aberrations.

But I do not think it is worth its price when there is optically also excellent Sigma 135/1.8 for much lower price. Plus it is fully metal constructed.

Click to expand...

I have EF135f2 and Sigma Art 135/f1.8. I bought RF135f1.8 from B&H Photo Nov 6 just a couple of days before the official announcement yet I am still waiting to receive mine after more than 3 months of deliveries. I bought the RF lens because I expect will focus faster and better as well as having IS. My other two 135 lenses do not have IS. I have RF70-200F2.8L IS and it has has IS and speed. However, f2.8 is not as good as f1.8 sometimes in low light and providing bokeh pop.

Click to expand...

Yes, the instant availability of Sigma is another plus.

My Sigma 105/1.4 is roughly on par with the AF speed of 70-200/2.8 II, so very fast. From what I heard of S. 135/1.8 it shoul be similar.

On IBIS bodies I do not find OIS too beneficial with 135mm. It is fully useless for fast action. For portraits IBIS is fully sufficient simce we need times of 1/50 or shorter to eliminate motion blur.

And IBIS allows up to 1/10s of reliably sharp images. How longer times are needed for regular usage of such lens? How longer times OIS allows? Maybe 1/4s? Is the difference worth that massive price difference?

Just my thoughts for OP's consideration.

Click to expand...

I like IS for shooting basketball in dark highschool gyms. Not for fast action basketball but many shots are not fast action and subject isolation can be of major value. But every shooter is different. Poorly lit events are another use I have for IS. This also can have low lighting and where images are benefit from subject isolation.

Click to expand...

drsnoopy said:

Basil Fawlty said:

I currently have an EF 135 f/2 that I use with an adapter on my R5. I am just wondering if anyone here has experience with the EF 135 vs the RF 135 f/1.8? My EF version is quite nice but wondering if the f1.8 would be worth the upgrade (I don't care about the control ring functionality).

I know I could rent one but I'd like to hear from folks wh actually have experience with both - how much if any difference is there?

Click to expand...

Perhaps the answer would be another question -

“what could you do with the $/€/£2000 you will save by not buying one?”

Click to expand...

Canon_Guy said:

RDM5546 said:

I like IS for shooting basketball in dark highschool gyms. Not for fast action basketball but many shots are not fast action and subject isolation can be of major value. But every shooter is different. Poorly lit events are another use I have for IS. This also can have low lighting and where images are benefit from subject isolation.

Click to expand...

You have the same subject isolation with and without IS. IS has zero influence on subject isolation since it is determined by a sensor size, aperture and focused distance.

Click to expand...

Canon_Guy said:

I also thought I will miss the OIS with the 105/1.4 since I am used to have it on the 70-200/2.8 II and 24-105/4. But the combination of IBIS and f-number smaller than 2 allows shooting in nearly darkness. For the vast majority of my shots the subject motion blur is the limit, not the camera shake motion blur. Exposure times needed to eliminate the risk of a subject motion blur are couple of stops faster than what IBIS itself allows for a static subjects.

So unless someone buys 135/1.8 for handheld shots of a night sky or handheld shots of a static objects in the darkness, lack of an OIS will not be an issue at all.

Click to expand...

Canon_Guy said:

RDM5546 said:

Canon_Guy said:

The RF is defifitely much better lens than the old 135/2. Very sharp and contrasty wide opened, very fast focusing, very reduced aberrations.

But I do not think it is worth its price when there is optically also excellent Sigma 135/1.8 for much lower price. Plus it is fully metal constructed.

Click to expand...

I have EF135f2 and Sigma Art 135/f1.8. I bought RF135f1.8 from B&H Photo Nov 6 just a couple of days before the official announcement yet I am still waiting to receive mine after more than 3 months of deliveries. I bought the RF lens because I expect will focus faster and better as well as having IS. My other two 135 lenses do not have IS. I have RF70-200F2.8L IS and it has has IS and speed. However, f2.8 is not as good as f1.8 sometimes in low light and providing bokeh pop.

Click to expand...

Yes, the instant availability of Sigma is another plus.

My Sigma 105/1.4 is roughly on par with the AF speed of 70-200/2.8 II, so very fast. From what I heard of S. 135/1.8 it shoul be similar.

On IBIS bodies I do not find OIS too beneficial with 135mm. It is fully useless for fast action. For portraits IBIS is fully sufficient simce we need times of 1/50 or shorter to eliminate motion blur.

And IBIS allows up to 1/10s of reliably sharp images. How longer times are needed for regular usage of such lens? How longer times OIS allows? Maybe 1/4s? Is the difference worth that massive price difference?

Just my thoughts for OP's consideration.

Click to expand...

RDM5546 said:

Canon_Guy said:

RDM5546 said:

I like IS for shooting basketball in dark highschool gyms. Not for fast action basketball but many shots are not fast action and subject isolation can be of major value. But every shooter is different. Poorly lit events are another use I have for IS. This also can have low lighting and where images are benefit from subject isolation.

Click to expand...

You have the same subject isolation with and without IS. IS has zero influence on subject isolation since it is determined by a sensor size, aperture and focused distance.

Click to expand...

Sure. I was attempting to compare it vs the RF 70-200f2.8 which does not isolate as well as the f1.8 lenses.

Click to expand...

RDM5546 said:

The RF70-200f2.8 does have image stabilization which I find useful for static subjects in dark gyms.

Click to expand...

RDM5546 said:

RDM5546 said:

I also thought I will miss the OIS with the 105/1.4 since I am used to have it on the 70-200/2.8 II and 24-105/4. But the combination of IBIS and f-number smaller than 2 allows shooting in nearly darkness. For the vast majority of my shots the subject motion blur is the limit, not the camera shake motion blur. Exposure times needed to eliminate the risk of a subject motion blur are couple of stops faster than what IBIS itself allows for a static subjects.

So unless someone buys 135/1.8 for handheld shots of a night sky or handheld shots of a static objects in the darkness, lack of an OIS will not be an issue at all.

Click to expand...

Different shooters have different needs preferences for sure. It sounds like you have no need for the RF135f1.8.

Click to expand...

RDM5546 said:

It offers faster focus, better low light and more isolation than some of the alternatives.

Click to expand...

RDM5546 said:

It is expensive and some shooters prefer the flexibility of zooms over primes though.

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

Canon_Guy said:

RDM5546 said:

Canon_Guy said:

The RF is defifitely much better lens than the old 135/2. Very sharp and contrasty wide opened, very fast focusing, very reduced aberrations.

But I do not think it is worth its price when there is optically also excellent Sigma 135/1.8 for much lower price. Plus it is fully metal constructed.

Click to expand...

I have EF135f2 and Sigma Art 135/f1.8. I bought RF135f1.8 from B&H Photo Nov 6 just a couple of days before the official announcement yet I am still waiting to receive mine after more than 3 months of deliveries. I bought the RF lens because I expect will focus faster and better as well as having IS. My other two 135 lenses do not have IS. I have RF70-200F2.8L IS and it has has IS and speed. However, f2.8 is not as good as f1.8 sometimes in low light and providing bokeh pop.

Click to expand...

Yes, the instant availability of Sigma is another plus.

My Sigma 105/1.4 is roughly on par with the AF speed of 70-200/2.8 II, so very fast. From what I heard of S. 135/1.8 it shoul be similar.

On IBIS bodies I do not find OIS too beneficial with 135mm. It is fully useless for fast action. For portraits IBIS is fully sufficient simce we need times of 1/50 or shorter to eliminate motion blur.

And IBIS allows up to 1/10s of reliably sharp images. How longer times are needed for regular usage of such lens? How longer times OIS allows? Maybe 1/4s? Is the difference worth that massive price difference?

Just my thoughts for OP's consideration.

Click to expand...

With the Sigma 105mm Art on the R I needed a shutter speed of 1/250th as a minimum to know all my shots would be sharp.

With the Sigma 105mm Art on the R5 I need a hutter speed of 1/125th as a minimum to know all my shots will be sharp.

Just one stop difference. For portraits I'm always at 1/125th anyway for subject motion blur, so that's just a useful stop from IBIS there, but for landscapes and such I definitely prefer ILIS over IBIS. My Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 Sport crushes the 105mm Art for light gathering with static subjects, especially when some DOF is preferred.

Click to expand...

Canon_Guy said:

thunder storm said:

Canon_Guy said:

RDM5546 said:

Canon_Guy said:

The RF is defifitely much better lens than the old 135/2. Very sharp and contrasty wide opened, very fast focusing, very reduced aberrations.

But I do not think it is worth its price when there is optically also excellent Sigma 135/1.8 for much lower price. Plus it is fully metal constructed.

Click to expand...

I have EF135f2 and Sigma Art 135/f1.8. I bought RF135f1.8 from B&H Photo Nov 6 just a couple of days before the official announcement yet I am still waiting to receive mine after more than 3 months of deliveries. I bought the RF lens because I expect will focus faster and better as well as having IS. My other two 135 lenses do not have IS. I have RF70-200F2.8L IS and it has has IS and speed. However, f2.8 is not as good as f1.8 sometimes in low light and providing bokeh pop.

Click to expand...

Yes, the instant availability of Sigma is another plus.

My Sigma 105/1.4 is roughly on par with the AF speed of 70-200/2.8 II, so very fast. From what I heard of S. 135/1.8 it shoul be similar.

On IBIS bodies I do not find OIS too beneficial with 135mm. It is fully useless for fast action. For portraits IBIS is fully sufficient simce we need times of 1/50 or shorter to eliminate motion blur.

And IBIS allows up to 1/10s of reliably sharp images. How longer times are needed for regular usage of such lens? How longer times OIS allows? Maybe 1/4s? Is the difference worth that massive price difference?

Just my thoughts for OP's consideration.

Click to expand...

With the Sigma 105mm Art on the R I needed a shutter speed of 1/250th as a minimum to know all my shots would be sharp.

With the Sigma 105mm Art on the R5 I need a hutter speed of 1/125th as a minimum to know all my shots will be sharp.

Just one stop difference. For portraits I'm always at 1/125th anyway for subject motion blur, so that's just a useful stop from IBIS there, but for landscapes and such I definitely prefer ILIS over IBIS. My Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 Sport crushes the 105mm Art for light gathering with static subjects, especially when some DOF is preferred.

Click to expand...

Do you shoot with your hands stretched in front of you ? No sorry, but the rule 1/FL works perfectly for me. On a 5D with 135/2 the go-to setting was 1/125s for me to get 9 out of 10.

With 105/1.4 on R6 1/30 is still comfortable for static subjects.

Click to expand...

Canon_Guy said:

For portraits it really starts at 1/100 with 1/160 - 1/200 to be really safe.

Click to expand...

Canon_Guy said:

I never tried to compare the EF 70-200/2.8 II vs 105/1.4 in terms of light gathering abilities @105mm. But I doubt I would be able to get consistent results at 1/8s (2 stops longer to compensate the aperture than the 1/30s with 105/1.4).

Click to expand...

PhotoKhan said:

I traded them, recently.

The RF version is better, no doubt.

However, the EF version has a very distinct "optical character" (...probably a result of pure chance...) that I loved, in spite of its less-than-perfect optics. It was especially noticeable in low light scenarios.

Other lenses in my line-up that have that "unique soul" are the EF 35 f/1.4 II and the RF 28-70 f/2.

Because of this, I struggled a bit with the decision.

The optimal solution would be owning the 2 of them but that would have been financially inefficient.

PK

Click to expand...

PhotoKhan said:

The optimal solution would be owning the 2 of them but that would have been financially inefficient.

PK

Click to expand...