The backstory for you all - I'm a UK based wedding photographer, who has been keeping an eye on the RF135's arrival, as I felt it'd fill a very specific (yet boring) need for me.The only really purpose I have for this lens is for guest candids during the speeches - seems a bit of a waste I know. Here's the reasoning:I've managed to wheel it out for one wedding now, and here are my very unscientific thoughts:So there we have it. The only thing I can really fault it for is price - especially in the UK (but dare I say, I can see why it costs what it costs). No particularly exciting results to show from it, that's more to do with my boring use case, rather than the lens.

Thanks for writing this up so well.I’m not a fan of 135 length for portraits but the more I see such rendering the more likely I am to buy it and force myself to use it!That worked eventually with the EF35ii ….

expro wrote:I’m not a fan of 135 length for portraits but the more I see such rendering the more likely I am to buy it and force myself to use it!This sounds nigh identical to me... 😂

I wonder if you have experience with the old one and if you can compare them. I see some evidence of swirly bokeh with the new one - not untypical for such lenses under some conditions but that is not a problem with the old one in my experience.

J A C S wrote:I wonder if you have experience with the old one and if you can compare them. I see some evidence of swirly bokeh with the new one - not untypical for such lenses under some conditions but that is not a problem with the old one in my experience.Yes - I've owned the EF135, albeit never tried on a mirrorless body. I remember being a tad disappointed with it's AF performance, and looking at the images I have from it, it's a noticeably softer lens.

Images looked incredibly sharp indeed! I assume they are all shot wide open? Do you find it as sharp as the Sony GM?Thanks for sharing.

José B wrote:Images looked incredibly sharp indeed! I assume they are all shot wide open? Do you find it as sharp as the Sony GM?Thanks for sharing.Yep, shot wide open.Taking a look at images from both in 'real world' scenarios, they're both as bitingly sharp as each other.I never got to test the Sony at slower shutter speeds - but I'd imagine I'll trust the Canon more for my use case thanks to the IS.

Thanks for posting this. I’m sure it will help some of us with our decisions on this lens.I have the EF version but don’t use it enough to warrant the purchase of the RF version especially for the price.I like the shots of the young ladies, very sharp (as you mentioned) and nice bokeh.

Thank you for your experience and thorough description.It seems you woul be an ideal candidate for a Sigma 135/1.8. Great IQ as well, focus speed way faster than you will ever need for those subjects, built quality even better and WAY cheaper.Haven't you consider it?

Adapter.

And?It adds insignificant 110g (when considering the overall Camer+lens weight) and makes the Sigma only 1 cm longer than the RF. Not any issue at all, I'd say.

I hope you’re able to cover the cost, and of course it goes against your tax.  Neither work for a hobby photographer…

Can’t stand using them. Plus isn’t Lena already 200g heavier?but frankly I would never buy a sigma so disregard me!

Canon_Guy wrote:Thank you for your experience and thorough description.It seems you woul be an ideal candidate for a Sigma 135/1.8. Great IQ as well, focus speed way faster than you will ever need for those subjects, built quality even better and WAY cheaper.Haven't you consider it?What is your point here?  This guy already has his lens.  Are you advising him to buy another?

Canon_Guy wrote:Thank you for your experience and thorough description.It seems you woul be an ideal candidate for a Sigma 135/1.8. Great IQ as well, focus speed way faster than you will ever need for those subjects, built quality even better and WAY cheaper.Haven't you consider it?I'd definitely argue against the build quality statement.Sigma aren't bad lenses, but they're not up to the standard of the RF L lenses. I also can't get anything like a 2-3 day turnaround like I can with Canon CPS.Cost isn't really a huge factor either if I'm honest. It's more about uniformity across all lenses (handling, control rings, not messing about with adapters, and rendering - the Sigma 105/1.4 renders noticeably different to my other glass, which just lengthens the post workflow. I'd rather not have to deal with that for a lens that will be consistently used.).

expro wrote:Can’t stand using them. Plus isn’t Lena already 200g heavier?What Lena sorry?but frankly I would never buy a sigma so disregard me!

LXI_Martin wrote:Canon_Guy wrote:Thank you for your experience and thorough description.It seems you woul be an ideal candidate for a Sigma 135/1.8. Great IQ as well, focus speed way faster than you will ever need for those subjects, built quality even better and WAY cheaper.Haven't you consider it?What is your point here? This guy already has his lens. Are you advising him to buy another?My point is a question if he hasn't consider it (past tense).

noggin2k1 wrote:Canon_Guy wrote:Thank you for your experience and thorough description.It seems you woul be an ideal candidate for a Sigma 135/1.8. Great IQ as well, focus speed way faster than you will ever need for those subjects, built quality even better and WAY cheaper.Haven't you consider it?I'd definitely argue against the build quality statement.Sure you can since this is rather subjective to quite a big extent. I prefer metal barrels and Sigmas feel better put together to my taste. What I really hate abou especially RF zooms is that their plastic barrel flexes when grabbed a bit firmly at certain places. For me this is ridiculous at their price points.Sigma aren't bad lenses, but they're not up to the standard of the RF L lenses.For such statements following is valid: the more generalization the less relevancy.Truth is that many RF lenses brought so far unprecedented amounts of vignetting and distortion. Sigma really is not up to this standard, luckily.On the other hand, on both sides there are extraordinary lenses which have no match in the other brand.I also can't get anything like a 2-3 day turnaround like I can with Canon CPS.CPS is great if one needs it. In my 15+ years of photo life nothing broke down.Sure for pros who abuse their gear badly it is highly benefitial.Cost isn't really a huge factor either if I'm honest.For many people it is not which is good for them. Yet I think this does not represent the majority of photographers. Many look for a good value. And Sigma's Arts excell in that category.It's more about uniformity across all lenses (handling, control ringsWell, especially control rings are the least uniform across lenses due to its different location on different lenses.not messing about with adaptersNo need for. They are very cheap so having an adapter on each lens is just easy.and rendering - the Sigma 105/1.4 renders noticeably different to my other glass, which just lengthens the post workflow.Yes, for well light-controlled environment where consistent and repetitive output is a must this might be a complication.Not an issue at all for natural or generally uncontrolled light conditions since the differences in such light are WAY bigger than differences in lens rendering.I'd rather not have to deal with that for a lens that will be consistently used.).

noggin2k1 wrote:Canon_Guy wrote:Thank you for your experience and thorough description.It seems you woul be an ideal candidate for a Sigma 135/1.8. Great IQ as well, focus speed way faster than you will ever need for those subjects, built quality even better and WAY cheaper.Haven't you consider it?I'd definitely argue against the build quality statement.The Sigma 135 is as well made, if not better than any RF lens I own. That is the only Sigma ART I have left with me now, and I own a bunch of RF L that you would regard as great build qualitySo while you can argue, I would not agree to that argument against build quality for this particular lens. Except for maybe weight, there isn't anything going against sigma 135

Sigma is 200g heavier then add adapter = 300g.