Also we don't know the comparative pricing in all markets. All we get in this discussion are those complaining and who tend to come from an English speaking/writing country.

Bottom line is that for those in the US, and that is a very large market, this is a fairly priced lens.

In Indonesia, where I live, Canon is around 10-20% more expensive than Sony for list price. Actual purchase price is closer. That said I just bought the RF 16 f2.8 in Singapore a couple of weeks ago at a much cheaper price than it was for sale in Indonesia and when I was looking at gear in camera shops there, Sony & Canon were similary priced.
There can be big differences in prices depending on where you are in the world and typically newly released gear sells for a premium for a while before settling.

Love the camera, but didnt research all the lenses. When i got the cam, i did and my eyes did hurt....

Right. You're buying into a system, not a single body or lens. Need a lower cost 135? Get the Sigma and an adapter.

Dmantree it’s going to be one big heavy system that dos AF poorer then the Sony if you only get adapted lenses.

I always say to people ignore the bodies but look at the lenses, can you get the lenses you want at a price you budget allows, when you can answer yes/no to that you can then either look at bodies or search at other mount systems.

Don’t but a camera just because it has a certain name on it, if it doesn’t offer the lenses you need at your budget it’s not doing you any good.

There are already three native 135/1.8 options in E mount on the day the first and likely only 135/1.8 is announced for RF mount.

so go buy a Sony. God, the Sony Justice Warriors on this thread are just unreal. Hint: us Canon shooters don't care about Sony. Really. We don't.

Except the canon shooters considering a switch. Like the OP.
You can deny all you like but the reality is the Canon lens strategy seems to be becoming a liability.

@dmanthree - "Hint: us Canon shooters don't care about Sony"

um, the o.p. is a canon owner, as he clearly stated: "i'm gonna sell my R5. Back to sony." and "Thats why im gonna ditch canon"

"Back to Sony"
Sounds like the OP moved from Sony to Canon & is now going to move back to Sony.
I'm never certain why people keep switching between systems, to me a least there's never enough difference between Sony / Canon / Nimon that would make me up sticks and change, only to change back again a couple of years later. Well at least it keeps the camera companies in business :).

Of course there are costs to switching systems, probably that outweigh the cost differential of just one lens.

If someone is switching systems because of the price of one lens, that seems like a somewhat reactive strategy that is not wise.

Also if someone buys an expensive camera without considering lens costs, that too seems unwise.

But funny how so many Sony promoters always show up on discussions of Canon lenses to complain about the cost. Meanwhile Sony keeps raising the prices of their camera bodies and they don't say a word.

Same in Australia too. Canon Australia total rip-off. Our dollar is quite strong against the Yen and no savings passed on at all by Canon.

No the dont

Nice troll.

@IdM Ok, compare the 70-200/2.8 as well then. Or just don’t take my comment too seriously. ;)

Nikon and Canon are definitely doing their very best to convince me to stay at Sony… Sony don’t even have to offer products I want.

Canon new lens smack on additional €1000 over Sony version

Nikon accept 100-500g additional weight pr. lens and make them noticeable larger

I’m sure it’s a very nice lens, but really this is how your trying to attract customers.

Then stay and have a good day.

@Malling I for one am very happy that Nikon focused on high quality f/1.8 primes. Nobody else does that (I mean, under 100mm anyway). If you need faster, fine, but otherwise those lenses are hard to beat.

The Nikon 50mm f1.2 S is large because of it's optical excellence but also, and mainly, because it is optimized for video with very limited focus breathing.

I don't think that Nikon is going to follow the same priorities for their upcoming 85mm f1.2 S and 135mm f1.8 S. IMHO they will make them still focused designs with comparable bulk/weight as Sony and Canon's options.

Just look at the new 400mm f4.5 S and it's very clear that if Nikon decides to do compact, and I think they will, then they'll do it better than anybody else.

PL is correct: where Nikon has larger lenses it is because they are no compromise lenses with little focus breathing vs the smaller competitor products.

The Sony 50 f1.2 is also excellent but has more focus breathing and is really a bit shorter than a true 50 mm.

@sporty To focus a manual lens with a mirrorless camera:

1. Frame correctly, must be definitive
2. Select AF area
3. Magnify
4. Focus manually
5. When in focus, immediately press the shutter without exiting the magnification mode

I see OIS as a disadvantage, it adds weight, more complications to break over time and deteriorates image quality because it's a moving glass element.

OIS is completely obsolete compared to modern IBIS. Even Sony joined the 8 stops gang.

OIS is only on 3 axis, IBIS is 5 axis. There's really no need for OIS under 200mm if you have good IBIS.

Good to know - obviously not everyone shares your view….

The fallacy that “made in Japan” translates to higher quality is plain wrong.

But you can believe what you want to believe.

It seems Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Sigma and Tamron all agree IBIS is better than OIS up to short telephoto.

You really don't need OIS if your camera's IBIS is good.

Comments like that one about OIS are why people eventually leave this website and don't come back.

« OIS adds more weight » maybe you missed the part where it says the canon weight 15g less

IBIS is less effective with longer focal lengt

OIS a disadvantage, some of you guys are unreal.

It is the same with this AF thing. Completely overrated, adds multiple points of failure and we all know how to focus a lens.
;-)

The Canon 135mm has 17 elements, vs only 13 for the Sony 135mm... There may be additional elements only for OIS...

IBIS is cheaper, and that’s why it was developed. It’s definitely not better. But using both together, is very noticeably better.

You guys are forgetting that the OIS adds cost!
This lens costs $1 more than the Sony!

It has one HUGE advantage over the Sony (for me); it works on my R5.

:-P

BTW, you guys do realize that IBIS and OIS actually work together to make it more effective, right?

Some serious BS going on here.

"I see OIS as a disadvantage, it adds weight, more complications to break over time and deteriorates image quality because it's a moving glass element."
The Canon lens is lighter than the Sony & Sigma equivalents. None of my image stabilised lenses have ever broken and I haven't heard of tbis being an issue. I'll wait until I see comparisons on image quality to comment. The Sony & Sigma lenses are excellent so the Canon will need to be very good to compete. BTW how does OIS potentially deteriorate image quality any more than IBIS?

"You really don't need OIS if your camera's IBIS is good."
My Canon RP doesn't have IBIS, neither does the R. Luckily all of Sonys cameras do so OIS is not needed there, oh wait ....

The only reason anyone sees OIS as a disadvantage is because their brand doesn't offer it in a comparable product. If/when they do then all of a sudden it becomes great.

Funny how the idea that it adds all this weight was so quickly debunked. How much does one think OIS elements add to the weight? I bet the individual making the claim doesn't have any idea.

As to performance, plenty of lenses have OIS and perform exceptionally well. In fact some of the world's best lenses have OIS. Oops, there goes another myth that is busted.

Costs the same as the Sony, but with stabilization. So it’s deter, at the same price.

Costs the same as the Sony, but with stabilization. So it’s better, at the same price.

the sony lens is better in part because it has 11 aperture blades vs. 9 blades on the canon lens, aka cleaner bokeh balls, and the sony version has four xd linear af motors, which is technology that canon doesn't have on any lens.

@MILCman
Right - that’s it - less than 10 blades and it’s in the bin…….😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

Melgrose depends on where you live in Europe it’s like €2700-2900 so above a €1000 more then the Sony

@Milc: post some examples to prove what you say.

@dmanthree - if you had read the article before posting, you'd have known that this lens won't be on the market until late january 2023.

beyond that, people not understanding how aperture blades and focus motors work, makes me laugh :-)

Not everyone lives in USA, the vast majority are paying far more for Canon than Sony. Canon doesn't give a crap about any market but USA and I know this for a fact, I worked for them once.

Not everyone may live in the USA, but plenty do and for those this price is right on par with the Sony.

You think the RF 135 1.8 is long?
-Nikon Z 50mm f/1.2S has entered the chat-

Not everything is designed for cheap users.

Around 2000$ for a contemporary top-of-the-line 135 F1.8 seems absolutely fair to me. Expecting a big-name brand to go anything lower is just nostalgic daydreaming. With the price tag also comes high expectations that are sure to be exceeded in essentially every measurable way.

Mikael I can get the Sony with 19-25% VAT under €2000, the Canon with VAT is €2700-2900 grotesquely overpriced.