Latest activity

AJ · Feb 17, 2026

Petapixel is reporting field curvature:

Getting accurate focus is tricky [with the RF 14 1.4] because the field curvature of the lens means that the center being in focus does not apply to the corners.

Is this true?

Field curvature can be an astro lens killer. Back in my APSC days I bought a Tokina 14-20 f/2 for astro. The lens was very sharp, even in the corners wide open, and coma and astigmatism was well corrected. But to get sharp corners I had to focus on objects in the corners. If I focused the center then the corners became a blurry mess... unless I stopped way down ... which defeated the whole point of the lens. So it sat on my shelf for a few years, and then I took it to Keh who gave me a few pennies for it.

mccasi · Feb 17, 2026

Richard CR said:
that's cute but what does it have to do with the RF mount? it was literally in the title and I'm not sure you actually read the article. Comparisons were not even a core part of this article.

sorry to be that guy, but no, you re a little wrong on - everything?

Let's see coma.
View attachment 228007

while, "okay" .. it's certainly not "nothing".

secondly on what planet is 1750 50% of 2600?

third:
View attachment 228008

I am looking for that miraculous 1EV better high ISO.

and finally.

60MP means if you are concerned about point sharpness (which you mentioned) your light gathering aka exposure time would be shorter. around 8 seconds versus 10 seconds for 5 trailing pixels.

Wow, I really must have hit a nerve here … trying to pick your arguments is a game as old as time….
Yes I’m looking at the same data …
The polish review site is the best for Sony Astro tests! There is no lens that has performed better in this very test in the range … put it in perspective to any lens below 20mm

Second, your point of picking only lenses on canon mount … sure.. the point is canon has disappointed anyone that wanted to do Astro wide angle… this is overpriced and worse by any stretch of the imagination … I bet not a single of the staunch defenders will buy this!

I’ve been waiting for this lens forever … then Half a year ago I moved on and bought the A7CR and the 14mm from Sony for this purpose … wide open it’s a dream. Watch Alyn Wallace videos on YouTube (RIP) compared to the sigma 14 1.4.

if you care about value for money … look in the mirror you’re arguing for this lens???

If you’re arguing for Astro performance … it’s 2.8 to get the results … I can meet you part of the way and say it’s 1.33 Stops … but that’s literally the difference between a 240 usd lens vs 2400 then.

… and the seconds light gathering stuff … that’s not how this works man! Have some decency of research: star tracker 15-30 sec subs, stacking. That’s how you make this work. Just that this lens will take 2.33 time (assume 1.33 stops to be generous) for the same results that a Sony delivers with the 14mm.

i dont care that you defined the competition for RF mount only @Canon Rumors … it has to be said that this is a disappointment of a lens - given how long this took and how many hundreds of juicy wide angle Astro lenses canon has teased and delivered 0 until this.

m4ndr4ke · Feb 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I had thought PetaPixel was reasonably reputable. The wrong profile, and one for a relatively cheap, 2-stop slower non-L lens. He also applied additional manual distortion correction, which is linear and barrel only, while a proper profile corrects for the nonlinear nature of most distortion and any mustache components.

They really messed-up their review. It would have been a lot better using SOOC jpegs, since there's no support on DPP just yet, or uncorrected photographs, but using the profile for such a low end lens (don't get me wrong, I like my RF 16mm, but come on...) on such a high end optic is ridiculous.

I don't shoot astrophotography (never did), I don't even care for this lens, but it immediately looked like user error to me.

And then they blame it on the lens.

"Ultra-compromised", they say...

Malm said:
2) The extreme vignette of 4 EV for the RF 14/1.4 is nowhere mentioned, but that is an important limitation of this lens for night photography. Add 1-2 EV under-exposure (e.g. to protect the bright parts of a strong aurora) and you will get noise issues in the corners when removing the vignette. That can be a problem for panorama images which are popular for night photography.

While the RF 14mm VCM shows significant vignette at f/1.4, at f/2 it exhibits a little less than the EF 14mm f/2.8 II at f/2.8, so there's still an advantage with the new lens, as you're shooting one f-stop faster.

Malm said:
I use tape to fix the focus ring after focusing with the 10x live-view. That is mandatory when using a dew-heater. UWA lenses are usually not very sensitive to thermal adjustment, so I only focus once at the beginning. If you want to use a Bahtinov-mask for focus, you need a special one for UWA work with very close gaps. With a little bit of experience the live-view smethod should be good enough.

RF lenses have electronic focusing rings/focus by wire. However, you can completely disable manual focus while the switch is set to AF.

Richard-CN · Feb 17, 2026

Malm said:
Hi!

1) The author is doing the classical mistake of saying that the aperture value is responsible for the light gathering which is wrong. It's the OPEN aperture and that's why a 24/1.4 is gathering 3x more light than a 14/1.4 lens with the same exposure time (and hence getting a much better s/n ratio). See the classical Clarkvision article for details. That's why a fast ultra-wide angle lens is a compromise (not-so-good light gathering, but also no panorama required) compared to a fast wide angle lens (good light gathering, but often requires stitching of several images). Some images like polar-lights are nearly only possible with ultra-wide angles due to the fast changing aurora.

2) The extreme vignette of 4 EV for the RF 14/1.4 is nowhere mentioned, but that is an important limitation of this lens for night photography. Add 1-2 EV under-exposure (e.g. to protect the bright parts of a strong aurora) and you will get noise issues in the corners when removing the vignette. That can be a problem for panorama images which are popular for night photography.

3) The so called 'coma' of this new lens seems to be acceptable at f/1.4 and I've seen a better coma example than the peta pixel images. The comment that the strong distortion-correction might rather increase the coma sounds logical.

4) The Samyang XP/ Rokinon SP 14/2.4 lens was mentioned once. It's a good 'astro' lens but needs a firmware upgrade for the newer Canon bodies to work (works fine without update on the old R and RP).

I appreciate the comments from the author about this new lens and I agree with most of his findings, but the importance of the open aperture (instead of the aperture) and the strong vignette should have been discussed in a proper review. It's definitely not the perfect 'astro-lens' (due to vignette, price and very strong distortion correction), but it's looking like a (well) suitable lens for night photography.
My opinion about this new 14/1.4 is also a little bit mixed and I will not buy it at the moment for night photography.

I forgot about clarks work, thanks for the reminder.

however in this case, unless we want to assume different transmissions through various 14mm lenses - I didn't state anything about light collection difference between a 14mm f/1.4 and, for instance, a 24/1.8. which I agree would have been a collective hot mess trying to come up with that. For most of the people reading this, aperture values govern the collection of light for the same focal length - but yes, I do agree it's more nuanced. There's a reason why telescopes are sold primarily by the diameter of the aperture.

I left off stitching and also tracking because that's a never-ending rabbit hole.

Vignetting I don't usually mention that much in my conversations on lenses, because it's never just the lens with mirrorless cameras and lenses - it's a combination of the sensor generation level, and the lens itself that contributes to vignetting. Consider that light is falling on a sensor at a given angle of incidence in the corner of the sensor, and depending on the pixel and the microlens design, that may or may not collect less or more light as you move from the center. also depending on how the lens shifts elements around internally, even the focus distance can change the vignetting amounts - so it's, well, complicated, and there's never any one right answer for that.

Also, thanks for the heads up on the f/2.4 lenses.

kirbic · Feb 17, 2026

Malm said:
I use tape to fix the focus ring after focusing with the 10x live-view. That is mandatory when using a dew-heater. UWA lenses are usually not very sensitive to thermal adjustment, so I only focus once at the beginning. If you want to use a Bahtinov-mask for focus, you need a special one for UWA work with very close gaps. With a little bit of experience the live-view smethod should be good enough.

I've not used tape, I would worry that I would fat-finger it and move my focus, LOL. Usually, I have no issues with focus shifting. As you stated, the UWAs are pretty stable and don't change detectably during cool-down. I normally mount my camera and lens during polar alignment so they are cooling down for a good bit before I am setting up my imaging run.

Malm · Feb 17, 2026

Zadak said:
Self-heating lenses when?

Well, use an Uranium-alloy for the lens barrel and you will never have dew-problems again.

P-visie · Feb 17, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
I'm still trying to sort out how the Sony mounts on RF

That requires the Sony cripple wrench and some super glue

Zadak · Feb 17, 2026

Self-heating lenses when?

Malm · Feb 17, 2026

David - Sydney said:
I think that my standard is a bit lower than yours. Nebula would mean Ha - correct? I haven't gone down that route and probably won't although the technical challenge. Getting viewers to appreciate adding Ha to a picture seems to be a step too far for them as they don't know what it is and definitely can't see it with the naked eye.
For colours, there seems to be controversy about what would be the "correct" white balance. Seems to be a personal preference with some too purple for me for instance.
PTGui is great but sometimes I can't get it to stitch properly - even when adding control points and need to do a lot of work in post to get it looking okay. Simple is good for me

Hi!

In short: I nearly completely agree!

Nebula: I'm not doing Ha yet and I will not do it for 'landscape at night' as it is looking too artificial to me. The modern sensors are already more sensitive in Ha than the human eye and that is enough for my taste. Normal 'daylight' images are also done in natural colors, just a little bit tweaked and that's how I do it with night images: Color temperature is usually around 5000 K and than you have to tweak and stretch as you like. Ha for deep-sky is a different story as that is not a 'natural' image, but instead you try to show with any suitable method the structures of the night sky.
There is an absolutely overkill of these kitsch night images with a red Ha sky plus the typical brainless flashlight-guy.

PTGui: Mmmmh? I have hardy had ever problems with that software. I'm using a pano-head, so when auto-stitching fails I'm using 'align to grid' where I only have to guess the 'roll' and 'pitch' angles. But even with my 'three-camera-pano-rail' which will always have a parallax error, I hardly ever have such problems.

m4ndr4ke · Feb 17, 2026

Alastair Norcross said:
Luckily, each of my fingers has two joints.

My fingers even have three joints, but none of them move latitudinally as much as the new power switch requires

I added this in a later reply:

m4ndr4ke said:
I prefer the power switch on the left, but I know I could use it on the right, I would easily deal with that. However, it's not on the right, currently, it's at the top and aimed at the front. The thumb can't get there, the index finger needs to bend, it's just not a good design, in my opinion.

Same issue for the lock switch, specifically because it's aimed at the front. For instance, the RP has the lock switch in the same place, but aimed at the right, which is great, since the thumb can easily reach it. You can lock and unlock without having to adjust the right hand entirely.

Malm · Feb 17, 2026

kirbic said:
I... An MF lock switch would have been awesome, but I've learned to be very careful and also to monitor focus closely during acquisition of my subs. I've found that I don't need a mask to achieve critical focus, as long as I use high magnification on the screen. I'm normally not shooting quite wide open anyhow so I have a leeetle bit of wiggle room.

I use tape to fix the focus ring after focusing with the 10x live-view. That is mandatory when using a dew-heater. UWA lenses are usually not very sensitive to thermal adjustment, so I only focus once at the beginning. If you want to use a Bahtinov-mask for focus, you need a special one for UWA work with very close gaps. With a little bit of experience the live-view smethod should be good enough.

Malm · Feb 17, 2026

Hi!

1) The author is doing the classical mistake of saying that the aperture value is responsible for the light gathering which is wrong. It's the OPEN aperture and that's why a 24/1.4 is gathering 3x more light than a 14/1.4 lens with the same exposure time (and hence getting a much better s/n ratio). See the classical Clarkvision article for details. That's why a fast ultra-wide angle lens is a compromise (not-so-good light gathering, but also no panorama required) compared to a fast wide angle lens (good light gathering, but often requires stitching of several images). Some images like polar-lights are nearly only possible with ultra-wide angles due to the fast changing aurora.

2) The extreme vignette of 4 EV for the RF 14/1.4 is nowhere mentioned, but that is an important limitation of this lens for night photography. Add 1-2 EV under-exposure (e.g. to protect the bright parts of a strong aurora) and you will get noise issues in the corners when removing the vignette. That can be a problem for panorama images which are popular for night photography.

3) The so called 'coma' of this new lens seems to be acceptable at f/1.4 and I've seen a better coma example than the peta pixel images. The comment that the strong distortion-correction might rather increase the coma sounds logical.

4) The Samyang XP/ Rokinon SP 14/2.4 lens was mentioned once. It's a good 'astro' lens but needs a firmware upgrade for the newer Canon bodies to work (works fine without update on the old R and RP).

I appreciate the comments from the author about this new lens and I agree with most of his findings, but the importance of the open aperture (instead of the aperture) and the strong vignette should have been discussed in a proper review. It's definitely not the perfect 'astro-lens' (due to vignette, price and very strong distortion correction), but it's looking like a (well) suitable lens for night photography.
My opinion about this new 14/1.4 is also a little bit mixed and I will not buy it at the moment for night photography.

kirbic · Feb 17, 2026

I'm relatively certain that if I don't get a dud I will love this lens. Here's hoping I get my copy in early March and can test it around New Moon. An MF lock switch would have been awesome, but I've learned to be very careful and also to monitor focus closely during acquisition of my subs. I've found that I don't need a mask to achieve critical focus, as long as I use high magnification on the screen. I'm normally not shooting quite wide open anyhow so I have a leeetle bit of wiggle room.

neuroanatomist · Feb 17, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
Being wrong so many times in such a short post. A+. I'm still trying to sort out how the Sony mounts on RF

Give the guy a break, he was spot on regarding one point…he definitely is “that guy“.

Alastair Norcross · Feb 17, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
It's almost the only single thing that annoys me on the new cameras.
That, and the new M-Fn menu, with two levels and different controls.

I also really like that. Much more convenient for me.

m4ndr4ke said:
Not only I prefer the power switch on the left, I absolutely hate where they decided to move it to, it's just so out of reach, I have to bend my finger to get there

Luckily, each of my fingers has two joints.

Alastair Norcross · Feb 17, 2026

mccasi said:
Sorry to be that guy, but the Sony 14 1.8 gm is half the price,

False, and it's 2/3 stop slower.

mccasi said:
2/3 the weight, smaller and famously has no aberrations wide open on a 60MP sensor… the canon 14mm has to be stopped down to 2.8 to be even remotely where the Sony is…

False.

mccasi said:
and that’s before you consider the a7cr has 1 stop better noise performance

False

mccasi said:
- which gives it 2.5 stops advantage …

False

mccasi said:
the comparison is so ridiculous

The only thing that's true, but not for the reasons you are claiming.

mccasi said:
that CR has ignored it from the comparison

Click · Feb 17, 2026

Nice shots, shire guy.

blackcoffee17 · Feb 17, 2026

mccasi said:
Sorry to be that guy, but the Sony 14 1.8 gm is half the price, 2/3 the weight, smaller and famously has no aberrations wide open on a 60MP sensor… the canon 14mm has to be stopped down to 2.8 to be even remotely where the Sony is… and that’s before you consider the a7cr has 1 stop better noise performance - which gives it 2.5 stops advantage … the comparison is so ridiculous that CR has ignored it from the comparison

On which planet is the Sony A7CR 1 stop better? So you telling me that ISO 6400 on the Sony is as clean as ISO 3200 on Canon?

AlanF · Feb 17, 2026

shire_guy said:
Australian Brush-turkey

View attachment 228005

White-faced Heron (with lunch)

View attachment 228006

More like a snack! Nice and sharp to see it so clearly.

Richard-CN · Feb 17, 2026

Ian K said:
If you want to focus correctly for astro work, you can’t do better than a bahtinov mask. Use the rear screen to zoom in to a bright star and centre it in the screen. Then place the bahtinov mask in front of the lens. Or simply hold it there, if like the RF 14mm there are no threads. Now manually focus until you have a sharp star. You now have perfect focus for Astro, remove the mask.

For example the Kase Night Focus Tool or Kase Bright Star circular filter. I’ve used the Bright star to great effect.

Batinov Masks

100% absolutely .. tried and true and works on literally anything.

Richard-CN · Feb 17, 2026

mccasi said:
Sorry to be that guy, but the Sony 14 1.8 gm is half the price, 2/3 the weight, smaller and famously has no aberrations wide open on a 60MP sensor… the canon 14mm has to be stopped down to 2.8 to be even remotely where the Sony is… and that’s before you consider the a7cr has 1 stop better noise performance - which gives it 2.5 stops advantage … the comparison is so ridiculous that CR has ignored it from the comparison

that's cute but what does it have to do with the RF mount? it was literally in the title and I'm not sure you actually read the article. Comparisons were not even a core part of this article.

sorry to be that guy, but no, you re a little wrong on - everything?

Let's see coma.

while, "okay" .. it's certainly not "nothing".

secondly on what planet is 1750 50% of 2600?

third:

I am looking for that miraculous 1EV better high ISO.

and finally.

60MP means if you are concerned about point sharpness (which you mentioned) your light gathering aka exposure time would be shorter. around 8 seconds versus 10 seconds for 5 trailing pixels.

shire_guy · Feb 17, 2026

Australian Brush-turkey

White-faced Heron (with lunch)

David - Sydney · Feb 17, 2026

A good overview.
The Sony/sigma options are substantially cheaper if you already are in that system.
Getting the RF20/1.4 + RF14/1.4 locally would be about the same cost as a A7iii (new) + 14/1.8 + 20/1.8. Or even a second hand A7iv. The Sony stuff gets on sale and available second hand. The RF14 and RF20 won't be discounted or available used (for a long time).

Canon threw everything into a great 14mm but if they asked me (and they didn't), a better astro lens would have been manual focus with dew heater and focus lock as you mentioned. the cost would have been a lot cheaper.

If you can afford or justify its use then it is a great choice but there are only ~10 new moons a year to use it - if the weather cooperates.
Coma isn't everything but it is annoying if substantial. All depends on stitching for corner sharpness.

The alternative is to get good at tracking and use a slower lens for a longer exposure. The Samyang 14/2.8 and lots of trackers would be a cheaper option. Of course, certain foregrounds don't lend themselves to tracking/longer exposures especially trees reaching up in the sky.

Exploreshootshare · Feb 17, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
I like the idea, I don't like the controls. Requiring two dials to operate such a simple design without at least trying to match the previous arrangement is diabolical to me

I agree. The M-Fn actually requires two dials and you have to press the M-Fn button to switch to the next selection. I always forget that and confuses me over and over again. Atm, it is not intuitive to me. Hopefully, it'll change.

m4ndr4ke said:
It would be nice if it could be operated with the joystick, in four directions, like the menu.

Yes, please!

m4ndr4ke said:
I prefer the power switch on the left, but I know I could use it on the right, I would easily deal with that. However, it's not on the right, currently, it's at the top and aimed at the front. The thumb can't get there, the index finger needs to bend, it's just not a good design, in my opinion.

I agree 100%!

Latest activity

Latest activity

​

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics