David - Sydney said:

If a good performance manual 14/1.4 or 14/1.8 on RF or EF mount was released then it would be a no-brainer for me. No different to my Samyang 14/2.8 decision in the past.

Click to expand...

I think that there is a larger niche for a manual fast and good 14mm RF lens as the 'astro' community isn't that small any more.
I theory Sigma can just add an aperture ring to their lenses and replace the AF by a MF system and sell them with an RF bayonet. Well, there might be reasons why they don't do it ...

Rafał said:

You missed the point that optical correction of distortion is not free - it also introduces aberations and losses in quality. There was an interview with Sigma engineers who said that in many cases correcting distortion and vignetting digitally results in better sharpness than doing it optically.

Click to expand...

I’d love to learn more about this; do you have links to those interviews?

Del Paso said:

While in "physical" my comparison, the 15-35 was noticeably better at 35mm, and at least as good at the other focal lengths...

Click to expand...

Centre or edges?

AlanF said:

Great analysis Richard! Go one stage further and compare the two lenses at 18mm, 24mm and 35mm at f/4, and you see from the optical limits charts that the 14-35mm has far, far less fall off on going from the centre to the extremes. So, for this pair of lenses, the optical correction at the shortest length causes far more damage at longer lengths than does the digital!

Click to expand...

While in my "physical" comparison, the 15-35 was noticeably better at 35mm, and at least as good at the other focal lengths...

Klendothir said:

I had both the 15-35 and the 14-35. I finally sold the 15-35 last week because it constantly stayed at home. The 14-35 is so much smaller, lighter AND a full mm wider where it really counts. I can definitely live with one stop less light at these lengths. In the worst case, I can crank up the ISOs (I use DxO PhotoLab anyway) And while I also have the 10-20, this one often feels too wide.. The 14-35 barely leaves my camera during a city trip.

Click to expand...

I agree, was my only lens on a 3 week hiking trip in the alpes last summer. The only thing i missed was a tele lens for the occassional wildlife. It is also good enough for auroras and okay for wide field astro, especially because of the convenience of having one lens. Now i am considering the 20mm for handheld astro/auroras but is not sure if its wide enough. Would love a third party manual in the 14-18 range with f2 or something

24 MP is the exact APS-C crop resolution of a 54 MP full-frame sensor. However, Canon uses a 1.6x crop factor. The 54 -> 24 MP reduction corresponds to a 1.5x crop factor.
So if it was not Canon, I'd be pretty sure that someone saw a cropped version of the image.

I don't think dual resolution makes much sense. It would have to be pixel-binned (something like 80/20 MP, four neighboring pixels would share the same color in the Bayer mask). In that case, I don't think it would bring much of an increase in detail in the 80 MP image.
If the binned pixels don't share the same microlens, then you'd still have to store data from all the pixels to recreate the color information.

Thank you @AlanF and @Click

AlanF said:

Great analysis Richard! Go one stage further and compare the two lenses at 18mm, 24mm and 35mm at f/4, and you see from the optical limits charts that the 14-35mm has far, far less fall off on going from the centre to the extremes. So, for this pair of lenses, the optical correction at the shortest length causes far more damage at longer lengths than does the digital!

Click to expand...

That's true, and it's much harder to get to 14mm as well in terms of optical design. The 14-35 has a slightly more zoom range, and because it's software reliant, the designers can engineer a better-performing lens overall.

Richard CR said:

OpticalLimits has recently gotten its hands on the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM, which was announced way back on June 29, 2021. That in itself probably isn't newsworthy. So instead of talking about the review itself, I focused on a specific part of the review that caught my eye. This part of the review […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

Great analysis Richard! Go one stage further and compare the two lenses at 18mm, 24mm and 35mm at f/4, and you see from the optical limits charts that the 14-35mm has far, far less fall off on going from the centre to the extremes. So, for this pair of lenses, the optical correction at the shortest length causes far more damage at longer lengths than does the digital!

Rafał said:

You missed the point that optical correction of distortion is not free - it also introduces aberations and losses in quality. There was an interview with Sigma engineers who said that in many cases correcting distortion and vignetting digitally results in better sharpness than doing it optically.

Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I implied it, that by not worrying about the image circle as much, it allows the designers to focus on other aspects of the design, but yes, I didn't go into as much detail as I should have.

m4ndr4ke said:

Oh boy, I'm anticipating the comments

Click to expand...

Darn right! I live for it.

I had both the 15-35 and the 14-35. I finally sold the 15-35 last week because it constantly stayed at home. The 14-35 is so much smaller, lighter AND a full mm wider where it really counts. I can definitely live with one stop less light at these lengths. In the worst case, I can crank up the ISOs (I use DxO PhotoLab anyway) And while I also have the 10-20, this one often feels too wide.. The 14-35 barely leaves my camera during a city trip.

You missed the point that optical correction of distortion is not free - it also introduces aberations and losses in quality. There was an interview with Sigma engineers who said that in many cases correcting distortion and vignetting digitally results in better sharpness than doing it optically.

Rejecting software correction implies rejecting also DXO, LR etc… editing.
What matters is how good the picture you obtain is, whether optically or electronically corrected. Period!

Oh boy, I'm anticipating the comments


What strikes me the most is the fact that both lenses show essentially the same profile in the corners. If the loss on image quality was significant, we would see the 14-35mm f/4 falling at the end of the line, which we don't.

It was said a long time ago that we might get two APS-C lenses as well:

1. One more PZ lens beside 14-30mm
2. One fast prime

I wonder if Canon is going to release both before summer or one of them is going to come together with the R10 Mark II

mimbu said:

You can call it loyalty, or inertia, or whatever you wish. It's all the same thing. You keep buying from the same company even if there are potentially better options for some of what you do. A lot of people don't even educate themselves on what those options are! Like the author of the article this thread comes from, posting about how Sigma is dead to him because they don't exist on RF. Maybe expand horizons a bit.

Click to expand...

Easier said than done. I went from Canon to Sony and then back to Canon. The grass is not always greener. A company might have a better option in one area and not in another. Personally I think that most camera systems are fantastic these days and it's usually not worth switching unless you are a professional and switching will make you money. Most people would benefit more from getting out and shooting rather than worrying about the latest tech.

the pixel math at least makes sense. Downscaling the 3x3 pixel array to a 2x2 array is a 2.25x reduction, which happens to multiply by 24 to make 54.

as for 6k120 - that is technically a very similar data rate to 8k60, so should be possible on the current CFexpress implementation.

David - Sydney said:

To be specific, RF allows 3rd party crop sensor lenses that have full access to Canon's AF/IBIS protocols.
I think that you are referring to FF lenses instead.

Click to expand...

Canon allows a limited subset of available APS-C glass onto RF-S. Currently two Tamron lenses and a few more from Sigma. There are no signs that the same thing will happen for FF RF which is the type of lens being discussed here.

I believed that Canon should allow 3rd party FF lenses for niches that Canon wasn't interested in themselves. UWA prime was one that they weren't interested in for a very long time.
With the RF14/1.4 and RF7-15, they hit 2 of the missing niches in their lineup. Canon might not have cheap options but they have coverage in that sense.
There are still some missing niches though: TS-R, long/short and 5x macro, mid priced zoom telephotos, 300/4, completion of f2 trinity, etc

Click to expand...

Personally I hope that eventually the EU forces open mounts to increase competition and improve consumer selection. Besides prying open RF and Z, it would hopefully include requiring a level playing field and thus remove the limits that Sony places on E mount for 3rd party glass. I doubt it will be Sigma or Tamron who will force this, it will probably be a well-funded Chinese maker.

scyrene said:

On the other hand, people who swap brands or use more than one (and I imagine both are a minority) can overestimate how much brand loyalty there is. Speaking for myself, I have no loyalty but I do have inertia. My gear does most of what I want and any gripes or dissatisfaction aren't worth the hassle and expense of starting afresh. I suspect a lot of people are likewise in the middle.

Click to expand...

You can call it loyalty, or inertia, or whatever you wish. It's all the same thing. You keep buying from the same company even if there are potentially better options for some of what you do. A lot of people don't even educate themselves on what those options are! Like the author of the article this thread comes from, posting about how Sigma is dead to him because they don't exist on RF. Maybe expand horizons a bit.

I don't think R3ii is available in CPS booth, but dual native resolution that isn't cropping is a welcoming move.

Plos said:

Right now they think it's 3. Sounds about right to me, too. One as cheap as possible, one sensible entry level and one slightly above that.

Nobody looks at the R50V for photography and the rumored R10 ii will be replacing the current R10, so stays at 3.

5 years ago they had basically 9! 90D, 77D, 850D, 250D, 2000D, 4000D! And don't forget M6 ii, M50 ii and M200.

Click to expand...

I don't think either the 90D or the M6II qualify as "entry level". Both very capable cameras, as is the 77D.

I had a 400mm f4 DO II and loved it. Very nice lens. I eventually sold it to buy a 200-400mm f4. Which I also love.

I think a 600 or 800mm DO would be a really great lens for birding.

Here are some samples:

ashmadux said:

This sounds...too far fetched for canon.

The crop sensors have hit a self imposed wall, which alone is half the battle for the IQ sensitive amongst us; The designs are utterly lackluster (in comparison to m50/m62 design direction), and ibis is a pipe dream; canon doesn't allow cameras under 1500.00 or so to have ibis - call it a luxury tax if you will. The r7 debuted at 1500.00, so that holds. R8 sold well so theirs no motivation for them to add ibis there.

As well, pigs have been flying for few years now, so anythings possible. But canon...nah. They just don't care enough (22f2 cough cough).

Click to expand...

Yeah... I would put money on an R7 sensor with no IBIS, too.