erader said:

i have the sigma 14 f1.8 and i have no plan to buy the rf 14

Click to expand...

Well, I can understand your arguments doing astro photography and also owning the Sigma 14/1.8. But I also do hike - sometimes - to my destinations, so weight can be an issue. I see the new RF 14/1.4 as an additional option. Based on the recent reviews the RF lens has less coma but more vignette (4EV!), is faster and lighter, but also $$$$. There is no immediate reason for me to buy the new RF lens.
From my perspective there are several suitable 14mm 'astro' options for Canon mirrorless cameras now:
Sigma Art 14/1.8 (2nd hand only)
Samyang XP 14/2.4 (need software update for newer RF bodies)
Pergear / 7Artisan 14/2.8 (seems to be the same optical construction with different 'casings', coma is slightly stronger than the Samyang, but the vignette is high (3EV). Weight and price are low)
Canon RF 14/1.4 (good 'astro' lens, but heavy vignette and $$$$)
Not so well suitable for astro:
Laowa 15/2 OK (15 is very close to 14) Based on reviews I find the coma a little bit too strong, also at f/2.8
several Samyang 14/2.8 lenses: I hate the poor Samyang QC, the so called 'Samyang-lottery' for decentered lenses!
TTartisan 14/2.8: Based on reviews I find the coma a little bit too strong

Each lens has pros and cons (and MF lenses are usually easier to focus than AF lenses for astro).

Etnaphele said:

That’s actually a big plus, as I already use them 82mm on the 24-70. Vignetting should not be huge with thin filters from what I’ve seen.

Click to expand...

Or just use filters larger than the thread size. I've been using Nisi 95mm filters which will work on any of my lenses including the 15-35mm with no vignetting.

1. Water cascading over rock formation in Columbia River near Jasper BC CA...
2. Water flowing over weir...

@Etnaphele yes, I use front filters on my RF 15-35 2.8 L at 15mm without vigneting - zero! It's a huge plus!

It is unusual that preorders aren't accepted for the Australian retailers when the announcement is made.

"Pre-orders open Tuesday 10 February at 12:00pm AEDT.
Successful purchases will be shipped from mid-April 2026."
You can "register your interest" and get an email when the preorder can be made.

Etnaphele said:

That’s actually a big plus, as I already use them 82mm on the 24-70. Vignetting should not be huge with thin filters from what I’ve seen.

Click to expand...

I'm using the B&W "T pro MRC nano" filters, which have a very thin mount. No issues whatsoever, even at 15mm! Loss of sharpness? Maybe under a microscope?

Richard CR said:

I presume you mean overlapping zooms, because having a zoom and then complementing it with a much faster prime is like .. what most people actually do.

as far as overlapping zooms, i'm going to weigh in on this so Craig get out your popcorn.

overlap is good - the rule of zooms is that if you are at the absolute ends you tend not to get the best performance out of that zoom - so if you have overlap, let's say three zooms:

14-35
24-105
70-200

optical characteristics will be different on each zoom, one zoom may be better at the wide versus tele. it may be better to shoot with the 70-200 in the 70-105 range than it is with the 24-105. this gives you options to choose what is better optically by knowing your lenses and how they perform. and that's not even considering the usefulless of using one lens and having the option to go further in the zoom either wider or longer because of the overlap. I loved this for instance, on the M's with the 11-22 and the 15-45. the overlap was great.

having options is a really good thing.

if you go from that example to say;

14-24
24-70
70-200

you are at the mercy of the optical designers that the lenses are equally good throughout the entire zoom range and you inheriently are swapping lenses far more often.

(not picking on you, but just wading into this convo)

Click to expand...

Interesting, but I would argue that buying expensive L-glass (particularly F2.8) should give a solid enough performance through the whole zoom range. The 15-35 is weaker on the long end, more reasons to take that range out and add a couple of millimeter at the wide end with a 12-24 option

Plus, your point of swapping lenses doesn't sum up, as the reason you give for overlap is exactly switching to another lens that performs better, thus not using a range you paid for. Sure, you keep more flexibility, but the original discussion started not by giving up an overlapping range alone, but to have a lens with less overlap but in exchange a wider wide end. Your two examples have same starting and ending focal lengths, but try to compare these (in the realm of F2.8):

• 12-24 (hypothetical, only Sony has one) vs 15-35
• 24-70 vs 24-105 (net win for the longer lens, but it's much bigger and more expensive)
• 70-200 vs 100-300 (astronomical price difference, doesn't count)

The options have same total coverage, with 3mm difference at the wide end.

In my view, trying to optimize the number of bright, high performing zoom lenses to have would be easier with the option of 12-24 2.8. It's not about avoiding overlap, but looking at what less overlap could accomplish with a different zoom range. For sure going to 35 is extremely useful, but knowing I can go there (with better performance, following your reasoning on optical quality) with the 24-70 makes it less valuable.

I've never thought about it like that before. That's a really interesting perspective. Thanks

erader said:

i don't play the overlap game. i buy lenses that i actually use

Click to expand...

I presume you mean overlapping zooms, because having a zoom and then complementing it with a much faster prime is like .. what most people actually do.

as far as overlapping zooms, i'm going to weigh in on this so Craig get out your popcorn.

overlap is good - the rule of zooms is that if you are at the absolute ends you tend not to get the best performance out of that zoom - so if you have overlap, let's say three zooms:

14-35
24-105
70-200

optical characteristics will be different on each zoom, one zoom may be better at the wide versus tele. it may be better to shoot with the 70-200 in the 70-105 range than it is with the 24-105. this gives you options to choose what is better optically by knowing your lenses and how they perform. and that's not even considering the usefulless of using one lens and having the option to go further in the zoom either wider or longer because of the overlap. I loved this for instance, on the M's with the 11-22 and the 15-45. the overlap was great.

having options is a really good thing.

if you go from that example to say;

14-24
24-70
70-200

you are at the mercy of the optical designers that the lenses are equally good throughout the entire zoom range and you inheriently are swapping lenses far more often.

(not picking on you, but just wading into this convo)

Despite all discussions here, purely based on tech rumors (what I love, too, it's a rumors site and I am grateful that it exists), I surely will upgrade already only based on a bigger body with Canon standard button/wheel layout (I really hope for this return to their great ergonomics, and I am quite optimistic). Was just these days out in winter for birding and again completely annoyed by the R7's tiny wheel-joystick combo. With winter gloves, it is impossible to use it. Given the fact, that Canon surely will upgrade other features, I will happily replace my R7 I with an ergonomically improved II, being aware that Canon never will implement all its top tech in a 7 series camera.

I always wondered why so many people believe(d) they'll get a sort of 1 series camera with crop sensor when they buy a 7 series camera. The 7 series was never up to the top FF cameras in terms of performance, including AF reliability (unfortunately). But they were - and are - great for tele shooting when there is enough light available, because they then are capable of delivering the highest possible resolution in the image center within Canon's ecosystem. That's it, from the perspective of a wildlife tele photographer.

foda said:

Thank you. I usually travel with both the R5 and R5MkII, along with the RF100-500mm and RF200-800mm lenses. If I know that I will be needing some extra reach I will also take the R7, although that's rarely a necessity in the tropical forests.

Click to expand...

My gear as well, and I would take all three bodies and both lenses on a trip like yours.

John Wilde said:

I wonder how long it will be before Canon releases a photocentric PowerShot with their new 1.4" sensor. It's a safe bet that Canon didn't create a new sensor and a new sensor size for just one camera model.

Click to expand...

I wonder that to cant wait for new compact camera's with i hope great zoom of around 300/400.

And with raw they need to make a 740hs with a bigger sensor and with raw, i would definitely buy it

erader said:

if i makes you feel any better canon released the ef 14 f2.8 II in 2007 for like $2300, which would be about $3500 today

Click to expand...

I didn't even bother comparing the MTF of that lens to the 14/1.4 - I didn't want the EF lens to experience that kind of beat down.

Canon Rumors said:

12-15mm.. doesn't matter whatsoever for astro. All 12 would do is add size and cost. The 15-35 is brilliant at 15, barely distortion. You can get them cheap, it's light. Who cares about an overlap between 24 to 35? That's strange.

Click to expand...

i don't play the overlap game. i buy lenses that i actually use

fox40phil said:

So do you guys think Canon will finally fix their UW video wobble while using IBIS?!?!
The 14mm and also the fisheye zoom are new huge arguments for a long needed fix!

Click to expand...

yes, use a new canon IBIS camera. It's called Peripheral Coordinated Control IS. It's not out for the older camera bodies, and I'm not sure it's even possible to fully get away from it - it's just something people have to be aware of when shooting.

Sony I believe gets rid of it in post because it tags it in the meta data, but it's still there. If it really is a problem use a gimbal.

Tmjc.wolf said:

Gordon from camera labs has already shown some uncorrected images in his first-looks video. The corrections don't look as heavy as I might have first expected IMO.View attachment 227860
View attachment 227858
IQ looks to be excellent as well. Really amazing what canon has done here. I just wish I could justify spending that amount of money on it ...

Click to expand...

if i makes you feel any better canon released the ef 14 f2.8 II in 2007 for like $2300, which would be about $3500 today

Dannyjeffers said:

I don't shoot Canon anymore and don't really care that much but why would someone spend nearly 3k on this lens when the old sigma version is almost certainly as good. Astro isn't exactly a run and gun genre. It's almost always planned, with a car, on a tripod. Native mount and smaller size doesn't really do much for you here. IDK I'm sure people will defend it but yeah.

Click to expand...

i have the sigma 14 f1.8 and i have no plan to buy the rf 14

stillviking said:

I will just keep 15-35 2.8 L to use front filters.

Click to expand...

That’s actually a big plus, as I already use them 82mm on the 24-70. Vignetting should not be huge with thin filters from what I’ve seen.

AlanF said:

Your photos are the stars! Did you take a back-up body and lens with you?

Click to expand...

Thank you. I usually travel with both the R5 and R5MkII, along with the RF100-500mm and RF200-800mm lenses. If I know that I will be needing some extra reach I will also take the R7, although that's rarely a necessity in the tropical forests.

neuroanatomist said:

Well, fortunately for those of us who like and benefit from the design advantages of putting lens elements within 2 cm of the sensor, Canon’s designers know better than to put a filter slot there instead.

Click to expand...

Oh gosh, that tone you take every time someone has a different opinion than you is so insufferable.

Over and over again you act like the only view that counts is your own and god forbid someone offers an alternative opinion. You'll do all sorts of verbal acrobatics just to make sure you have the last say.

Sure, it probably could have been designed for a drop-in filter, but there would have been design, size and cost consequences.

Click to expand...

If you know this, then why even go countering my initial claim that it could've been done?

DSB said:

There'd be zero issues having it between the last two elements on the 70-200, without sacrificing compatibility with extenders. The gap is more than enough for a drop in filter.

Click to expand...

Are there lens designs from Canon or anyone else where a drop-in filter is not the last piece of glass in the path? If not, might there be a reason for that?

DSB said:

Obviously, I'm pretty sure it could be done for the 24-105 with a slightly different internal layout. You're asking "where" as if the current layout is the only way.

Click to expand...

Like many wide and non-telephoto zoom lenses, the design depends on having the rear element(s) as close to the sensor as possible. Sure, it probably could have been designed for a drop-in filter, but there would have been design, size and cost consequences.

DSB said:

If these lenses were done with drop in filters in mind from the get go, it could've been done, even preserving the extender compatibility.

Click to expand...

Canon has only ever put a drop-in slot on lenses that don’t have front filter threads.

DSB said:

I mean, look how little space the drop in filter actually takes in a lens. That's the new fisheye zoom and the last slimmest piece of flat glass is the drop in filter.

Click to expand...

It’s not just the thickness of the filter. It’s the ‘opportunity cost’ of not putting lens elements from there back to the end of the mount – that empty space behind the filter in the cutaway, where lens elements are in most other modern designs for wide and standard lenses.

The new fisheye is a design based heavily on the EF predecessor, the space was available. Someone mentioned the new lens is the length of the old one plus an adapter. Better optics in terms of special elements and coatings, but an old design.

When Canon launched the RF mount, they touted the benefits of being able to get rear elements much closer to the sensor than EF allowed, and those benefits make many of the RF lenses possible, whereas they would have been prohibitive or not possible on EF.

You are suggesting that Canon can and should just eschew those advantages they touted and put a drop-in filter back there instead, for lenses that work perfectly well with front filters. Well, fortunately for those of us who like and benefit from the design advantages of putting lens elements within 2 cm of the sensor, Canon’s designers know better than to put a filter slot there instead.

Surab said:

What I'm not fully understanding is how they're getting away charging the MSRP from 7 years ago...

Click to expand...

From that point of view, if the price hasnt changed in 7yrs, then the real value of the purchase has decreased.

I bought a new editing rig for 9,000$ 3 months ago. That same rig, with exactly the same components now costs 12,500$.

And the prices are nowhere near the peak. It will only get worse. Upgrade your systems, cause you might need to make them last for next several years.

neuroanatomist said:

24-105/2.8 Z, where?


70-200/2.8 Z, there’s room for it…as long as you don’t need to insert a TC in the back end. Which one do you think most people would want?

Click to expand...

There'd be zero issues having it between the last two elements on the 70-200, without sacrificing compatibility with extenders. The gap is more than enough for a drop in filter.

Obviously, I'm pretty sure it could be done for the 24-105 with a slightly different internal layout. You're asking "where" as if the current layout is the only way. If these lenses were done with drop in filters in mind from the get go, it could've been done, even preserving the extender compatibility.

I mean, look how little space the drop in filter actually takes in a lens. That's the new fisheye zoom and the last slimmest piece of flat glass is the drop in filter.