foda said:

Thank you. Who says you can't have nice background separation at f/10? I'm really liking that lens.

Click to expand...

If the background is sufficiently far back, then no problem. I have no complaints!

Canon Rumors said:

Ok, I'd buy it at 899. I emailed them. That's only 50 more.

Click to expand...

It is rather unusual for European dealers in most countries to charge more than the manufacturer's recommended sales price.

Old Man FL/FD said:

Wow. A gray color, 30th anniversary logo and cross-hatch knurling on the control ring for $450 USD more. This is Canon’s ‘red dot’ camera.

Attachment is mine when new in 2021.

Click to expand...

Price in Euro is only 899! (From AC Foto in Germany)

AlanF said:

Neither was the weight. I tried to pick one up many years ago and had a shock. As a matter of interest, how do you handle this 3.7kg lens?

Click to expand...

i mostly use it while sitting or with my Berlebach monopod.
The lens weight is not a really big deal for me.

Canon Rumors said:

Only 2 other RF lenses have flourite, 400-600.. lots of EF and those are pretty much EF designed. Wild to see fluorite back in a lens.

Click to expand...

Correction...there were 5 others and thus now 6 RF lenses with fluorite elements, including the new 14/1.4. The 400/2.8 and 600/4, as you state...and also the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 but of course those are really just the 400 and 600 with a built-in 2x. However, the RF 100-300/2.8 also has a fluorite element (and so was the first 'designed-for-RF' lens to include one).

GMCPhotographics said:

Not really, it's pretty much the EF version with an integrated Ef ot R adapter with dropin filters. Very sweet, this is the first RF lens taht can use these particular drop in filters. I hope Canon does a few more UWA lenses with this feature!

Click to expand...

Looking at the cutaway view of the new RF 7-14mm, it's apparent that it is a reuse with minor modification of the EF 8-15mm optics (block diagram superimposed), meaning the lens needed the 'adapter' (spacing) anyway...so why not include a drop-in slot?



I was hoping for a drop-in slot on the RF 14/1.4, but clearly there is not enough room as the barrel is packed with glass. IMO, the inclusion of a drop-in slot in a non-telephoto lens means that the design is really not taking advantage of the short RF flange focal distance. I suspect that means we won't see this feature very often.

I think this is the first RF lens to use a flourite element that isn't a big white super-tele.

DSB said:

Beat me to it, but this is exactly why I mentioned I wish Canon would include drop-in filter option in more lenses. You buy ONE polarizer and it works on all of the lenses. ONE ND - works on all lenses. ONE infrared - works on all lenses...

I have about 10 different drop-in filters and I love them to death. Mainly using them in the RF-EF adapter for my tilt shift lenses and just like you, being able to use filters on a 17mm TS-E makes a world of difference. But also swapping lenses is a breeze - I remove the 17mm and slap on a 50mm TS-E and everything stays the same, with the filter already in place.

Click to expand...

Funnily enough, Canon have just done exactly this....go look at the new RF 7-14mm fisheye!

exkeks said:

Even though the 7-14 is sadly a bit larger than its EF predecessor, it's kinda sexy that Canon managed to keep this lens in the VCM series format. Nice.

Click to expand...

Not really, it's pretty much the EF version with an integrated Ef ot R adapter with dropin filters. Very sweet, this is the first RF lens taht can use these particular drop in filters. I hope Canon does a few more UWA lenses with this feature!

Wow. A gray color, 30th anniversary logo and cross-hatch knurling on the control ring for $450 USD more. This is Canon’s ‘red dot’ camera.

Attachment is mine when new in 2021.

Canon Rumors said:

The Sony costs twice as much (15-35 deals all the time) and you can't filter it. The Leica you mentioned is an overpriced Sigma. There are a bevy of lenses you can adapt to RF mount that would cover what you want.

I just don't get the amount of people that want something that doesn't exist and overcomplicating things. Adapt the EF sigma?

(apologies earlier for misunderstanding the overlap comment)

Click to expand...

People wanting things is pretty legit, right? Especially in a closed mount

As I started a few years ago with the Canon R system, every purchase I make tends to be native as I don't have any EF glass I needed adapting. What would you suggest as an alternative to the Sony 12-24 2.8, taking into account adapting? Disregarding cost and prioriting weight/size and delivering good astro performance.

Canon Rumors said:

12-15mm.. doesn't matter whatsoever for astro. All 12 would do is add size and cost.

Click to expand...

What doesn't matter exactly? Removing 24-35 and adding the 12-14 range could keep the lens around the same size. Look at the Sony 12-24, it's the same size of the RF 15-35. Stabilization would't be needed.

EDIT after your edit --> the 15-35 is brilliant for sure, it's on my list since a long time but looking at what the industry offers on other systems, I'm wondering at this missing piece in RF mount. Fully agree that 14 vs 15 is not a huge difference (but very noticeable), but 12mm is another realm. I could for sure ignore the 24-35mm range, but the point would be having a bright UWA (not UWA to WA) that could be as big as the 15-35 while offering more value to whom already has the 24-70.

Canon Rumors said:

They have 7, 10, 14, 15, 15, 16, 16, 20 at various price points.. so if you're speaking of overlap....

Click to expand...

Well, many of those are not f/2.8 and don't work as well as the 15-35 for astro. The 15-35 is excellent but harder to justify if already owning the 24-70 (to each their own). Each manufacturer (even Leica!!) has at least one bright UWA without too much overlap with the 24-70. Looking at the widest f/2.8 zooms in the industry (there is also the Sigma 14-24 for E and L mounts):



I would have expected a higher priority lens than the 10-20 f/4.

Del Paso said:

I see it just like you, but I am still waiting for a 24-70 II. Then, I could sell the 15-35 and add the 14mm to the 24-70 and 70-200 for short trips. The gap between 14 and 24 wouldn't bother me much. One additional (lightweight) lens wouldn't matter much.
Also, I am absolutely convinced that the 14mm will be extremely good! Stlll 3 weeks of waiting and waiting...

Click to expand...

Am I the only one wishing for a 12-24 or 14-24 F2.8 ? I am also bothered by the 24-35 overlap and the 10-20 is almost too extreme and F4.

Etnaphele said:

I see around half a stop in the worse regions of the frame, never reaching a stop. But the point stands, this is a hard trade off due to size and isn’t saved by excellent engineering elsewhere.

Click to expand...

The difference might come from my comparison against the old Sigma 14/1.8, but what counts is the absolute shading of around 4 EV at f/1.4 and still 3 EV at f/2.0 (which would be an acceptable shading for my work). The coma is looking good at f/1.4. So a good 14mm 'astro' lens at f/2.0 is not bad! The low weight can be nice when hiking and the price ... well, nothing is perfect!

Richard CR said:

Astro imaging though, is one photographic realm where you do have to do alot of post processing. The corrections for removing distortion aren't going to affect star fields that significantly, since trailing and coma are the worst offenders.

The coma that I see on the TDP is about what I thought it would be, not perfect (we can tell that on the MTF), but really good.

Going to add that into the review now actually.

Click to expand...

Concerning distortion: I get ugly moire patterns when blending distortion corrected images together for startrails. So I worry that this is getting worse for VCM lenses with the heavy correction.

And yipp, I also spotted the difference between sagittal and meridional resolution in the MTF charts at the outer part of the image circle. That is usually a sign for coma.

Lovely flower. Very pretty with dewdrops. Nicely done, dpc.

Beautiful series, foda.

Foda, all your hummers are stunning. Did you do an article on this trip ?

Ian K said:

Bryan’s review is already out:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-14mm-F1-4-L-VCM-Lens.aspx

Click to expand...

It dropped about 2 minutes after the announcement.

blackcoffee17 said:

Yes, focal lengths might be covered but if you don't have 10K to spend, you only have the flimsy and dark 200-800 and the 100-500. Mid range 3-4K options are missing. Nikon looks very attractive at the moment for me, after seeing lenses like the 800 6.3 prime selling for £4K online.

Click to expand...

Nikon has far and away the best telephoto lineup on mirrorless. From their compact PF glass to the big boy 400/2.8 and 600/4 with the 1.4x TC built in. They've really knocked it out of the park. The upcoming Z9 II also looks very promising.

vjlex said:

I have the 24-70, so 24-35 range is already covered. Which leaves the 15-23 uncovered. I do like the versatility of a zoom, but the wider aperture, and I assume lightness and sharpness of a prime are also appealing to me.

I suppose I'll wait a bit to read reviews and see more varied sample pictures. Not sure it makes sense for me to own both.

Click to expand...

I see it just like you, but I am still waiting for a 24-70 II. Then, I could sell the 15-35 and add the 14mm to the 24-70 and 70-200 for short trips. The gap between 14 and 24 wouldn't bother me much. One additional (lightweight) lens wouldn't matter much.
Also, I am absolutely convinced that the 14mm will be extremely good! Stlll 3 weeks of waiting and waiting...

TexPhoto said:

The Sigma 300-600mm f4 is ever so slightly smaller than the Canon RF 600mm f4. And while heavier, it is almost exactly the same wight as my EF Canon 600mm f4 IS II. (still the best 600mm for use with TCs btw). Sigma even remember to cut Arca Swiss rails into the tripod foot.

Click to expand...

The comparison with the 600/4L Mark II is what my daughter calls "girl math" - find something more expensive so that the thing she wants appears cheap! The Mark II and the Sigma are both just shy of 4 kg, but the Mark III and the RF are both considerably lighter at just over 3 kg.

Chinese aster...

Bus drop off, Lake Louise, Banff National Park, AB CA...