Canon Announces the Canon RF 14mm f/1.4L VCM

[erader]

The sigma 14/1.4 was never out in the EF mount. Only the 14/1.8 was released for the EF mount, and it's not even available anymore. Do you propose to take a time machine back and purchase one?

Not to mention that this simply is not "just" an astro lens

But using your astro example, in many cases, you need to hike to your location. I'm sure a few people wouldn't mind shaving bulk and weight off their kit if it even was available, or the poor disadvantaged person decided to use the sigma 14/1.4 with a Sony camera.

of course you can still buy the sigma 14 f1.8 in ef mount. i picked up a like new copy last year for $800. i sold the lens once before but i won't make that mistake again. there's a copy on mpb now. when i shoot astro i carry camera, tripod and one or two lenses. the weight of the optically excellent sigma 14 1.8 is not a factor to me. i have the 14-35 for regular landscape work

 

[erader]

an amount greater than 0, because the price isn't 5 digits.

and the weight isn't 2 lbs

 

[benperrin]

I'm almost ready to buy this lens, I just want to see some zoomed in astro photos. Especially the corners. The profile corrections are a lot so I'd like to see if it is a great astro lens.

 

[Tmjc.wolf]

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.

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 ...

 

[Etnaphele]

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 ...

Vignetting seem much less than the Sigma 14mm 1.4, somehow... A bit more barrel distortion, but this lens really looks like a masterpiece. Price tag well earned.

 

[Etnaphele]

I'm almost ready to buy this lens, I just want to see some zoomed in astro photos. Especially the corners. The profile corrections are a lot so I'd like to see if it is a great astro lens.

The Digital Picture in 3...2...1...

 

[m4ndr4ke]

This lens is not relevant to me, but I have to say it’s definitely very impressive

That’s a lot of engineering going in there

 

[eero]

Comparing the new fisheye vs the EF8-15mm... it looks like about the same length as the adapted EF version which would account for including the filter options.
4.4” long vs EF 3.3" + 0.9" adapter if my non-metric is correct.
Same weight (unadapted) though so saving the adapter weight.

Would you use the circular polariser drop in filter with a fisheye? I've never tried it.
The variable NF filter is normally problematic for wide angled but this would be next level.

Nice to add 11 blades vs 7 for the EF version.

My EF8-15/4 does suffer from bad CA around the outside so I normally have to circular crop part of the field of view as I can't correct it. Hopefully the new one is better.

 

[eero]

I have no need for these lenses yet, but one thing I have to say: I wish the RF100-300mm had a similar internal filter slot.

 

[benperrin]

The Digital Picture in 3...2...1...

Mmm. Not bad. It's loaded with light pollution but as long as the edges are decent then it's enough to judge with. Astigmatism is controlled better than many other lenses I've seen.

 

[Etnaphele]

Vignetting seem much less than the Sigma 14mm 1.4, somehow... A bit more barrel distortion, but this lens really looks like a masterpiece. Price tag well earned.

I was probably wrong regarding vignetting, it's slightly worse than the Sigma: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...APIComp=0&Lens=1762&Camera=1697&LensComp=1653

 

[Malm]

I was probably wrong regarding vignetting, it's slightly worse than the Sigma: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...APIComp=0&Lens=1762&Camera=1697&LensComp=1653

Your 'slightly worse' is more than one stop! I was expecting this due to the limited diameter of the VCM lenses.
In general I'm not a fan of these VCM lenses with the required corrections for astrophotography, but I also see the interesting optical quality of this lens. Well, I still have the Sigma A 14/1.8 and the Samyang XP 14/2.4, so I'm not in a rush and can wait for more reviews and long(er)-term feedback. So far the MTF curve's of the Canon 14/1.4 are looking better than those of the Sigma 14/1.8, but the vignette is higher. Vignette is an issue for me as I'm doing often panoramas of the aurora.

 

[Toamelicious]

There are plenty of scenarios where you can't use a tripod or it isn't practical to do so. For example, I'm a pilot and for cockpit photos during low light I absolutely need f/1.4 handheld. Using the 24 f/1.4L now as my widest option, the performance and quality differences between f/1.4 and my 14-35 f/4L is absolutely tremendous. I for one will need this lens for my type of shooting and it will be phenomenal for astro. I actually may sell my RF 10-20 now and just stick with a 14L/24L/24-105L combo for travel.

Yes please
This is actually what I'm hoping for with this release, as I do not really care for both lenses, but I really want some more 10-20F4s to hit the used market and reduce prices

 

[Del Paso]

I think the RF 14mm is the lens I had been holding out for several years ago, but ended up getting the RF 15-35mm. I only ever used it for landscape and a bit of astrophotography when I could. I'm currently planning to sell the 15-35mm and use it to subsidize the 14mm. Outside of it being a zoom lens, is there any advantage of the 15-35mm over the 14mm that I may be over looking?

The uses are different. For a short trip, I usually take the 15-35 + 70-200, and get a very good coverage.
But with a larger backpack, on longer trips or hikes, I could replace the WA zoom with the 14mm + 24mm + 35mm, for higher optical quality.
I will never sell my WA zoom, optically sharp, and much more versatile and easier to use than 3 primes needed to replace it, in cities for instance.
Ergo: I need both, WA zoom + 14mm.

 

[Del Paso]

Amazing how light this lens is, compared to Sigma's anvil. Also very sharp and extremely compact.
I wonder when mine will be delivered!

 

[Etnaphele]

Your 'slightly worse' is more than one stop! I was expecting this due to the limited diameter of the VCM lenses.
In general I'm not a fan of these VCM lenses with the required corrections for astrophotography, but I also see the interesting optical quality of this lens. Well, I still have the Sigma A 14/1.8 and the Samyang XP 14/2.4, so I'm not in a rush and can wait for more reviews and long(er)-term feedback. So far the MTF curve's of the Canon 14/1.4 are looking better than those of the Sigma 14/1.8, but the vignette is higher. Vignette is an issue for me as I'm doing often panoramas of the aurora.

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.

 

[Richard CR]

Your 'slightly worse' is more than one stop! I was expecting this due to the limited diameter of the VCM lenses.
In general I'm not a fan of these VCM lenses with the required corrections for astrophotography, but I also see the interesting optical quality of this lens.

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.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I can't wait for this lens. I hope preordering the preorder also leads to pre-shipping shipping.

 

[Richard CR]

I can't wait for this lens. I hope preordering the preorder also leads to pre-shipping shipping.

I don't think I'm wrong.