Here is the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The problem is the zoom ring is too small and too close to the other rings. The more compact they are, the more problematic it is to use the rings
Upvote
0
This is also important to me. I picked the RF 24-70 f2.8 after side-by side evaluation with the 24-105 f4 (CPS loan) in part because the adjacent rings meant I often bumped the wrong one. In fact, as I now recall, the f4 was the lens I got with the original Canon R I bought when I first contemplated a switch from Nikon Z6. Too many ergonimic challenges. I got over them and am much happier with Canon and its lens selection, but am wary of adajacent rings. But... the RF 15-35 f2.8 has adjacent focus ring and zoom ring, so this isn't a real issue.
Upvote
0
Oops, true. I forgot that this is actually an L lens. I wonder if Canon is ever going to release a non-L FF ultrawide…
Upvote
0
Was looking forward to this lens. But it's a bit of a disappointment, being larger and heavier than I hoped. I really like the size of the RP, but most of the RF lenses are overly cumbersome on that handy camera. I would have preferred 16 on the low end in the size and weight of the 24-105 IS STM or 85 f/2, which is the limit of true convenience on the RP. In terms of size and weight, this lens doesn't improve much on the adapted 17-40.
On the flip side, I do like the benefits and performance of the 24-240 on the RP, even though it is cumbersome. And that lens appears to be a bit larger than this 14-35. But the size and weight of the 24-240 often lead me to carry something else on the RP.
For the time being, I guess I'll stick with the adapted 17-40 and wait and see what the RF 16 looks like.
On the flip side, I do like the benefits and performance of the 24-240 on the RP, even though it is cumbersome. And that lens appears to be a bit larger than this 14-35. But the size and weight of the 24-240 often lead me to carry something else on the RP.
For the time being, I guess I'll stick with the adapted 17-40 and wait and see what the RF 16 looks like.
Upvote
0
I saw an interesting observation on another forum. This is Canon’s first truly digital from the ground up platform. EF glass is designed to work on film where distortion corrections aren’t possible.
I think with RF, some degree of distortion correction will be present with every lens. And they’ll be designed with not only glass in mind, but size, weight, AF, speed, etc.
It won’t be 10x zoom type corrections. But it wouldn’t surprise me if some barrel distortion or pincushioning will be corrected for even in L glass.
Upvote
0
Definitely will be interesting to see what Canon does with the rumored non-L 16mm F/2.8. I would love to see that end up somewhere in the ballpark of $600-800.
It is F/2.8 in an ultrawide, after all, so I doubt it will be $400, but definitely would be excellent at a pricepoint to compete somewhat with the third-party 16mm options. At $600, I might very well pick one up to use as a cheap astro / remote camera lens, even if the IQ isn't fantastic and it uses extensive distortion correction.
All in all it would be a massive missed opportunity if Canon makes such a lens "RF-S" only, since the third-party lenses pull off full frame coverage at that pricepoint.
Upvote
0
Wow, this in combination with the RF4.0/70-200 (and the hopefully sometimes coming RF4.0/24-70) will be a desirable "travel light" L-trinity, in case the picture quality is on par or above the beloved EF4.0/16-35L. And there is no doubt about it ;-)
Maybe the RF 1.8/50 as a small, light and cheap lens in the middle will help to bridge the waiting time for the 4.0/24-70.....
Maybe the RF 1.8/50 as a small, light and cheap lens in the middle will help to bridge the waiting time for the 4.0/24-70.....
Upvote
0
It's not reasonable to expect a compact 14mm full-frame zoom for the EF mount. It might be worth to just buy an EOS RP and attach it to this lens. The lens focal range definitely shouldn't need an R6-grade autofocus system.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
A number of people have noted that this would make a good match with an APS-C body. However it still has all the bulky goodness of a FF lens. The M series lenses are nice and small and would be the better choice for APS fans IMO.
A large R series body with a small sensor seems to sacrifice the entire proposition of APS. One could just crop an R5 frame with superb results.
A large R series body with a small sensor seems to sacrifice the entire proposition of APS. One could just crop an R5 frame with superb results.
Upvote
0
While I agree with you and love my R5's crop mode far more than I would a crop-only R7, I do think there is definitely a big market for a cheaper, crop-sensor camera for sports/wildlife shooters that have no interest in full frame. The 7D and 7D Mark II are two of the cameras I see most often working in a smaller market, between prosumer sports shooters, small market pros, and wildlife photographers in the woods. I personally wouldn't own one even if it was given to me for free, but those users definitely have their uses for it and there is a large market for it if it was $1500-2000 dollars cheaper than the R5 with sorta-1D-level specs like the 7D/7D2 had.
Those sports/wildlife users are also the same who stick large full-frame glass on such a camera, so they don't particularly need crop glass or smaller bodies.
That said, the other big market for APS-C is travel and vlogging, both of which need tiny ergonomics like you mention. I hope Canon has a serious plan for that, and I do think we'll see something tiny out of the rumored 18-45 f/4-5.6 IS STM which sounds from the range/aperture like it should hypothetically be absolutely tiny.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
