Here is the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?
The lens is at its shortest when zoomed to 22mm. If you have ever used one of the ubiquitous EFS 18-55 lenses you know it’s understandable when size is one factor in the design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,096
12,857
Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?
Many UWA zooms do not extend – they have an inner barrel that moves in and out during zooming, but all of that movement is behind the filter threads. However, the RF 15-35/2.8 does have a traditional extending barrel.
 
Upvote 0
Two weeks ago I had two options in mind: 2nd RP body with EF 16-35 4.0 IS for 1772 EUR or a 2nd M50 for 600 EUR to extend capabilities for (1) VLOG style video and (2) to get an ultra wide which is usable with my EOS M cameras.
Finally I bought a 2nd M50 (mark ii) with the 15-45 lens for 680 EUR because it's open to me if I should invest in a real video camera or stay with hybrid cameras. And the 15-45 @ 15mm with IS does give me the same technical possibilities like EF 16-35 with 25% of the weight!

RF 14 - 35 makes this lens a very interesting candidate for the EOS RP, just with its crippled 4k mode (roughly 21-50 equiv) and a good candidate for e.g. a future C50 ... and finally it will be a good photographic lens for FF too. With 1092 EUR open to be spend!

I see a nice combo: RP with 14-35, one M50 with EF-M 32 (50mm equiv) and 2nd M50 with EF 70-200 (110 - 320mm equiv) which fits in a small backpack and avoids my most hated action: changing lenses in adverse environments!
 
Upvote 0
Sep 17, 2014
1,038
1,395
Categorizing and prioritizing every quality of what makes a good lens a good lens, if that one characteristic isn't at the very bottom of that list, it's damn near close to it.

I can't take any pictures because the light lowered, but damn if this lens doesn't fit in my pocket!!!! What a great lens!!!

You can take as many landscapes as you want from a tripod. That's what i meant. Probably 90 percent of people want a lens like this for landscapes from a tripod. One stop of light won't make a difference.
But for them a 2.8 aperture is a hindrance because of the lens weight.
 
Upvote 0
You can take as many landscapes as you want from a tripod. That's what i meant. Probably 90 percent of people want a lens like this for landscapes from a tripod. One stop of light won't make a difference.
But for them a 2.8 aperture is a hindrance because of the lens weight.
For Landscapers there are several criteria. Firstly, size and weight are important factors. No one wants a long walk / hike with a bunch of heavy lenses. Brightness, less so as usually these lenses are heavily stopped down for extended depth of field. Landscaper's (generally) couldn't give a hoot at the lens' wide open sharpness. Then there's flare resistance, Ability to natively wield a pair of filters with out mechanical vignette. Strong light leak prevention for long exposures and nice looking sun stars (best so far is the ef 16-35IIL). Low CA and geometric distortion...too corrected and it'll look like an architectural lens, too little and everything looks like it has strong barrel distortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sony also has an excellent 14mm f/1.8. Lighter than the sigma too. I would expect Canon to match the brightness on their 14mm, given their current RF lineup
Or, with Canon’s penchant for upstaging rivals and setting standards with fast glass, perhaps an f~1.4
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,096
12,857
Quickly choosing 15/16mm could be difficult to eyeball. But I have a feeling 14mm might be too wide for outdoor shots.

I may end up adding two white dots for 15 and 16mm if those FL get used more often than 14mm.
Do you actually pick the focal length you want and then compose your image? Personally, I select the composition and perspective I want, and if the lens on the camera cannot deliver that then I change lenses. I don’t care about the focal length that ends up written to the EXIF.

Imagine – I’m going to drive my little hatchback today, not the big SUV. I want to take 6 friends with me, but I chose the hatchback so three of them can’t go. That would be silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Sep 17, 2014
1,038
1,395
probably because my only experience at 14mm is the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, also when looking at the ef 11-24, it has a large front lens. At what point (mm wise) is a large front end required?

Not sure but looks like the short flange distance of mirrorless allows flat front element at wider angles. I would guess around 12mm, considering that Sonys 12-24 F4 has a bulbous front element. It also depends on the compromises being made, like the amount of vignetting allowed (pretty high for the 15-35) and lens size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Canon is taking deliberate efforts to set itself apart from other manufacturers:

14-35 - starts wider than most manufacturers. and for the only one that can match Canon on 14mm, it pales in terms of reach and filter size.

15-35 - still wider than Sony and Nikon, plus IS

24-70/2.8 - IS is still absent from Sony and Nikon

70-200/2.8 or 4 - well, at least size matters, and it carves out a new path nobody has contemplated before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
Of course I had to buy the EF 16-35 f4L IS a few months back to go with my control ring adapter and EF 100mmL. I had found a Like New 16-35 at KEH for $700. But this RF lens was what I wanted. I would look for that lens to retail at $1599 at most, with $1349 being my final guess.
I live in deep poverty, but I will definitely be after this lens, after using the RF 85mm f2 and discovering that focus peaking turns on as soon as you take over focus after one-shot AF. With EF lenses the focus peaking only works in MF. Also the EF 16-35 is HUGE on my tiny RP. I use the 16-35 for street photos, so smaller lens is great. (Please Canon, make a 28-35 f2 for my street work!!!) The EF lenses are fantastic on R bodies, but the RF lenses offer more features, even IF you have the control ring adapter.
So I am very excited and glad that this is finally coming out. I want the f2.8s and the f2's, but I can't afford them. The R5 and RF 50L broke me for months.
So looks like I will be selling my 16-35 this year sometime...unless I hear a good rumor about a 24-35mm lens, I am all in on that zoom.
 
Upvote 0

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
That size is... really compelling. If it's $1200-1300, it may not be the worst idea for me to sell my EF 16-35 F/4 and pick this up for the $500 price difference. I really don't use my ultra ultrawide enough to really warrant the $1500 extra over selling my EF F/4.

Honestly may just depend on the price of the R3. If the R3 is cheaper than expected, that's extra money towards a new lens.
Is there a consensus on the suspected price of the R3? Logic says it will be right between the r5 and 1D in price, but other factors like competitor prices may influence it.
My guess is $4,998 to $5498 in price for the R3, and I would call this a middle range of pricing not based on anything Sony sells, which to be honest is their only competitor for full frame. With Nikon's move to cheap manufacturing, they are toast, one of the longest deaths ever, considering the death knell was sounded in 1987 with the introduction of Canon Electro-Focus and Electro-Optical System. Poor Nikon...I guess they'll always have the hunting scopes market.
 
Upvote 0
Of course I had to buy the EF 16-35 f4L IS a few months back to go with my control ring adapter and EF 100mmL. I had found a Like New 16-35 at KEH for $700. But this RF lens was what I wanted. I would look for that lens to retail at $1599 at most, with $1349 being my final guess.
I live in deep poverty, but I will definitely be after this lens, after using the RF 85mm f2 and discovering that focus peaking turns on as soon as you take over focus after one-shot AF. With EF lenses the focus peaking only works in MF. Also the EF 16-35 is HUGE on my tiny RP. I use the 16-35 for street photos, so smaller lens is great. (Please Canon, make a 28-35 f2 for my street work!!!) The EF lenses are fantastic on R bodies, but the RF lenses offer more features, even IF you have the control ring adapter.
So I am very excited and glad that this is finally coming out. I want the f2.8s and the f2's, but I can't afford them. The R5 and RF 50L broke me for months.
So looks like I will be selling my 16-35 this year sometime...unless I hear a good rumor about a 24-35mm lens, I am all in on that zoom.

Sigma makes a 24-35 f2 in EF mount. It's not small, though.
 
Upvote 0