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

[stevelee]

My bet is on shenanigans being involved.

The usual shenanigans beat the 10 pounds of glass it might take to duplicate the corrections in the lens.

 

[Rollie]

I really don't care about the lens. The announcement of the R3 is what caught my attention. I know this is a rumor site and I should at least be a little skeptical. Which I am, however, right now I'll cling to any good news I can get. Here's hoping the announcement is next week for the R3!!

Vanessa Joy has a copy of the R3. She made a YouTube short vid with it in her hands.

 

[privatebydesign]

Vanessa Joy has a copy of the R3. She made a YouTube short vid with it in her hands.

And it’s quite funny too. She loved her 1DX II’s and III’s but has used the R, R5 and R6 a lot too so I am very interested in what she has to say when her opinion comes out. Hope it isn’t too fawning.

 

[davidcl0nel]

I will likely do what you suggest, buy a fast 28 prime. I have no idea why I own so many 50's. I hardly use them. Anyway...thanks for the 28 advice.

Here is a example in this thread of an other forum:

Cropping 28mm to 35mm: Beginners Questions Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

(below)

There you can see the small difference. I think there is absolute no need to have this zoom range, you can crop it.
24-35 is more, so this is nearly the same at the outer side, but it is also now soo much, but ok to have this as a zoom, if you really really want it. (this Sigma)
There is small EF 28 2.8 IS version (or 24), you can try them too. Much smaller than a zoom lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Do people actually rely on those markings? I usually just frame my shot. What is accomplished by the markings?

Well, they came in really handy when I was writing reviews of the EF-M lenses, and wanted to show focal length examples at 18-24-35-50-70-100-135-200mm. But for actual photography? I couldn't care less about those markings.

 

[Czardoom]

Gee, I feel bad for you a bit. I feel bad for anyone that is suckered into Nikon who doesn't already have a large glass commitment to them. They just barely limp in with gear now, playing catch-up with Sony and Canon. If it was anytime before 1987, I would go all in on Nikon, they are legendary, BUT it isn't 1986.....the world has moved on. If I was wealthy and impatient I too may have bought the Z, just to play with for a few months, but I remember reading the specs and not being impressed, as usual, when I compared it to Sony. At that time I just bought a Sony rx1rm2 to tide me over. The last time Nikon impressed me was the 36mp d800E, which was the last Nikon body I ever owned. It was when they moved manufacturing that I realized they were probably done, and would end up the next Ricoh or Pentax, making a few cameras for extreme fans, but making nothing really innovating or industry-changing.
I would love to be wrong on this, but Nikon is going to need to make major changes if they still want that market share they once had in their glory days.

No need to feel bad for me. Nor was I suckered into Nikon. The Nikon Z5 at $899 is such a better deal than the Canon RP at a similar price. If Canon would have put the R's sensor in the RP, then there might be a reason to stick with Canon at that price point, but the Z5's images are superior for anything in low light (and quite frankly better in any light). The Z5 with the 24-200mm f/4 gives me better image quality than the Canon R6 and the RF 24-105, in my opinion. If choosing between Nikon and Sony, well, I have tried Sony and I am never going back there again! With Nikon I have the advantage of the Sony sensor, but don't have the awful Sony ergonomics and all the other Sony manufacturing shortcuts. For wildlife I use an Olympus E-m1 II, so don't need the well respected Sony AF for fast moving subjects. Had a chance to use the Canon R6 for a couple weeks, but for the current price, I was able to get both the Nikon Z5, Z50 and the 24-200mm lens used. If that's being suckered, I will willingly be suckered anytime.

Of course, every camera's specs may be - or may not be - what each photographer needs or is looking for. I was looking for an inexpensive FF camera with good low light performance, 2 card slots, and most importantly smaller, lighter lenses. Canon is not offering those things at the moment.

 

[Czardoom]

I was a big fan of Nikon mirrorless after years with Nikon DSLRs (back to the D100). Z6 was a delight. But... Canon was producing great lenses and Nikon's are ho-hum. The deal-breaker was the 70-200, with Canon's amazing compact form compared to Nikon's horse's leg. I did love the Z24-70 f4, except for the irritant that it was non-functional in its normal compact position.

I'm thrilled to be able to screw on and off lenses the right way after decades of Nikon, but am still struggling to get the zoom direction right each time.

The fact that Nikon does everything backwards is the most annoying part about switching from Canon! And my other camera is an Olympus - which does everything in Canon's direction. So I am really confused now!

 

[stevelee]

The fact that Nikon does everything backwards is the most annoying part about switching from Canon! And my other camera is an Olympus - which does everything in Canon's direction. So I am really confused now!

The traditional advice for new users to choose between Nikon and Canon: try both, and pick whichever one has things turn in a way that feels right to you.

 

[todddominey]

This looks like a FANTASTIC lens for landscape photography. Wouldn't need an aperture larger than f/4, plus support for 14mm full frame wide angle with support for threaded filters! I was considering the 15-35mm f/2.8 for this same purpose, but I'll be picking this beauty up instead. Hope it comes out quick, I have a trip coming up.

 

[SteveC]

The traditional advice for new users to choose between Nikon and Canon: try both, and pick whichever one has things turn in a way that feels right to you.

That's great until some poor dumb bastard thinks Canon is right about how to insert and lock lenses but wrong about zoom. Or vice versa.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's great until some poor dumb bastard thinks Canon is right about how to insert and lock lenses but wrong about zoom. Or vice versa.

I have a blender that is also designed to make smoothies directly in dedicated, insulated cups. So the cup lids thread on normally, the blade assembly threads onto the cups (which we don’t use) and thus the standard pitcher (which we do use) in reverse.

I hate that blender. I’ll stick with Canon.

 

[H. Jones]

New image per Nokishita, confirming the front elements are in fact still 77mm!

 

[stefang]

Size and weight are very comparable to my 17-40 F/4. Very nice for 3mm extra at the wide end and IS. I hope the price will be reasonable...

 

[[email protected]]

Almost 0.4 reproduction ratio. That's almost "macro" in Canon terms for f/4 L lenses.

One of my favorites, my Laowa 15mm f/4 macro (true macro at 100 percent), could be replaced by this as I almost never use it at that strong a magnification, because it would require the subject to be a few millimeters from the end of the lens.

 

[Traveler]

Canon makes my dreams come true. 14mm at the wide end, 77mm filter, 0.2m focusing distance, IS, relatively compact size... Is there any compomise besides the construction, that goes in and out (which I don't realy mind)? Let's hope its price is not too crazy

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Canon makes my dreams come true. 14mm at the wide end, 77mm filter, 0.2m focusing distance, IS, relatively compact size..

Same here All I hoped for has been confirmed so far, I don't even about the weight anymore

Noooooow please Canon, make it available in 2021!!!! Just take my money and let me have it

 

[HMC11]

It's the right size & weight for me . Assuming that the IQ is at the usual RF L lens level, that only leaves the price point to be below 1400 to shift it from buy to 'must buy'.

 

[JordanCS13]

Size and weight and front filters look amazing....but a few things before I'm ready to swap out my exceptional Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8:

1) Image quality - this thing will need to be outstanding. There is no reason for Canon to skimp here given the current climate for lenses - with Tamron releasing small, affordable f/2.8 ultra wides that are sharp to the corners, Nikon with their excellent 14-30 for the Z system and Sony with their excellent 12-24mm f/4, this lens needs to be sharp across the frame throughout the focal range.

2) Flare resistance. This has been a weakness of a lot of recent Canon lenses, so hopefully things look good here.

3) How wide is the 14mm? You may think that's a bit of an odd question, but according to the patent, the actual focal length was 14.8mm, so calling it 14mm is being a little generous. Would be curious to see the width compared to my 14-24mm, as well as some 14mm primes.

 

[neuroanatomist]

3) How wide is the 14mm? You may think that's a bit of an odd question, but according to the patent, the actual focal length was 14.8mm, so calling it 14mm is being a little generous.

Rounding 14.8mm to 14mm would, IMO, be unethical. However, it's important to note that specific lenses are not patented, optical formulae are, and also that most patents contain many such formulae so it may be the one you've seen that looks like a 15-35/4 is not the one on which this 14-35/4 lens is based. Nor is it a requirement that a lens be based on a patent.

 

[fox40phil]

Rear filter mount?!

I want a way to mount filters near the sensor - I know there are some? But its a new thing...

I hope it will cost under 1500€ ... news lenses are so heavily expensive. I have already the 16-35 4.0L IS.