Canon officially announces the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

[UpstateNYPhotog]

I was excited for this lens (it would be my first ultra-wide), but like many of you I find the cost too high. It makes sense for Canon as a business though. The cost of materials, shipping, etc. has gone up with the pandemic. They have had production shortages and cannot keep up with demand (for example, the 100-500 has been on back-order for a while). Increasing the price until demand matches production lets them sell the same number of lenses at a higher price. If the high price is keeping a lot of us from buying, my hope is that once production ramps up they will drop the price to tap into a new segment of the market. Hopefully that will happen sooner than the usual schedule for drops in price.

If you don't need 14mm, the EF 16-35 F/4 IS is an excellent lens. They are in stock in the Canon USA refurb store at $989 as of Tuesday 6/29 at 3:30 pm

 

[SUNDOG04]

Looks like an absolutely awesome lens. Likely worth the cost, but retired, on a fixed income, so Canon mirrorless is a fading dream for me.

 

[UpstateNYPhotog]

I feel everyone else's disappointment. I was very excited to replace my current 16-35mm f/4 lens, which I love, with new RF glass gaining 2mm on the wide end. This would have been my first RF lens upgrade.

I was hoping for about a 23% price increase, similar to what they did with the 70-200 f/4 (EF - 1299 --> RF - 1599).

I was suprised to see the ~55% increase on the RF 16-35 f4... (EF - 1099 --> RF 1699). I was hoping they would market this as an "affordable" L RF lens...just as they did with the EF version.

I think I will eventually start switching over to RF lenses...but currently I cannot justify upgrading my go-to EF lenses (24-70 ii +$,1000 after resale, 70-200 ii + $1500 after resale, and 16-35 f/4 + 900 after resale) given the prices of their RF equivalents. The "pros" in upgrading are just not worth it TO ME. Others may feel different.

Do you think prices will hold up on used EF lenses? I look at sites like MPB.com and they have what seem to be large inventories of lenses like the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 IS III and the 100 2.8 IS Macro. Prices are still high now, but I wonder 6 months to a year from now with no new EF bodies causing demand and little high end demand from people who could afford to trade in for RF glass already having done so, if MPB and other dealers will have to lower prices to sell to less well off individuals who still own EF bodies and wanted but couldn't afford the top of the line glass?

 

[Copland]

With this pricetag for a f4 lens , we can only hope the R3 will under 8.5k. But it would not out of this new Canon World.

 

[privatebydesign]

Given the price of the 'budget' RF f4 L options I think the EF system has a pretty positive future in the secondhand market. You can get an EF 17-40 L for under $500, the superb EF 16-35 f4 IS L for under $800. An RF 14-35 f4 IS L is $1,700 and you can't get one.

Those are huge price differentials and it will be years before the RF equivalents are available on the secondhand market in any volume.

 

[njohnson]

Good god that's expensive. Guess this is what happens with few viable third-party lenses. If Sigma and Tamron were in the game perhaps they would have been forced down some. I was actually looking forward to this one but on principle alone, I won't spend $1700 on it. I'd rather just stick with the 16-35.

 

[dwarven]

I'm having trouble figuring out why RF glass is so overpriced. Is it the Canon branding?

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm having trouble figuring out why RF glass is so overpriced. Is it the Canon branding?

Because they can and enough people feel the feature set of MILC’s is worth it. Personally it’s an equation that doesn’t balance for me yet, but I’m cheap!

 

[navastronia]

Clearly an alternative to the RF 15-35 as opposed to an addition.

This right here is the most important take.

 

[FrenchFry]

Sidenote, I thought it was interesting the RF 14-35 was possibly going to be announced alongside the R3. It turns out, it wasn't.

That leaves me wondering, what lenses will be announced alongside the R3? I'd hazard a good bet that they'll announce the RF 35mm F/1.2 at the same time, since the 35mm F/1.4 lenses were always the pro prime of choice for photojournalism and tended to be featured on 1-series bodies. Even if this isn't "1-series," it's to the same general audience.


I'd also hazard a guess that they'll announce the 70-400 at the same time, even though it's a consumer lens. They did announce the F/11 primes with the R5/R6. I'd like to see something like the slight rumors of a 500mm F/4L, but that sounded like more of 2022-territory.

I'm hoping for the 500mm, 300mm, 400mm DO, 200-500, and anything else they can squeeze out ASAP! Really looking forward to seeing some native primes that are lighter weight! These would all be perfect on the R3 with integrated grip.

 

[Max TT]

$1699 what the what now!

 

[noms78]

Too rich at $2300 Australian for an F4 ? Canon needs some affordable glass now.. they seem to be trying to match Leica for ridiculous prices, not everyone can write it off against tax ..

$2500 aud with gst. will probably be available for $2100-2200 after a year

 

[noms78]

While the specs sound really good for the third RF "f4-trinity-lens", the pricing is clearly over the top imo. I'm really doubting whether Canon are doing themselves a favor with this, be it 1700$ but for sure with 1819€ in Europe. First comments / reactions on European photographers sites are extremely negative about the pricing going so far as to even consider changing the system, not to forget since almost all RF lenses are priced so ambitiously, and now this for a f4 UW lens.
Do you remember some years ago Canon initially pricing the EF 35 f2, 24 f2.8 and 28 f2.8 IS USM way too high? Finally (and probably with regard to sales figures as well) they significantly reduced the price to realistic levels. Although I'm not too optimistic, I hope they would come to the same conclusion here after a while...

2nd rf trinity lens. the 24-105 is a kit lens

 

[AJ]

Yeah that is indeed pricey for an f/4 lens. At that price I suspect the optical performance will be stellar.

 

[esglord]

I would like to own this lens and am sure it will be great, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon at this price. Oh well

 

[Talys]

Because they can and enough people feel the feature set of MILC’s is worth it. Personally it’s an equation that doesn’t balance for me yet, but I’m cheap!

Also... They can't keep it on the shelf, even at thr prices they are, so there is zero incentive to reduce the prices.

The only thing that would happen if they dropped RF to EF prices is that everything would be sold out at stores (as it is now...) and also be resold on places like ebay for as much as the market allows.

 

[David - Sydney]

I think that people are missing is that Canon RF lens strategy is not supposed to be an exact replacement of EF lenses. They offer something additional: focal range, compact size/weight, fast AF, excellent stabilisation, closer MFD, cheap/light telephotos and a reasonable replacement of 3 primes with the 28-70/2. The f1.2 lenses are clearly aimed to exceed quality and focus speed over their EF counterparts - weight/size be damned!

Canon isn't forcing anyone to migrate but are providing unique offerings if you choose to migrate over time at a cost premium.
The only questionable lenses in my theory are the 400/600mm with no changes except RF mount but they are pretty awesome in EF version anyway.

 

[David - Sydney]

It will be interesting to see how 100mm filter systems vignette with 14mm focal length on a 77mm filter thread. The systems normally specify 16mm focal length with no vignetting. Noting that the Nikon 14-30mm has a 82mm thread.

 

[Czardoom]

FYI - The RF version costs 50% more than the EF equivalent. Looks like I'll be keeping my EF.

While I agree that the price is steeper than I would like, I'm surprised at how many folks are directly comparing it to the EF 16-35 f/4. This is not an equivalent lens. Did you really think that extra 2mm at the wide end wouldn't raise the price considerably?

 

[SnowMiku]

The price of this lens is why we need Nikon, Sony, Tamron, Sigma and other companies to release competitive products that will force Canon to reduce the prices. Competition is a good thing.