Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM one of the “crazy” lenses coming next year [CR1]

[Metalex]

FYI this lens is perfect for video work as on the 4K crop it becomes a very fast 24mm-35mm. That’s exactly why this lens is in development.

You think they're designing this lens purely to counter the deficiencies of the video mode?

 

[uri.raz]

But it allows almost no light beside in the middle of the frame. In the edges the f4.0 IS is brighter. So, without light there is no coma

At f/2.8, you're right - the f/2.8L mkIII has >4 stops of vignetting at the corners, which is bad.

Your comparison to the f/4L IS is, IMHO, apples to oranges - looking at the vignetting of both lenses @ f/4 on the-digital-picture.com shows the difference is about a quarter stop.

[Not shooting astro, I don't know whether f/4 is fast enough, but comparisons should be apples to apples.]

 

[BillB]

If you applied that same logic to say, musical instruments or painting, where would you be? Haven't you seen the wise quotes by the sages here? "The best camera is the one in your hands" is one that comes to mind.

Tools for photography are great but I see them as secondary to the artistic eye. You may want both but akin to we say in the cycling world, "Light, strong, cheap....pick two"

Applying updating computer tech logic to camera gear is flawed in my mind. Maybe it's an age thing, maybe it's the respect for masters who did such amazing work with what most forumites would scoff at...dunno, all I know is there is LOT of harping on the industry, especially Canon for not churning out new devices fast enough for you.

So, it all boils down to this.. It must be awful to live with the notion that you blame your poor images on the gear.Because that's the message I'm getting. "If I only had ____"

For some, it doesn't seem to have to do with better images. It has to do with better numbers. Canon needs to have numbers that are as good as Sony's or Nikon's.

 

[Tom W]

That does seem really crazy. Then again, what better way to show off the short flange-sensor distance than with a crazy ultra-wide. Although I'd be more than happy with f/2 or even f/2.8 and a little more zoom range....

Having some zoom, even such a small ratio, gives some framing flexibility.

 

[twoheadedboy]

I'm waiting for the RF mount wide zoom (wider than 24) that takes regular 77mm filters in the front. Since the 15 - 35 will take 82mm I guess I'll have to keep waiting and stick with my 16 - 35 f/4... Don't want to buy more filters or use step-up rings on my other gear.

 

[bokehmon22]

Taking into account the other forums you frequent I could afford two.

right....Let's stop it. It's getting petty and silly. It just a camera/lenses dude. Use whatever work for you.

Have a nice day

 

[degos]

Sounds like a very interesting lens. Could be great for astrophotography but it will be very challenging to make a zoom that strong across the whole range. Looking forward to seeing if they can do it.

Have Canon ever made a wide zoom that is recommended for astrophotography? No, and I don't see why they'd start now. Astro is such a tiny proportion of users that they don't see any significant loss in leaving such specialisation to third-parties. Canon want the wedding and landscape markets.

 

[Ozarker]

Extremely exotic.

 

[moreorless]

I've never understood why Canon haven't pushed the 35L to F1.2. It can't be that hard to do and fills out their unique range of f1.2 glass.

I suspect the issue is that on a FF DSLR a 35mm F/1.4 is a lens with a wide appeal, a very good general purpose prime at a size that balances well on a lot of bodies. If you shift it up to F/1.2 then your probably increasing the size/price quite a bit and making it a more specialist lens with a smaller market.

That said I could see FF mirrorless being a bit different, not sure a 35mm F/1.4 would have quite the same appeal as your already pushing into a size that's arguably a bit unbalanced for the smaller bodies. To me it looks like Canon and Nikon are aiming more for F/1.8 lenses to fill that market which you could argue potentially frees them up to offer a more specialist F/1.2 lens at 35mm as they have at 50mm and 85mm, indeed didn't Nikon have a patent for one at the same time as their 58mm F/0.95?

 

[Random Orbits]

Have Canon ever made a wide zoom that is recommended for astrophotography? No, and I don't see why they'd start now. Astro is such a tiny proportion of users that they don't see any significant loss in leaving such specialisation to third-parties. Canon want the wedding and landscape markets.

But then how many wedding and landscape photographers want a heavy 14-21mm f/1.4 lens. The RF 15-35 f/2.8 and the EF 11-24 and TS-E lenses already fill those niches ably. A lens like the 14-21 f/1.4 is a halo lens. The 28-70 is another. The 28-70's draw is a great event lens. What will be 14-21's draw? I'm thinking astro as well because I can't see all that many wedding and landscape photographers choosing it over other options.

 

[IsaacImage]

14-21mm f/1.4L. Hmm... I'm guessing an MSRP of $1,000 per pound.

Hopefully not per "mm"

 

[flip314]

There isn't anything wrong with it, but if I was going to upgrade and spend significant amount of money into a new camera and lens, I would expect significant improvements in multiple area otherwise what's the point of incremental upgrade.

I don't upgrade gears just to upgrade. I follow the same logic with CPU, camera, smart phones, etc. I have no problem skipping generations if it doesn't offer significant upgrade over the previous generation.

As a Canon 5D IV user, I'm a little disappointed that Canon used 5D IV sensor in their latest FF mirrorless camera EOS R. Every generation, I expect newer model to have improvements if not alot, a little. I would hate to buy an expensive latest laptop/desktop to use the same CPU 2 years ago where the competitor offer better CPU.

The EOS R is considerably cheaper than the 5D mark IV, and has the same sensor. If the R was more expensive than the 5D IV, then maybe you'd have a point.

If you already have the 5D IV, the R is probably not an upgrade and you should wait for the Pro version of the R.

 

[Phoenix 1000]

There isn't anything wrong with it, but if I was going to upgrade and spend significant amount of money into a new camera and lens, I would expect significant improvements in multiple area otherwise what's the point of incremental upgrade.

I don't upgrade gears just to upgrade. I follow the same logic with CPU, camera, smart phones, etc. I have no problem skipping generations if it doesn't offer significant upgrade over the previous generation.

As a Canon 5D IV user, I'm a little disappointed that Canon used 5D IV sensor in their latest FF mirrorless camera EOS R. Every generation, I expect newer model to have improvements if not alot, a little. I would hate to buy an expensive latest laptop/desktop to use the same CPU 2 years ago where the competitor offer better CPU.

When I look at the mirrorless cameras on the market today, I don't consider ANY of them an improvement over my 5D Mark IV, mainly because of the bad image quality of the EVF compared to the excellent view through the "analog" viewfinder of my DSLR. Unless OLED or AMOLED screens don't make significant progress in picture quality and the GPUs will get more computing power, this will not change and I stay with my DSLR. Otherwise, it would be a step backward, not forward. For me it's pretty similar to LPs when listening to music: An LP delivers a far better sound quality compared to lossy MP3 files. But today, (nearly) everybody listens to MP3 because it seems convenient. I don't, I prefer HiRes sound quality. Same with cameras.

There is only one argument for a mirrorless in my opinion, that really counts: The new lenses you can build with the heavily increased speed. I own the 11-24 F/4L lens and I'm impressed by this lens and like it very much. So, for sure I'm curious how this new 14-21 mm f/1.4L would look like. But I guess, even this lens would not compensate the disadvantages of an EVF for me.

 

[maxfactor9933]

If the specs are a RF 14-21mm f1.4 L , it's going to be seriously expensive! My bank account is fearing its arrival already!

I expect to be 3,600 USD min and 4500 USD max..

 

[maxfactor9933]

Probably a super fast 70-200 F1.8 is also coming.
so canon gonna have 2 lines of holy trinity lenses.
Holy and Virgin

 

[Architect1776]

Don't you mean EF 11-24mm f/4 L? Or was there an RF 11-28mm f/4 L announcement I missed?



More like 2.5X that. Look at the EF 11-24mm f/4 at $2,700 ($2,900 - $200 instant rebate) or the RF 28-70mm f/2 L at $3,000.




By the way, who needs IBIS at all when one has enough sense to use a tripod for certain applications?

Just dreaming.
All this is quite esoteric for those of us who work for a living.

 

[H. Jones]

Probably a super fast 70-200 F1.8 is also coming.
so canon gonna have 2 lines of holy trinity lenses.
Holy and Virgin

I was thinking about that when I wrote my last comment, but since then I've also realized that having the new ultra compact 70-200 f/2.8 makes a bit of a case for a larger, bright aperture internal zoom that could replace the 200mm f/2L and function similar to how sports/news photographers use the 300mm f/2.8L and 200-400mm f/4L IS right now. I know so many people who opt for the much larger 200-400 F/4 vs the 100-400 f/5.6, and that's even more of a magnitude of size difference. Same thing goes for the 120-300mm f/2.8.

Yeah, it'd definitely be up there at like 8K or so maybe, but I think it would still end up making Canon a profit if they don't do too bad on the 200mm F/2. There's a market for it, so why not?

 

[mangobutter]

I don't think a 70-200 1.8 is practically possible on FF. It would weigh 8 lbs and cost $20,000. The longer the focal length, it's exponentially (reasonably speaking) to go faster in terms of F stop. That works on the wide end but on the long end things get very big and very expensive VERY fast the longer you go and the faster you try to go. It's not a matter of just attaching an arbitrary # to the end of a lens name

 

[miketcool]

You think they're designing this lens purely to counter the deficiencies of the video mode?

Not at all, this is to show off the wider mount and their zoom lens engineering. The fact that this works as a 24-35mm in 4K crop is likely the deciding factor for why this will be developed and not just vaporware.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

But then how many wedding and landscape photographers want a heavy 14-21mm f/1.4 lens. The RF 15-35 f/2.8 and the EF 11-24 and TS-E lenses already fill those niches ably. A lens like the 14-21 f/1.4 is a halo lens. The 28-70 is another. The 28-70's draw is a great event lens. What will be 14-21's draw? I'm thinking astro as well because I can't see all that many wedding and landscape photographers choosing it over other options.

I can't see much of a creative reason for a 14-21mm f1.4. Lenses that wide don't have much depth of field even at f1.4. I certainly wouldn't need to go that fast on an ultra wide due to the shutter speed = focal length rule. So I wouldn't use one at a wedding. In fact my 16-35 f2.8 IIL works in similar light levels as my 35 f1.4L and 85 f1.2 IIL. So I can only imagine that it's for 2 specific users, rich astro guys and rich architectural guys.