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

[bhf3737]

People who shoot in low light situations where tripods are prohibited or impractical, with lenses lacking optical stabilization (like the new RF lenses).

Do you have any sample picture to show effectiveness of IBIS in low light situation? I do a lot of low light and I haven't yet found a single situation where I would have done better if I had IBIS, even in case of nothing I shoot moves. Obviously IBIS can't help in low light with moving subjects either. But in-lens IS is a totally different story. In-lens stabilization is more effective in low light because the received image on the sensor is already stabilized and metering/AF is more accurate.

 

[davidcl0nel]

Common misunderstanding.
For astrophotography it is much better to use a slightly longer lens and use tracking.
The resulting star resolution depends on the absolute size of the pupil.
A 35mm f/2 (its good enough for the milky way center bulge) has 17,5mm size, this lens here with 14mm f/1.4 "only" 10mm.
You will see better details with 35mm...

https://flic.kr/p/2c3iJYn

And a tracking engine for 35mm isnt sooo complex/heavy/expensive to use.... even without you can use 35mm with about 8sec exposure and stacking will get better results than 14mm with f/2.8 and 20sec...
So my pursuit to very fast prime lenses is gone....

I did a lot of milky way center photography with the 135 f/2 at last (absolute pupil 67mm!), the resolution of the stars are incredible:

https://flic.kr/p/2c3iJYn

For aurora photography a 24mm 1.4 might be a good idea to lower the exposure time, if it is a heavy moving aurora, but for this lens here I have no purpose...

 

[davidcl0nel]

The URL shortener is broken with a second link... I can only post one link and the other will be the same?!
For 35mm i mean this picture:

https://flic.kr/p/Q8zpgA

 

[tron]

Common misunderstanding.
For astrophotography it is much better to use a slightly longer lens and use tracking.
The resulting star resolution depends on the absolute size of the pupil.
A 35mm f/2 (its good enough for the milky way center bulge) has 17,5mm size, this lens here with 14mm f/1.4 "only" 10mm.
You will see better details with 35mm...

https://flic.kr/p/2c3iJYn

And a tracking engine for 35mm isnt sooo complex/heavy/expensive to use.... even without you can use 35mm with about 8sec exposure and stacking will get better results than 14mm with f/2.8 and 20sec...
So my pursuit to very fast prime lenses is gone....

I did a lot of milky way center photography with the 135 f/2 at last (absolute pupil 67mm!), the resolution of the stars are incredible:

https://flic.kr/p/2c3iJYn

For aurora photography a 24mm 1.4 might be a good idea to lower the exposure time, if it is a heavy moving aurora, but for this lens here I have no purpose...

If your astrophotography includes only the sky what you say is true. But there is also landscape astrophotography which at least for me is much more interesting. In these cases you need a very fast ultra wide lens (assuming you want to get everything in a single photo...)

 

[3kramd5]

Do you have any sample picture to show effectiveness of IBIS in low light situation? I do a lot of low light and I haven't yet found a single situation where I would have done better if I had IBIS, even in case of nothing I shoot moves. Obviously IBIS can't help in low light with moving subjects either. But in-lens IS is a totally different story. In-lens stabilization is more effective in low light because the received image on the sensor is already stabilized and metering/AF is more accurate.

I’ve never done a comparison and don’t current have any stabilized bodies.

I must admit I’m struggling to imagine how extremely small sensor movement appreciably affects metering and even AF; I’m not convinced that pre-stabilizing hold that advantage.

I do however expect that optical stabilization is likely more effective on average since the amount a sensor can move is fixed regardless of lens attached, where the lens is purposely built.

 

[Viggo]

Does Canon have any current zooms that are much less than 2x range? All I can think of is the EF-S 10-18mm and the 8-15mm fisheye, which are pretty close. Most of the zooms are close to 3x or higher.

I wonder what this is really much good for than a 14mm prime. I'm sure somebody will have a use for this, I just don't know who.

I don’t see it that way, I use wide zoom lenses to change perspective and then move my feet to frame. And the difference in perspective between 14 and 21 is massive! And the reason for using a prime is often the max aperture, but when you can have f1.4 at both 14 and 21, what’s not to love?

 

[Antono Refa]

I do however expect that optical stabilization is likely more effective on average since the amount a sensor can move is fixed regardless of lens attached, where the lens is purposely built.

That's why IBIS' effectiveness drops as focal length increases, which has the effect of being most effective where it is least needed.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don’t see it that way, I use wide zoom lenses to change perspective and then move my feet to frame. And the difference in perspective between 14 and 21 is massive!

This ^

 

[Ozarker]

That's why IBIS' effectiveness drops as focal length increases, which has the effect of being most effective where it is least needed.

You must be joking. IBIS is the solution to everything.

 

[privatebydesign]

You must be joking. IBIS is the solution to everything.

Don't be ridiculous, Sony sensors, 4k and scrapping anything and everything with a mirror in it are the solutions to everything.

Funny because I thought that answer was 42

 

[stevelee]

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

Other way around. Very wide angle lenses have a much greater depth of field than longer lenses. With an 85mm lens you can get a much better separation between subject and background in portraits, for example. With a 14-21mm lens, the background is going to be relatively much more in focus.

 

[jd7]

I don’t see it that way, I use wide zoom lenses to change perspective and then move my feet to frame. And the difference in perspective between 14 and 21 is massive! And the reason for using a prime is often the max aperture, but when you can have f1.4 at both 14 and 21, what’s not to love?

I do understand what you are saying, and I agree with your point. Unless I'm mistaken though, technically it's when you move your feet that you are changing perspective (because that is when you change the camera's position relative to the subject), and when you zoom (ie change focal length) you are changing angle of view (and hence framing, in that sense).

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Other way around. Very wide angle lenses have a much greater depth of field than longer lenses. With an 85mm lens you can get a much better separation between subject and background in portraits, for example. With a 14-21mm lens, the background is going to be relatively much more in focus.

Sorry, I meant to type "Much control over depth of field"...
Yes I'm a professional 85L shooter...along with a 400mm f2.8...photos in the gallery here.

 

[Michael Clark]

People who shoot in low light situations where tripods are prohibited or impractical, with lenses lacking optical stabilization (like the new RF lenses).

So in other words, someone who doesn't really have authorization to be there taking photos for anything other than personal use (if even that), and certainly not being paid to be there taking photos. Yet the complaint is, "How can they possibly think they are getting away with offering 'professional' cameras without IBIS?"

 

[Michael Clark]

It's really not just in my mind. You guys getting all upset sound exactly like the guys clinging to film back in the day. As the market for ILCs collapses further, there really isn't room for DSLRs and mirrorless, and while yes the EVF is not as good as a OVF for a few uses right now, the drawbacks can be mitigated with even today's tech. The advantages of the EVF can not be duplicated on an OVF. Using the EOS R as your base for what an EVF can do is also super silly, as the R is simply incredibly clunky and flawed (yes, I own one). The A9 and its interface show what we are capable of RIGHT NOW; once Canon gets the lenses out, and the ball rolling, they'll eventually target the A9 with a competitor, and even if it's slightly slower, it'll still be a vastly superior experience vs. an OVF for the vast majority of shooters. Historically Canon has not been into making niche market Cameras, and that's exactly what the OVF will become very, very soon.

I feel like the majority of you doing the clinging are heavily invested in DSLRs and the EF mount. You're letting the dollars you've got sunk into the formats dictate your outlook (which is understandable); emotions don't alter market trends though. Just take a look at what's being sold today, DSLR vs. Mirrorless. The death of the DSLR is already here.

This is the same old tired thing everyone was saying in 2012, which was the first and last year that mirrorless cameras gained market share compared to DSLRs.

"The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated." - The DSLR (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019)

 

[Michael Clark]

Don't be ridiculous, Sony sensors, 4k and scrapping anything and everything with a mirror in it are the solutions to everything.

Funny because I thought that answer was 42

Don't forget Eye-focus, too. It really helps with those Milky Way shots!

 

[uri.raz]

Does Canon have any current zooms that are much less than 2x range? All I can think of is the EF-S 10-18mm and the 8-15mm fisheye, which are pretty close. Most of the zooms are close to 3x or higher.

Wider zooms are <3x, e.g. the EF 16-35mm, EF 11-24mm, and EF-S 10-22mm are ~2.2x, and the EF 17-40mm is ~2.35x.

 

[uri.raz]

And the reason for using a prime is often the max aperture, but when you can have f1.4 at both 14 and 21, what’s not to love?

The price. Primes like 14mm f/2.8L, 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2 aren't just faster than zooms that cover those focal lengths, they're also cheaper.

One of the things that bother me is those cheap primes look (to me?) like a dying breed, e.g. due to lack of upgrades.

 

[3kramd5]

So in other words, someone who doesn't really have authorization to be there taking photos for anything other than personal use (if even that), and certainly not being paid to be there taking photos. Yet the complaint is, "How can they possibly think they are getting away with offering 'professional' cameras without IBIS?"

I didn’t see anything about “for professional use” in the post I replied to. Maybe it was above, but now that the forum software cuts out earlier quotes it’s tedious to go look.

The complaint I see somewhat regularly is that the new RF lenses aren’t stabilized, and neither are the R bodies. Maybe it’s not a complaint but rather an observation. Personally, I’m not in the market and don’t really care one way or the other.

 

[flip314]

Don't forget Eye-focus, too. It really helps with those Milky Way shots!

Hey man, I take photos of Jupiter. I need eye-AF.