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

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
228
27
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

EOS 80D
Dec 11, 2014
103
17
www.e46mango.com
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

EOS T7i
Jun 29, 2017
95
155
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.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,607
304
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
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.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
355
186
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.
I completely agree with you. I hate EVF until Canon EOS R. It's tolerable than any Sony A7III, A7RIII, A9 I tried. I waited and waited but there just isn't enough for me to spend my money upgrading.

Panasonic S1 $2500 is supposed to have 5.76 million dot EVF (highest in the industry). I'm testing it soon and see if it's a viable option for me to upgrade. It include IBIS, eyeAF, dual card slot, better 4K, and higher ISO performance. Otherwise, I'll hold on to my 5D IV a little bit longer.

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.
Yup. I returned it after I find it as a side grade. I thnk you are comparing to Canon line up vs what the competition is offering. $2300 EOS R look cheap but not compare to Sony A7III or now the Panasonic S1. I'll see if EOS R Pro is worth getting it compare to the competitors.

I may or may not wait for it since I'll do a lot of traveling this year so I may mix my Canon lenses with Panasonic or latest Sony.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenix 1000

mangobutter

EOS 80D
Dec 11, 2014
103
17
www.e46mango.com
Mirrorless, particularly EOSR/XT3 was a breath of fresh air compared to DSLR due to lenses being inherently better, sharper, smaller, and faster due to reduced flange distance. You realize how unnecessary the mirror box is once you actually switch. (I'm a long time FF DSLR owner longer than likely most of you on here). Used to be a major snob. Switched and saw the light. (hah hah)

Also no lens adjustments needed as there's no separation between the focus system and what the imaging sensor sees. All lenses are 100% accurate all the time on all modern mirrorless. If there's ever a misfocus it's cause of subject or camera movement. So no more microadjustments. Used to go crazy adjusting all my lenses, some majorly off. Spent HOURS calibrating. With mirrorless, no more. The mirror box is just antiquated and a thing of the past. That gives real limitations and challenges to lens designers and makes lenses unnecessarily large.

Also save time photographing as less need to chimp. The exposure in the viewfinder is what you get.

Now with all that said, I find with my XT3 and now EOSR, I don't even USE the viewfinder. Why use a 1" box with I can use a 4" box (screen) to compose my images? I simply look at the back of the screen and see everything in high res. There's no reason not to shoot like this with how fast and modern new cameras are. The only way I'd use the viewfinder is shooting in bright light with glare on the screen, or to get a bit of stability braced up against my face.

Otherwise holding my eyeball to something and squinting my other eye feels antiquated, pretentious, and unnecessary most of the time.

Just my personal take on it after being a DSLR snob for over a decade. At some point, the system is going to force you to switch to mirrorless. Just a matter of time.

Don't get me wrong I know DSLR has its advantages. And I know all of them. But mirrorless is just the way photography is going.
 

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
439
418
www.flickr.com
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.
I believe at 14mm and f/1.4, focusing 5m out would see everything from 2.4m to infinity in focus, so I would argue that for astro it would certainly have a place. If it had a filter thread (I really can't see that happening, but if) then I'd likely be looking at jumping into the RF mount and grabbing that, knowing full well that it's most direct comparable lenses are not at all cheap.

That's the point though, I think Canon is showing these lenses as the advantage of the RF mount - you can create lenses that just aren't possible on some other mounts. No doubt they are low volume specialty lenses, but they do signal that the RF system has a future and a lot of opportunity for users to build a camera kit that isn't going to be available from competitors. I find that much more exciting than some of the other benefits/advantages of other systems. I can't wait to get some eyes on this thing, and I am pretty excited to see what else they have planned.
 

Phoenix 1000

I'm New Here
Jan 14, 2019
9
1
Mirrorless, particularly EOSR/XT3 was a breath of fresh air compared to DSLR due to lenses being inherently better, sharper, smaller, and faster due to reduced flange distance. You realize how unnecessary the mirror box is once you actually switch. (I'm a long time FF DSLR owner longer than likely most of you on here). Used to be a major snob. Switched and saw the light. (hah hah)

Also no lens adjustments needed as there's no separation between the focus system and what the imaging sensor sees. All lenses are 100% accurate all the time on all modern mirrorless. If there's ever a misfocus it's cause of subject or camera movement. So no more microadjustments. Used to go crazy adjusting all my lenses, some majorly off. Spent HOURS calibrating. With mirrorless, no more. The mirror box is just antiquated and a thing of the past. That gives real limitations and challenges to lens designers and makes lenses unnecessarily large.

Also save time photographing as less need to chimp. The exposure in the viewfinder is what you get.

Now with all that said, I find with my XT3 and now EOSR, I don't even USE the viewfinder. Why use a 1" box with I can use a 4" box (screen) to compose my images? I simply look at the back of the screen and see everything in high res. There's no reason not to shoot like this with how fast and modern new cameras are. The only way I'd use the viewfinder is shooting in bright light with glare on the screen, or to get a bit of stability braced up against my face.

Otherwise holding my eyeball to something and squinting my other eye feels antiquated, pretentious, and unnecessary most of the time.

Just my personal take on it after being a DSLR snob for over a decade. At some point, the system is going to force you to switch to mirrorless. Just a matter of time.

Don't get me wrong I know DSLR has its advantages. And I know all of them. But mirrorless is just the way photography is going.
Most probably you are right: Mirrorless will be the future. It seems to be the only way for the industry to at least save some of their market share from the smart phone manufactures. A new DSLR is just not enough of a good story to get a significant number of photo enthusiastic people moved to buy a new camera. So mirrorless is the next big thing and the marketing here works fine. Okay with me. I am very interested in the well-being of Canon, Nikon and Sony and don't want them to stop producing great cameras and lenses because everybody just shoots his photos with the smart phone including "computerized image post-processing - what a horror!!!

But I have so say, that I shoot the vast majority of my pictures with the VF and not in live view. The 5D Mark IV offers this possibility too and thanks to dual pixel AF this works much better than with my 5D Mark III in terms of focusing. To really judge the photo you want to shoot, the view through the VF for me is much better than the screen on the backside of the camera. But maybe I am an old fashioned guy in this point. And I have to admit, I am starting to think about what would it be either buying a Sony A7R III with EF adapter or waiting for a ESO R Pro that really can compete with the 5D Mark IV. Sooner or later ... ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
721
307
I sure didn't like it on my Oly. Nothing special. IS blows it out of the water.
Only in the real world. On a spec sheet IBIS wins every time because "it can be used for all of those "cheaper" non-IS lenses."

By the way, where exactly are those "cheaper" non-IS lenses? Most third party lenses offered in various mounts that use IS or don't use IS are pretty much the same, if not the identical, price. Many non-IS lenses from camera makers with IBIS cameras are just as expensive, if not moreso, than lenses with IS form other makers when focal length, maximum aperture, amount of aberration correction, optical performance, etc. are taken into consideration.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,693
1,276
Irving, Texas
Most probably you are right: Mirrorless will be the future. It seems to be the only way for the industry to at least save some of their market share from the smart phone manufactures. A new DSLR is just not enough of a good story to get a significant number of photo enthusiastic people moved to buy a new camera. So mirrorless is the next big thing and the marketing here works fine.
Somehow I don't see a smartphone camera as in the same market as any ILC, mirrorless or not. I certainly do not see ILC enthusiasts ditching their systems for smart phone cameras. While the smartphone might have killed the point and shoot segment... sigh. I give up.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
721
307
There's the Zeiss 25 f/2 TE for less than 700 clams at B&H right now for astro. It really doesn't get any better than that.
That's not the sharpest lens in Zeiss' catalog. Not by a long shot. CA is pretty noticeable as well.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
721
307
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.
As well as the sports/action/wildlife market. And the portrait market. And the architectural market. And the macro market.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,686
784
119
I believe at 14mm and f/1.4, focusing 5m out would see everything from 2.4m to infinity in focus........
Not at modern reproduction sizes it wouldn’t. Hyperfocal focusing techniques and numbers are very much out of date and doin’t pass muster nowadays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Normalnorm

flip314

EOS 80D
Sep 26, 2018
198
226
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.
99% of the people complaining about the crop factor are not going to want to put down the money it will cost to get this lens. I think a 14mm prime would be a much better choice for them.
 

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
137
103
San Diego, CA
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.
I don’t get why you OVF purists cling so tightly to what is obviously a dying tech. EVF tech is in it’s infancy; it’s advantages are apparent, it’s drawbacks easily overcome for the most part. In 5-7 years your comment is going to look ridiculous.
 

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
439
418
www.flickr.com
I don’t get why you OVF purists cling so tightly to what is obviously a dying tech. EVF tech is in it’s infancy; it’s advantages are apparent, it’s drawbacks easily overcome for the most part. In 5-7 years your comment is going to look ridiculous.
I think the "for the most part" is the key part of that comment. Needs are different for everyone, and different people value different features. For me, I like to compose my images with the camera off, then use live view to fine tune my focus and composition, specifically to conserve battery. Sometimes I have to go days without charging batteries, so that OVF has a lot of value for me. Sure, EVFs provides other benefits, but for me I value being able to see through the lens with the camera off. OVFs do that better, and for some that will be enough.

That's not to say OVFs are superior to EVFs, it just means that they do have some advantages and in some instances those advantages will trump the benefits of an EVF. To each their own: people will choose what they feel best suits their need, and that's ok.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
565
201
I believe at 14mm and f/1.4, focusing 5m out would see everything from 2.4m to infinity in focus, so I would argue that for astro it would certainly have a place. If it had a filter thread (I really can't see that happening, but if) then I'd likely be looking at jumping into the RF mount and grabbing that, knowing full well that it's most direct comparable lenses are not at all cheap.
Well, there is always the option of seeing how the Sigma 14mm 1.8 will pair with the ND/CP filter adapter, it will still cost peanuts compared to this lens (if they actually going to make it, CR1 is CR1).
 

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
439
418
www.flickr.com
Well, there is always the option of seeing how the Sigma 14mm 1.8 will pair with the ND/CP filter adapter, it will still cost peanuts compared to this lens (if they actually going to make it, CR1 is CR1).
I've considered the Sigma (and it is tempting with the adapter), but having a fast aperture at a wide focal length is only part of what I'm after. What I want to do is replace my 16-35 f/4L and Rokinon 14mm 2.8 with one fast wide lens with a filter thread so that I can combine filters for landscapes (i.e. an ND grad with a CPL and a strong ND filter) and still do some wide astro stuff without carrying two lenses (camping - weight and amount of stuff is a consideration). The 16-35 f/2.8L III would work for me right now and the RF 15-35 2.8L looks like it could work better if I did move into RF. However, if this rumoured lens has a filter thread, and if it is as sharp as some of the other RF lenses have been, and if it ever actually comes into existence (a whole lot of ifs), I could see it at the front of my list. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath (especially for the filter thread). A boy can dream can't he? ;)

On second thought, I'd probably bet it will get a tripod collar before a filter thread.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
200
122
It's a great time to be a photographers.
It's probably a great time to be a rich photographer. Otherwise, most enthusiasts are still stuck with hoping that Yongnuo can improve its quality or saving for a third-hand Sigma Art with a scratch on the front element, if they're really spendy.

This one new show-off lens from Canon will cost more than most enthusiasts have spent on kit, in total.
 
Last edited: