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

Aug 22, 2010
1,607
304
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
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.
For YOUR photography this is probably true. But for mine which includes wildlife...then no...the RF mount's Af system is pretty much useless for fast moving birds and other animals.
An optical view finder has a truth about it that isn't there in EVF's. I think it's the slight delay, or the slight flicker...maybe the artificial look from the overly high contrast EVF. An optical view finder is easier on the eye and easier to see a composition in real time. I think the EVF kind of reminds me of using an VR head set...not quite real.
I also dislike the focus off the back LCD approach. But the major issue with the Rf system for me is that lack of high frame rate continuous tracking AF. Sure for static and low speed objects the software focus in the Rf system is excellent and in some respects more accurate than the system employed in the 1DX and 5D series. But once the object starts to need continuous tracking...all bets are off.
When I tried the Eos R I was a little over whelmed by the changes to the User Interface, to the point it felt so unfamiliar and almost like picking up a camera from a completely different brand. It's a disconnected feeling that I get if I pick up a Sony or a Nikon.
I really liked the lenses that I tried at Wex in Norwich. I didn't like the third control ring much...it felt like a needless gimmic. I also don't like the idea of using my 400 2.8 LIS with a 1.xTC and an EF to Rf adapter.
I think that once Canon have a more credible AF option for sports and wildlife shooters (both Rf Body and native lenses) but at the moment it's quite clear that the technology isn't there and may well never be. We may see both system having distinct advantages, EF for the more agile subjects and Rf for the slower more accurately focusing subjects.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
565
201
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.
It is greater for everyone, because older (but not 'outdated') stuff gets even more accessible than before (and in Canon's case, it stills works perfectly, that is its biggest advantage), and the difference between good and high-end for the average viewer becomes smaller and smaller.
With enough effort put in, one can take incredible photographs with stuff that costs almost no money at all.
Classic case in point is the 5D Mk1, which despite its cult following has no value at all, I am struggling to sell a close to fully mint one for 260 Euros and while it is somewhat more difficult to use than more modern cameras with LiveView, it honestly takes great images (better than a crop sensor) and there are dozens of deals on used EF lenses to go with it.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,607
304
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
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.
It's only a dying tech in your mind....there is room in the market for both DSLR and mirrorless formats, both with their pros and cons. For wildlife and sports, mirrorless isn't a viable option and probably isn't going to be as suitable in the future either. Software based AF just isn't able to continuously track at high frame rates. If it could then there would be a 14fps 1DxR available. Instead we have consumer and sub-sumer bodies and lenses for photojournalists and portrait / general shooters. Great gear...but hardly a system wide top down revolution that the mirror-less junkies are claiming.
The Rf mount has some clear advantages, but it's also got some colossal issues too...and they may not be so easy to overcome. It's easy to predict that in the future rounded photographers will probably need a fast DSLR and a Rf camera systems to cover different requirements, leveraging the best of both systems. A little like the crop sensor vs full frame sensor debate from a few years back.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,704
1,284
Irving, Texas
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.
Actually, your comment looks ridiculous right now. Just glad we didn't have to wait 5-7 years for it. How in the world anyone could possibly consider the optics of an EVF to be better than the optics of the human eye is beyond me. Until an EVF can give a "picture" as clean, pure, and instantaneous as that of OVF, then EVF will always be inferior. Purists clinging? Excuse me, but you say yourself that EVF is in it's infancy. Pardon the rest of us who prefer what works best (for us) and isn't still in the infancy of development. You love EVF? That's fine. However, you are far less important in our eyes than you obviously are in your own eyes. It is ridiculous of you to somehow think what you prefer as being the last word for everyone else. Get over yourself. BTW: New tech doesn't always mean "better" tech.
 
Last edited:

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
455
303
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
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.
Wide angle astro is basically a sub-genre of landscapes. Actual sky-only astro is done with a camera mounted on a telescope, it's a totally different niche.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,140
552
I don’t get why you OVF purists cling so tightly to what is obviously a dying tech.
There is no such thing as "OVF purists". For a purist, OVF is vastly inferior to a 4x loupe on a ground glass.

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.
Hopefully, in 5-7 years we will see that EVF tech was in infancy back now. Then it will be the time to get rid of OVF.
 

Trey T

EOS 80D
Feb 6, 2019
104
47
AFAIK, there aren't any primes that fast for any FF camera, which would make such a zoom really amazing.

People would still complain Canon isn't innovative, though.
Fast lenses are more critical for smaller sensor than FF. Most ppl don’t know the meaning or values of different designs other than it’s specs
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
355
186
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.
I disagree. The barrier to entry for professional quality camera equipment are SIGNIFICANTLY reduce. Since there are so many options, you can get have a lot of options from lens, camera, lighting, accessories (batteries, tripod, gimbal), and refurb/used market. With so many people upgrading more often now (GAS), a slightly older but still very capable camera are discounted much further due to fierce competitions.

A couple years ago, you should need to spend $3500 and up for a "professional" dual card slot capable camera. We now have Sony A7III, Panasonic S1, with better 4K, IBIS, eyeAF, newer sensor around $2000-2500. Nikon D850 can be had under $3000. Canon RP $1300 with adapter.

We have so many lighting option that's significantly cheaper than first party lighting solution. I sold all my Canon lighting equipments and bought all Godox. Godox lighting provide solution from on camera lighting to portable strobe, and powerful strobe - v860II, AD200, AD600, AD400Pro, AD600pro, and the new Profoto A1 clone. Even Yongnuo has lithium battery flash. I spent a lot of money on lightings gears. I would never thought I can afford all my lighting gears including modifiers under $2000. It would be 2-3x more expensive if I bought Profoto or Canon.

Tamron and Sigma both provide affordable and high quality lenses. Scratch front element? I bought plenty of lenses used and new and never has a problem with it nor do plenty of people on Fredmiranda forums. $900 used for Sigma 135 1.8 or Sigma 14-24 2.8 new is a great deal if you don't mind the weight. They are great lenses.

Even Canon has a lot of great price for Canon 24-70II 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 II that I see regularly go for cheaper when I bought mine. I see alot of peope selling Canon gears on forums since people are switching to mirrorless.

In term of accessories, we have so many high quality affordable options from batteries, tripod, to softboxes. Sirui, Cheetahstand, Adorama softboxes, SMDV, etc.

It's actually a great time to be a photographers and enthusiast when it come to buying high quality and affordable gears. It's also a bad time for FT photographers trying to earn a living due to increase competitions and availability of photography education from lighting, post processing, branding and marketing. The barrier to having great photography equipments are much lower when I started doing photography as a hobby 10 years ago.

As much as I complained about Canon trailing behind the competitions when it come to features and value, if I can't make great photo with any of the camera equipments both first parties and third parties in the last couple years, the equipments is not the weakest link. It's ME. I might as well find a new hobby then.
 
Last edited:

Phoenix 1000

I'm New Here
Jan 14, 2019
9
1
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.
Exactly what I am saying: In 5-7 years, if OLED technology and GPU speed si good enough, but not yet. That's my point of view.
 

Phoenix 1000

I'm New Here
Jan 14, 2019
9
1
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.
I personally agree with you, but look at the sales numbers of digital cameras in total, ILC and mirrorless - a steady decline while at the same time the numbers of digital photos shot go through the ceiling. Obviously there is a major crowd of people who prefer to take the smart phone for photo shooting. Unbelievable for me too. So every manufacturer needs to do something to at least stop this trend on the low level they have currently reached. And this big thing is the mirrorless with the new lenses. And yes, the lenses really look great!
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,704
1,284
Irving, Texas
I personally agree with you, but look at the sales numbers of digital cameras in total, ILC and mirrorless - a steady decline while at the same time the numbers of digital photos shot go through the ceiling. Obviously there is a major crowd of people who prefer to take the smart phone for photo shooting. Unbelievable for me too. So every manufacturer needs to do something to at least stop this trend on the low level they have currently reached. And this big thing is the mirrorless with the new lenses. And yes, the lenses really look great!
I think virtually every single phone made takes photos. The camera is included with the phone. It makes perfect sense to me that tens of millions of photos are taken with these phones. Not the same market as the crowd that buys ILC cameras (who already own these smart phones anyway)... especially since you mention the "enthusiast" crowd. "The next big thing" was the advent of digital photography to begin with. DSLR to mirrorless is not the same as film to digital. What you are seeing is the maturity of the market. Mirrorless is NOT revolutionary in any way. It has been around for a very very long time. Most every point and shoot digital camera made was "mirrorless". Mirrorless also existed in the film age. It is not new tech in the least. It's a little like saying somebody has invented a rounder wheel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
137
103
San Diego, CA
It's only a dying tech in your mind....there is room in the market for both DSLR and mirrorless formats, both with their pros and cons. For wildlife and sports, mirrorless isn't a viable option and probably isn't going to be as suitable in the future either. Software based AF just isn't able to continuously track at high frame rates. If it could then there would be a 14fps 1DxR available. Instead we have consumer and sub-sumer bodies and lenses for photojournalists and portrait / general shooters. Great gear...but hardly a system wide top down revolution that the mirror-less junkies are claiming.
The Rf mount has some clear advantages, but it's also got some colossal issues too...and they may not be so easy to overcome. It's easy to predict that in the future rounded photographers will probably need a fast DSLR and a Rf camera systems to cover different requirements, leveraging the best of both systems. A little like the crop sensor vs full frame sensor debate from a few years back.
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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,704
1,284
Irving, Texas
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.
Hmmm... First of all, comparing (DSLR to Mirrorless) with (Film to DSLR) is silly as heck. No comparison whatsoever. Second: You keep saying how revolutionary and advantageous an EVF is above an OVF. Why not list these advantages instead of just making vague claims? Then list how you get past the shortcomings. I have a DSLR and a mirrorless Olympus. EVF sucks, at this point. Mirrorless is NOT revolutionary tech. Neither is EVF. Film to digital was absolutely revolutionary. If I ever get an R series camera body it will be because of the available lenses and not because an EVF is there. Good God, man... get a hold of yourself. BTW: My "investment" in EF glass has zero bearing on my side of this discussion. Adaptation is seamless with no hit to IQ.
 
Last edited:

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
3,035
563
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.
You need to have been around for 'back in the day statements' such as film clinging, I'm not so sure you were since if you had been your arguments would be more logical, patient and inclusive of all types of photographic expression. One thing so many younger shooters miss out on is knowing their artistic roots. Photo history, what was acheivable with so little is not something to dismiss. It's a great legacy to build upon, especially when you have understanding and the patience of that era. Patience, like common sense, in short supply these days.
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,140
552
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.
No, it's just not everyone is obsessed by a camera as a fashion statement, and "it is modern, so it must be better" is not working for people who use cameras as tools.

The same about "clinging to film", actually. Before Canon 1Ds ($7999 at introduction), full format film actually gave better IQ than digital, and it took some time before 1Ds-class IQ became affordable. Still, some people were buying cameras like 1Mpixel 1/2.3" Sony DSC-S30 P&S, which costed 3 times more than a full format film P&S with an equivalent lens, claiming that it was "the future".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark
Aug 22, 2010
1,607
304
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
It's really not just in my mind.
I feel like the majority of you doing the clinging are heavily invested in DSLRs and the EF mount.....The death of the DSLR is already here.
Hello...ef lenses work fine on the Rf mount due to the bundled adapter...so yes...your hyperbole really is just in YOUR mind. People buy emotionally and justify after...so the market IS and always will be an emotional dictate. The death of the DSLR? Only on your camera bag. This will not be the case for a lot of photographers. We live in the days of choice and options...not one camera / format to rule them all. It's egocentric to think that your photo needs are the only needs that matter to everyone else.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,282
159
People who shoot in low light situations where tripods are prohibited or impractical, with lenses lacking optical stabilization (like the new RF lenses).
Yes, but this thread is for a 14-21 f/1.4. The focal length rule will give something like 1/15s. Even when I had my 16-35 f/4 IS, anything longer than 1/6s was iffy and not tack sharp. You're not going to get 4 stops. IS is not that effective for long durations, and again if people are the subject, then you're going to need faster shutter speeds anyway. Yes, there are some times when IS can be useful, but then you also have to wait for IS to settle before taking the shot, which also takes time (it's always a bit of transition when I start using the IS telezooms after using fast primes without IS).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark