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

Phoenix 1000

I'm New Here
Jan 14, 2019
9
1
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.
You are right, mirrorless camera technology is around for a long time, but only since a few years, they begin to compete with DSLRs. Before that, the technology was too immature for that (I still remember my Minolta DiMage A1 which was quite a good bridge camera at her time, but not more). Since the digital camera sales drop and the camera manufactures need a good story to stop this, they need to convince people to buy new cameras. So they make everybody think, if you don't buy a mirrorless now, you're hung up, you're old fashioned. Ha ha, I stick to my opinion: Besides the new very interesting lenses as the only real advantage there is no progress in mirrorless, at least not at the high-end. And the image quality of an EVF compared to that of an OFV is a backward step.

And yes, I personally also don't view a DSLM as a "next big thing" ...
 

michi

EOS RP
Jul 26, 2011
269
6
I'm excited to see all these amazing lenses pop up. At the same time I am sad because I know I will not be able to afford any of them. In the last 25 years I have invested in some pretty decent EF lenses, and bought a 5DIV when it was released. Don't get me wrong, I love my equipment and will be happy with it for years to come. But I also know that investing in further EF lenses would not be smart, so now I'm kind of stuck at a point where I won't be buying any further equipment for the EF line, and won't or don't want to afford the future R line. We shall see what the future brings.
 

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
201
240
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.
 

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
201
240
I'm excited to see all these amazing lenses pop up. At the same time I am sad because I know I will not be able to afford any of them. In the last 25 years I have invested in some pretty decent EF lenses, and bought a 5DIV when it was released. Don't get me wrong, I love my equipment and will be happy with it for years to come. But I also know that investing in further EF lenses would not be smart, so now I'm kind of stuck at a point where I won't be buying any further equipment for the EF line, and won't or don't want to afford the future R line. We shall see what the future brings.
I expect Canon should have some cheaper lenses out soon, but then again I really thought the RP would have had a native kit lens. Seems like Canon is heavily leaning on adapted EF lenses for their low-end R system customers (even if most people would rather have a native solution).
 

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
427
393
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
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

Canon 5D3, 17 TSE, 35 IS, 100 L, 70-200 2.8 IS II
Jan 11, 2014
134
5
Berlin
www.flickr.com
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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,012
319
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...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse and pj1974

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,080
399
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.
 
Last edited:

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,115
677
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: uri.raz and pj1974

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,182
229
Davidson, NC
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flip314 and pj1974

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
726
93
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). :)
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,608
304
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
769
336
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?"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
769
336
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)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy