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

uri.raz

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
213
134
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

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
213
134
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

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,459
1,122
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.
The 14 f2.8 L was cheap? .. and no, it was not faster than the zooms at the time...

And no doubt there will be cheaper primes for the RF mount, the 35 f1.8 is proof of that, but what does that have to do with a worlds first insane f1.4 UWA zoom?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

uri.raz

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
213
134
The 14 f2.8 L was cheap? .. and no, it was not faster than the zooms at the time...
What zoom that wide was there at the time?

None, until the EF 11-24mm f/4L was released in 2015, and the EF 14mm is a full stop wider and $600 cheaper.

And no doubt there will be cheaper primes for the RF mount, the 35 f1.8 is proof of that
The EF-S mount has two primes, and the EF-M has three. The EF mount hasn't seen any new cheap primes in >5 years. Those three put together make me expect the RF mount would see a handful of cheap primes.

I'm sure Canon will make more than a handful of expensive primes to compete with the L primes for the EF mount, such as the rumored 135mm f/1.4 and replacements / parallels for the 35mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4, 14mm f/2.8. It's the cheap ones I doubt we'll see a lot of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,459
1,122
What zoom that wide was there at the time?

None, until the EF 11-24mm f/4L was released in 2015, and the EF 14mm is a full stop wider and $600 cheaper.



The EF-S mount has two primes, and the EF-M has three. The EF mount hasn't seen any new cheap primes in >5 years. Those three put together make me expect the RF mount would see a handful of cheap primes.

I'm sure Canon will make more than a handful of expensive primes to compete with the L primes for the EF mount, such as the rumored 135mm f/1.4 and replacements / parallels for the 35mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4, 14mm f/2.8. It's the cheap ones I doubt we'll see a lot of.
No zoom was that wide, but the widest at 16 was also f2.8.

I don’t think for ONE second the 50 f1.2 is the only fast 50 for RF, same as the 85 f1.2 won’t be the only 85zzz
 

uri.raz

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
213
134
Oh, I know, there was also no point in mentioning it as one of the cheap primes you missed with the R system.
1. The six other primes I've mentioned make that point.

2. My point was that primes can be cheaper than zooms. The EF 14mm f/2.8 is cheaper than the EF 11-24mm f/4. Point made.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,459
1,122
1. The six other primes I've mentioned make that point.

2. My point was that primes can be cheaper than zooms. The EF 14mm f/2.8 is cheaper than the EF 11-24mm f/4. Point made.
And my point was that the 35 f1.8 is cheap and 100% won’t be the only RF f1.8 prime.

Btw, the 14 f2.8 L II was ridiculously expensive in 2007, and a 11mm wide end zoom is a way different beast altogether...

Closest thing is the Nikon 14-24 and that is actually cheaper than the 14 L II...
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

uri.raz

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
213
134
And my point was that the 35 f1.8 is cheap and 100% won’t be the only RF f1.8 prime.
Not the only RF prime? I would be surprised if it wasn't. Will Canon make a whole line of cheap RF primes? I doubt it, but time will tell.

Btw, the 14 f2.8 L II was ridiculously expensive in 2007, and a 11mm wide end zoom is a way different beast altogether...
If someone wants an EF lens that covers 14mm, one has two options - the EF 14mm f/2.8L or the EF 11-24mm f/4L. The first is cheaper.

[OK, there are alternatives from Sigma. I think they would follow the same pattern - there are two 14mm primes, one is f/1.8 faster than the 14-24mm f/2.8, the 14mm f/2.8 is cheaper than the zoom.]

Closest thing is the Nikon 14-24 and that is actually cheaper than the 14 L II...
1. I don't think it's closer than the EF 11-24mm.

2. The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 for Canon is as close. Closer, if you take into account you don't need to replace cameras.

3. I doubt the Nikon would be cheaper once you take the price one would pay to replace a Canon camera with a Nikon.

4. The Nikon 14mm f/2.8 ED is more expensive than the Nikon 14-28mm f/2.8. This zoom's price is the exception, which makes it look like you're arguing for argument's sake. I hope you enjoy arguing.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,548
2,074
120
I find it interesting how well lenses have progressed in recent years, most notably the ultra wide zooms and primes even moreso than the vastly bigger heavier and more ‘clinical’ Look from the gargantuan 50’s.

For so long the Nikon 14-28 f2.8 was held up as the gold standard of ultra wide zooms and there are many shooters who used Nikon just because of that lens as Canon never had anything to compare to it in focal length or image quality even with their primes. Compare that lens now to the 11-24 and it looks like a bad joke, or the bottom of a bottle!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
989
202
For so long the Nikon 14-28 f2.8 was held up as the gold standard of ultra wide zooms and there are many shooters who used Nikon just because of that lens as Canon never had anything to compare to it in focal length or image quality even with their primes.
A pro photographer I trust told me many Nikon camera owners bought it, were disappointed, and quickly sold it. There were a couple of those on the used equipment shelves of my favorite photo shop at the time, so I took his word at face value.
 

Eclipsed

EOS T7i
Apr 30, 2020
53
39
It's like Canon is the girl you want to date and Nikon is the girl you want to marry...

I love all the insane lenses, Canon, don't get me wrong. But what I REALLY need for my R is some 35/2 or 50/1.4 or 1.8 optimized for portability. I don't need it to be an actual pancake lens, but I'd like it to be smaller than an EF pancake on an EF-to-R adapter (which I recently tried) as well as have an extra stop or two. I don't care if it's not mega-sharp and I could even lose the control ring.

Until then, to keep my camera in my backpack at all times I'm having to resort to extreme measures...

View attachment 183363
Nikon is my ex wife.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
820
851
If it just was this simple with super wide angle lenses. The problem isn't directly the aperture size, it's that a single surface of glass can't bend the light enough (damn you, physics!), so you need to do it in multiple steps.
And glass can be horribly expensive too !
Plus: extremely narrow (and expensive) machining and assembly tolerances, so, I guess, it will be a very costly lens...