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

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: 1 user
Upvote 0
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
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.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 26, 2018
280
420
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,042
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).
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 20, 2015
428
372
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:
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,042
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
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:
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0