Canon Announces the Canon RF 14mm f/1.4L VCM

[neuroanatomist]

several Samyang 14/2.8 lenses: I hate the poor Samyang QC, the so called 'Samyang-lottery' for decentered lenses!

Agreed! I have bought Canon lenses almost exclusively, the one exception was a Rokinon (Samyang) 14/2.8 that I bought for occasional Astro use. I test all new lenses when I get them, that Roki 14/2.8 is the only one I’ve ever had to exchange for a proper copy.

 

[Del Paso]

I didn't even bother comparing the MTF of that lens to the 14/1.4 - I didn't want the EF lens to experience that kind of beat down.

The EF version must have been so much better since it didn't need any software corrections. Believe me, I had one...
Seriously now: I find it interesting how much UWA and UWA zooms habe been improved in the last 10 years. If I think of the EF 17-40, the EF 2,8/20, even of the not so bad EF 2,8/14 II, progress can be qualified as huge!

 

[Ozarker]

Wow! The VCM series of lenses make an impressive set of primes. I really like they are ,besides this 14mm, all the same size.

 

[Ozarker]

I see it just like you, but I am still waiting for a 24-70 II. Then, I could sell the 15-35 and add the 14mm to the 24-70 and 70-200 for short trips. The gap between 14 and 24 wouldn't bother me much. One additional (lightweight) lens wouldn't matter much.
Also, I am absolutely convinced that the 14mm will be extremely good! Stlll 3 weeks of waiting and waiting...

But what about a 10-20mm?

 

[neuroanatomist]

The EF version must have been so much better since it didn't need any software corrections.

Yeah, optical corrections FTW!

 

[Del Paso]

But what about a 10-20mm?

Not bad, a very good lens, yet far too specific in use for me. This is what I like about the 15-35, extending from UWA to a moderate WA. I often use the extremes, and also 24mm, but less what is in between.
I certainly would buy (again) the 24-70, but I'm afraid the day I buy one will correspond to Canon announcing mk.II. This waiting is "killing" me!

 

[Del Paso]

Wow! The VCM series of lenses make an impressive set of primes. I really like they are ,besides this 14mm, all the same size.

This is where focal-dedicated rear lens-caps would make sense!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Agreed! I have bought Canon lenses almost exclusively, the one exception was a Rokinon (Samyang) 14/2.8 that I bought for occasional Astro use. I test all new lenses when I get them, that Roki 14/2.8 is the only one I’ve ever had to exchange for a proper copy.

I guess I had decentered Tamron lenses for APS-C in 2018... they were a pain so I sold them and returned them. With Canon lenses, I only had an issue with the RF 50mm F1.8. It was focus hunting all the time even with static objects. I returned it and a second copy - which now belongs to my father-in-law, works far better.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

15-35 is a great lens. Perfect for landscape photography but I've also been able to use it for astro on a tracking mount. I went with 95mm because I was sick of having to buy multiple sets that do the same thing. Personally I think you'll love the 15-35. It's very versatile and has great performance.

The RF 15-35mm F2.8 is an absolutely great lens!!! The iq is outstanding and the lens is sharp across all focal lengths. I agree, it is perfect for landscapes, city travels and @35mm F2.8 fairly good for environmental portraits or group shots. I used it for nearly two years and only sold it because the RF 14-35mm is significantly lighter and I have more lenses with a 77mm filter thread. Other than that, I never would have sold the lens. Still, I´d image Canon might one day release a lighter mkii version...

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I'm using the B&W "T pro MRC nano" filters, which have a very thin mount. No issues whatsoever, even at 15mm! Loss of sharpness? Maybe under a microscope?

I use the same filter (CPL) and I have never had any issues unless I wasn't paying attention Looking to add a second one, but those filters have gotten really, really expansive.

 

[Del Paso]

I use the same filter (CPL) and I have never had any issues unless I wasn't paying attention Looking to add a second one, but those filters have gotten really, really expansive.

But they still cost far less than a badly scratched front lens!
I use filters exclusively for protection.

 

[Old Man FL/FD]

The EF version must have been so much better since it didn't need any software corrections. Believe me, I had one...
Seriously now: I find it interesting how much UWA and UWA zooms habe been improved in the last 10 years. If I think of the EF 17-40, the EF 2,8/20, even of the not so bad EF 2,8/14 II, progress can be qualified as huge!

My experiences with early Canon EF WA/UWA zooms were disappointing, as many people agree.

My EF 17-40mm F/4 L let me down many times in corner performance, and this was on an APS-H (1.3x crop) 1D Mk II, where the entire image circle is not used.

I heard the original EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L was a ‘dog,’ so when the Mk II version came out, I was hoping for improvements. I got a ‘bad’ copy with decentered elements showing up in the left corner (again, on APS-H.) I made some home brew test charts to verify and a PowerShot G9 beat it! I sent it in to Canon USA service centers three times to get this fixed, with no change. I even asked somebody at LensRentals for his opinion. I eventually sold this lens to someone at work who had a 5D with full disclosure and ‘try before you buy.’

My current EF 16-35mm f/4 L I’m happy with.

It seems Canon got serious about their WA/UWA primes and zooms and all’s good now in RF land.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm using the B&W "T pro MRC nano" filters, which have a very thin mount.

I've stuck with the Master series, the 'new' version of the XS-Pro mount (as the Basic is the 'new' F-Pro mount). The T-Pro filters are slightly thinner (2.9mm vs. 3.4mm for typical filters, though mount of the 112mm filter for my 100-300/2.8 is 6mm thick), but I've never had any issues with vignetting with my XS-Pro filters. They're both brass, and the 'titanium' (silver by any other name) finish reminds me too much of Canon's saying that, "The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch," about the cheap and low IQ EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM III.

I do wonder why they went with a smooth edge on the T-Pro line. The XS-Pro filters were smooth-edged like the T-Pro, but the Master line has a fully knurled edge that makes it easier to remove a filter.

 

[P-visie]

My experiences with early Canon EF WA/UWA zooms were disappointing, as many people agree.

My EF 17-40mm F/4 L let me down many times in corner performance, and this was on an APS-H (1.3x crop) 1D Mk II, where the entire image circle is not used.

I heard the original EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L was a ‘dog,’ so when the Mk II version came out, I was hoping for improvements. I got a ‘bad’ copy with decentered elements showing up in the left corner (again, on APS-H.) I made some home brew test charts to verify and a PowerShot G9 beat it! I sent it in to Canon USA service centers three times to get this fixed, with no change. I even asked somebody at LensRentals for his opinion. I eventually sold this lens to someone at work who had a 5D with full disclosure and ‘try before you buy.’

My current EF 16-35mm f/4 L I’m happy with.

It seems Canon got serious about their WA/UWA primes and zooms and all’s good now in RF land.

The first two versions of the EF 16-35mm f2.8 were not very good, the third version was very good, even on my 5DsR.
Lensrentals has done testing and comparisons: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/10/canon-16-35mm-f2-8l-mark-iii-optical-bench-tests/
And https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/real-world-testing-of-the-new-canon-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii/