Canon officially announces the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

[BBarn]

Comparing the RF 14-35 f/4 to the EF 16-35 f/4, the former is shorter, lighter and 2mm wider. Not sure a 55% premium (US retail) is all that far out of line. A few hundred less for the RF, say $1399, and it would almost seem like a bargain compared to the $1099 EF.

 

[JustAnotherCanonShooter]

$1699 removes most temptation to sell the RF 15-35 f2.8. That cuts the expected value difference to pocket in half.

Same here. I was thinking of lightening my pack by selling the 15-35 and picking this up. The price absolutely killed that plan.

 

[Loswr]

At $1199 I’d have preordered. At this price, I’ll pass for now. If I used my 16-35/4 IS more, it might be a different story. If I need wider than 14mm, I have the 11-24/4.

I haven’t been traveling due to the pandemic, but I will go back and see how many of my 11-24 lens shots are in the 11-13mm range, and if there aren’t many I might consider the 14-35 for travel, instead – it would save a lot of weight, and takes filters.

 

[anden]

I thought I would buy this lens right away, but with this price and for my amateur usage, I guess I’ll keep using my Iphone’s 13mm f/20 (32mm equivalent I believe) 12mp camera for ultra-wide needs for some more time.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Yeah same here. I was really going to upgrade from my EF16-35 f4, but I'll probably wait till the price drops by 300-500 AUD.

 

[Larsskv]

The size and weight is really appealing to me.

One feature that is easy to overlook is the minimum focus distance of 20cm, which is the same as the EF14mm f2.8 L. When shooting wide, going very close to your subject can make the image much more interesting (fill the frame). The difference in perspective you get with a wide angle lens makes is tempting to photograph smaller subjects, like flowers, while still getting nice bokeh, and include an interesting background . That is the feature I love the most with the EF 14mm. I also own the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 classic, and I find the Zeiss much harder to use because of a poorer minimum focus distance, which is making it harder to fill the frame with my desired subject, and harder to get pleasing bokeh.

 

[tron]

The same with RF 70-200 4L IS at 1929 euros!!! I was lucky to get before BREXIT the RF70-200 2.8L IS for 2090 euros. So I will stick to that despite the small weight and size of the f/4 version.

 

[Fotofriend]

While the specs sound really good for the third RF "f4-trinity-lens", the pricing is clearly over the top imo. I'm really doubting whether Canon are doing themselves a favor with this, be it 1700$ but for sure with 1819€ in Europe. First comments / reactions on European photographers sites are extremely negative about the pricing going so far as to even consider changing the system, not to forget since almost all RF lenses are priced so ambitiously, and now this for a f4 UW lens.
Do you remember some years ago Canon initially pricing the EF 35 f2, 24 f2.8 and 28 f2.8 IS USM way too high? Finally (and probably with regard to sales figures as well) they significantly reduced the price to realistic levels. Although I'm not too optimistic, I hope they would come to the same conclusion here after a while...

 

[Fotofriend]

The pricing surprised me a bit. I guess going 2mm wider than its EF counterpart really does drive the cost up.

I think it's not driving up the cost so much, but used as a reason to drive up the price...

 

[BBarn]

Same here. I was thinking of lightening my pack by selling the 15-35 and picking this up. The price absolutely killed that plan.

The 14-35 is close enough to the 15-35 to make it more of an either/or decision rather than a possible addition for most customers. Most 15-35 owners will likely just keep what they have and passover the 14-35.

 

[docsmith]

Not that much lighter than the EF 16-35 f/4 (adaptor will be in my bag until I convert all my lenses), minimum focus distance is ~3 inches closer. So, it really gets down to IBIS + in lens stabilization plus being 2 mm wider. All nice improvements and I am sure this is a great lens, but I will continue to stay put with my EF glass for awhile longer.

 

[Flamingtree]

I think it's not driving up the cost so much, but used as a reason to drive up the price...

Absolutely, it’s a pure margin grab.

 

[zonoskar]

So no R3 today?

 

[muentzer]

So no R3 today?

No: https://www.canonrumors.com/i-may-have-been-wrong-about-the-eos-r3-official-announcement-date/

 

[padam]

Absolutely, it’s a pure margin grab.

The profit margin is probably constant, but the development + production costs, parts shortages, increased shipping costs etc. have ramped up the price.

 

[muentzer]

Thought I would pre-order today but 1819 Euros is more than I expected :-( Keeping my EF 16-35 for the moment ...

 

[mb66energy]

Maybe I should have bought the EF 4.0 16-35 IS for 1770 EUR with an EOS RP and the adapter included.

But now I will wait for a IQ comparison + evaluate if 2 mm are important for me + the max magnification is a reason to buy this lens .

 

[FlashBazbo]

Manufacturers' raw materials prices are up by between 15% and 800% over the past 12 months. I'm not surprised that things are starting to cost more at the retail level. (But no, I won't be ordering.)

 

[Fotofriend]

The f4-L (zoom and other) lenses are appealing to a wide range and huge number of people from professionals to semi-pros and "enthousiasts". I think Canon were wise to offer the EF 17-40 L and also the EF 16-35 f4 L at moderate prices to profit from sales in a best possible way. And I'm sure profits from those (for sure from the 17-40 over many years) was very good by hitting the right price point for many people to afford and buy it. I cannot image that hiking the prices for RF-f4-successors like the 14-35 this far will be equally profitable now by focusing more on a maximum profit share per product sold. In addition, the full frame market is much more competitive nowadays for sure. Premium products with premium prices and focus not primarily on market but profit share works for Apple for example, and maybe I'm wrong, but Canon is not Apple. As Canon I would watch out a little more for too many willing Canon users and potential new buyers that now turn away and reconsider Sony, Nikon etc. or just sticking to their older gear (as can be read in this forum too).

 

[JustUs7]

Canon's new Stops technology, stopsi and stopsii ...........

Assuming the official announcement includes footnotes. The first ‘i’ would be an explanation or disclaimer of lens only stops. The second ‘ii’ would explain that it’s in combination with IBIS.