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

BBarn

EOS M50
Nov 2, 2020
46
29
Don't know, where you read this, but I don't think that is true. IBIS has its limitations when we speak about long lenses because the sensor has to move a - relatively - long way to compensate for shake which is not the case for wide angle lenses.
Canon's own specs on the RF 14-35 support my statement. 7 stop improvement with both IS and IBIS, 5.5 stop improvement with IS alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

schaudi

I'm New Here
Feb 4, 2021
13
25
Given the price of the 'budget' RF f4 L options I think the EF system has a pretty positive future in the secondhand market. You can get an EF 17-40 L for under $500, the superb EF 16-35 f4 IS L for under $800. An RF 14-35 f4 IS L is $1,700 and you can't get one.

Those are huge price differentials and it will be years before the RF equivalents are available on the secondhand market in any volume.
The second hand market ist quite funny at the moment. In the last couple of months I got a 70-200/4 L for 300€, a 17-40/4 L for 250€ and and 100/2.8 L Macro for 150€. After 15 Years of Rebel DSLRs with non L Primes and Zooms, I now feel pretty well equipped on my RP. 3 Ls (all in awesome conditions) for around the same price in total as an current rebel. The Adapter doesn't bother me - it stays always where it is. In no world I could see any justification for me (or my significant other), to purchase RF Glas. Yes they are better - but the old ones are still pretty good and have not gotten "worse".
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron, pzyber and AJ

Jemlnlx

Itchy shutter finger...
CR Pro
Do you think prices will hold up on used EF lenses? I look at sites like MPB.com and they have what seem to be large inventories of lenses like the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 IS III and the 100 2.8 IS Macro. Prices are still high now, but I wonder 6 months to a year from now with no new EF bodies causing demand and little high end demand from people who could afford to trade in for RF glass already having done so, if MPB and other dealers will have to lower prices to sell to less well off individuals who still own EF bodies and wanted but couldn't afford the top of the line glass?
I'm not sure....used EF prices may drop a little, but I think a lot of people will be sticking with their EF versions.

The RF 24-70 has been out for a little while, yet the used prices for the highly coveted 24-70 ii haven't decreased much on the used market. The new RF is $2300, maybe $2100 used while the EF 24-70 ii is $1900 but you can get it used for $1100-1400. The situation is similar with the RF 70-200 and I expect to see the same pattern with the 14/16-35 f/4.

Those with these highly capable EF lenses may not find it immediately necessary to trade up to their RF counterparts given how expensive it is to upgrade. The price difference are too big at this point.

The EF versions are excellent and work well with the EF-RF adapter. So I think many people (me included) will hold off on the RF upgrades until there are price drops (maybe Canon rebates?!).
 

BBarn

EOS M50
Nov 2, 2020
46
29
No it doesn't. Because you still don't know how many stops improvement a hypothetically RF 14-35 without IS would gain with IBIS alone.
Here's another data point for consideration, from dpreview.

One conclusion from the dpreview post:
1) Unless you only care about motion blur near the center of your images, the ability of IBIS to compensate for motion blur is less than you might expect on both wide angle and normal angle (50mm full frame equivalent lenses).


This link shows about 3 stops of improvement on an R5 with an unstabilized 50mm. Not bad, but not 5+ stops like IS is claimed for the
RF 14-35.

I've attempted to support my claims with some outside evidence. Rather than simply challenge my statements without any evidence, consider providing some of your own evidence that disputes my claim.
 
At this price I'm definitely going to wait for the reviews to come in and likely will wait for a year or two for the price to come down. I'm still on the fence between this lens and the 12-24 f/4 for Sony and since they are coming in very close to the same price the decision is now much harder. Good thing I have 16-35 F/4 for both systems and can wait to pick a useful wider zoom....although my wife has pretty much adopted the sony as her walk around lens and rarely uses the canon anymore. I thought that was a good excuse to buy a new wide angle :)
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,655
Leica is in practice a "positional good", and their prices reflect that rather than their quality, such is human nature. I like to think that those of us who do buy Canon products on principle do so on a more rational basis of wanting to make sure we have top quality and compatibility rather than just the name or colour of a lens. It's clear from posts on CR that many of us are open minded and do buy Sigma, Tamron etc when their quality and price warrant it.
I wasn’t suggesting Canon is the new Leica, I was using Leica as an example of a product where the core functionality and price are not strongly related.

This answers the question of why do Canon think they can charge $1,700 for an f4 zoom, because enough people will pay it for the numbers of them they can make. Sure it pisses people off that are used to sub $1,000 f4 zooms but I t is no surprise that Canon have gone ‘up market’. They, and all the other camera manufacturers, have stated for years that to maintain income in a shrinking market they have to charge more for fewer products.
 

Flamingtree

EOS M6 Mark II
Dec 13, 2015
57
62
I wasn’t suggesting Canon is the new Leica, I was using Leica as an example of a product where the core functionality and price are not strongly related.

This answers the question of why do Canon think they can charge $1,700 for an f4 zoom, because enough people will pay it for the numbers of them they can make. Sure it pisses people off that are used to sub $1,000 f4 zooms but I t is no surprise that Canon have gone ‘up market’. They, and all the other camera manufacturers, have stated for years that to maintain income in a shrinking market they have to charge more for fewer products.
Well said. Sums it up well.
Once / if third parties start making lenses I bet they will also charge more (than they used to for a comparable EF product) meaning the situation is not likely to improve in the near future.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,655
Well said. Sums it up well.
Once / if third parties start making lenses I bet they will also charge more (than they used to for a comparable EF product) meaning the situation is not likely to improve in the near future.
Indeed, and don’t forget those third parties are producing for a diminished market too. I’m sure third party lenses will maintain a stable price difference to first party, it’s just that because first party have risen so third party will as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flamingtree
Jun 29, 2021
2
0
I wasn’t suggesting Canon is the new Leica, I was using Leica as an example of a product where the core functionality and price are not strongly related.

This answers the question of why do Canon think they can charge $1,700 for an f4 zoom, because enough people will pay it for the numbers of them they can make. Sure it pisses people off that are used to sub $1,000 f4 zooms but I t is no surprise that Canon have gone ‘up market’. They, and all the other camera manufacturers, have stated for years that to maintain income in a shrinking market they have to charge more for fewer products.

What sub $1000 zooms are you referring to? The 17-40 that has been showing its age for a decade? The closest to this new lens is the 16-35 F4 and that launched at a retail price of $1,199 and is still $1,099. But at the same time, the retail on the 16-35 F2.8 II when it launched was $1,699. The RF ultrawide 2.8 is $2,299. So the RF premium seems to be a consistent $600 or so across the range.

I totally understand the people waiting for reviews or who choose to hang on to the adapted EF longer, but I don't think the price is egregious (at least for the US, European prices are horrendous but that's not unique to this lens or Canon).
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,655
What sub $1000 zooms are you referring to? The 17-40 that has been showing its age for a decade? The closest to this new lens is the 16-35 F4 and that launched at a retail price of $1,199 and is still $1,099. But at the same time, the retail on the 16-35 F2.8 II when it launched was $1,699. The RF ultrawide 2.8 is $2,299. So the RF premium seems to be a consistent $600 or so across the range.

I totally understand the people waiting for reviews or who choose to hang on to the adapted EF longer, but I don't think the price is egregious (at least for the US, European prices are horrendous but that's not unique to this lens or Canon).
I don’t think the price is egregious or unexpected either, however I also understand the ’sticker shock’ of seemingly a lot of people here to that new system premium.

Don’t forget the EF system has been around a long time and there is a lot of good secondhand stuff out there too. Sure Canon are not necessarily worried about the secondhand market but it does give buyers options they don’t have in any volume in the RF space yet.

As for prices, I paid well under $1,000 for my EF 16-35 f4 new with warranty on a CPW deal shortly after its release, I paid $700 for my EF 100 macro L from the same source. EF bargains were out there, RF deals, not so much.
 

Ian K

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2016
83
65
Personally I can't see why anyone would want both the RF 14-35 and the RF 15-35.

With the EF versions there was a clear reason the f/4 had IS and the f/2.8 didn't. That gave you the option of speed vs IS and different situation called for each option.

That reason is gone with the RF versions both have a ~5 stop IS. OK the f/4 is claiming a 1/2 stop better IS, and it's got 14mm rather than 15mm, but personally, I can't really see either as significant enough of a reason to have both. They both claim 7 stop IS when coupled with an IBIS body such as the R5 or R6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danfaz

Ian K

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2016
83
65
So things that this lens has better than the EF equivalent:

Weight : 540g vs 615g (12.2% lighter)
IS : 5.5 stops vs 4 (37.5% better)
Size: 84mm x 100mm vs 82.6mm x 112.8mm (very slightly fatter and 11% shorter) and more if mounted on a R body as you would need an adapter
Focus: Nano USM vs Ring USM (which has proved to be quieter and faster focusing on all other lenses it's been used on)
Closest focus: 20cm vs 28cm (28% less)
Max magnification: 0.38x vs 0.23x (65% more)
Widest focus: 14mm vs 16mm (12.5% wider)

That's not an insignificant list, the RF is better in every category apart from diameter where is it 0.16% wider.

Is it worth the extra money, I don't know, I can't answer that for you.
 

allanP

Contax/leftover Canon and a shift to medium format
Jan 3, 2014
61
41
The average of your "better, lighter, wider" is 27.7%
16-35 f4 costs € 915 in online photo shops
14-35 f4 will cost € 1819
915€ vs 1819€ (prices in Germany). Also 27,7% ?
It's fun, of course, but with a bitter aftertaste.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noncho and pzyber

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
441
546
Nobody asked for the extra 2mm or the IS, especially cause R5/R6 has IBIS. Canon adding features just to increase the price. While it's nice to have 14mm, probably more people would have been happy with a 16-35 F4 without IS but very good optically at 450g, and under $1500.
While I see where you are coming from, I am actually very excited about this lens' new features. I currently have the RF 15-35mm 2.8, and cannot wait to "downgrade" to this lens. I would not have considered doing so if this lens didn't go to 14mm and didn't have IS.
In addition to the 14mm, I am really excited about this lens' close focusing distance and extra magnification. Those are going to be really fun for me to use, and I am very excited about a lens that is half a pound lighter than what I currently own.

Now, where I completely agree about Canon adding features to increase the price is on the upcoming RF 100mm macro, where we have new options to make the subject and background out-of-focus through the SA control. Since I don't ever deliberately take soft photos of my macro subjects, this feature is completely useless to me and can only serve to make the lens larger/heavier/more expensive with no benefit to me.

While I wish the 14-35mm was being offered at a more competitive price, I still plan on adding it to my kit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larsskv and danfaz