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

Ian K

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2016
83
65
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.
Except, obviously, you are comparing an old lens that has been in the discount zone for quite a while, with a brand new lens at full suggested retail price.

List is actually £1099 :)
 

another_mikey

EOS M50
CR Pro
Feb 17, 2015
25
82
I have an excellently performing EF 16-35 F/4 L IS. However, I pre-ordered the RF 14-35 F/4 L IS as soon as it was announced. The only way I won't keep it is if it underperforms at similar settings with my EF lens. I am ready to do away with the adapter, and I want to have a full RF kit (this would give me 14mm to 500mm inclusive, with this lens and the RF 24-105 L and RF 100-500 L I already own). After that the only lenses to add for me would be a dedicated nightscape lens (first RF mount 14mm at F/2 or faster from any reasonable manufacturer will get my money) and maybe the new RF 100mm L macro, since I never sprang for the EF version. Since I shoot primarily scenic, with a little nightscape and wildlife thrown in I think that will give me a very nice kit paired up with the R5 for a long time, and should outperform my 5DsR setup I used for years (EF 16-35 L, EF 24-105 L, EF 70-300 L) in about every way. I am very glad for the extra 2mm and the IS - would not have considered the lens without the IS and appreciate the extra 2mm on the wide end. All that is left is to see how it performs, but I expect it to at least match the existing excellent 16-35.

ML
 

jeanluc

EOS RP
Oct 29, 2012
224
130
I have an excellently performing EF 16-35 F/4 L IS. However, I pre-ordered the RF 14-35 F/4 L IS as soon as it was announced. The only way I won't keep it is if it underperforms at similar settings with my EF lens. I am ready to do away with the adapter, and I want to have a full RF kit (this would give me 14mm to 500mm inclusive, with this lens and the RF 24-105 L and RF 100-500 L I already own). After that the only lenses to add for me would be a dedicated nightscape lens (first RF mount 14mm at F/2 or faster from any reasonable manufacturer will get my money) and maybe the new RF 100mm L macro, since I never sprang for the EF version. Since I shoot primarily scenic, with a little nightscape and wildlife thrown in I think that will give me a very nice kit paired up with the R5 for a long time, and should outperform my 5DsR setup I used for years (EF 16-35 L, EF 24-105 L, EF 70-300 L) in about every way. I am very glad for the extra 2mm and the IS - would not have considered the lens without the IS and appreciate the extra 2mm on the wide end. All that is left is to see how it performs, but I expect it to at least match the existing excellent 16-35.

ML
I had that 70-300L also….sold it to go all RF, but it was hard to do. A very sharp, portable and well made lens. Hope an RF version is released sometime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron and pj1974

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,409
2,271
I have an excellently performing EF 16-35 F/4 L IS. However, I pre-ordered the RF 14-35 F/4 L IS as soon as it was announced. The only way I won't keep it is if it underperforms at similar settings with my EF lens. I am ready to do away with the adapter, and I want to have a full RF kit (this would give me 14mm to 500mm inclusive, with this lens and the RF 24-105 L and RF 100-500 L I already own). After that the only lenses to add for me would be a dedicated nightscape lens (first RF mount 14mm at F/2 or faster from any reasonable manufacturer will get my money) and maybe the new RF 100mm L macro, since I never sprang for the EF version. Since I shoot primarily scenic, with a little nightscape and wildlife thrown in I think that will give me a very nice kit paired up with the R5 for a long time, and should outperform my 5DsR setup I used for years (EF 16-35 L, EF 24-105 L, EF 70-300 L) in about every way. I am very glad for the extra 2mm and the IS - would not have considered the lens without the IS and appreciate the extra 2mm on the wide end. All that is left is to see how it performs, but I expect it to at least match the existing excellent 16-35.

ML

You must really, really hate dealing with that adapter!

What about just leaving it on the lens?

I ended up "parking" an adapter on my 100-400 II (which will not go natively onto any camera I own other than my bolted-to-the-copy-stand Rebel, and it'd certainly be of no use there!) but I do end up having to remove it when I want to put that lens on my M6-II.

I do have the 24-105 f/4.0 and the 15-35 f/2.8 in RF, but my remaining full frame lenses are still EF and will probably remain so (cheapass primes plus one really cheap 75-300 kit lens that I was shocked to discover was full frame) save for my 100mm macro, which IS on my bolted-to-the-copy-stand Rebel).
 

HenryL

EOS R5
CR Pro
Apr 1, 2020
274
676
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.
No. Just no. Below are the lenses for which I've purchased an RF equivalent (had most of the EF lenses at one point, all but the 50 & 85mm primes actually). There is one huge anomaly, the 50 f/1.2. All these lenses are more costly they the EF lens counterpart, but not nearly "consistently $600 or so). Just these 7 samples average to a roughly $300 bump. The RF premium may be real, but in most cases it's minimal, and on average still reasonable. To be clear, the number in parenthesis is the "RF Tax".

EF 16-35 f/2.8 III launched in 2016 @ $2199 ($100)
EF 24-70 f/2.8 II launched in 2012 @ $2099 ($200)
EF 70-200 f/2.8 III launched in 2018 @ $2099 ($200)

EF 50 f/1.2 launched in 2007 @ $1599 (700)
EF 85 f/1.2 II launched in 2006 @ $2199 (100)
EF 100 f/2.8 Macro IS launched in 2009 @ $1049 ($350)

EF 100-400 II launched in 2014 @ $2199 ($500)
 
Oct 31, 2020
166
183
I have an excellently performing EF 16-35 F/4 L IS. However, I pre-ordered the RF 14-35 F/4 L IS as soon as it was announced. The only way I won't keep it is if it underperforms at similar settings with my EF lens. I am ready to do away with the adapter, and I want to have a full RF kit (this would give me 14mm to 500mm inclusive, with this lens and the RF 24-105 L and RF 100-500 L I already own). After that the only lenses to add for me would be a dedicated nightscape lens (first RF mount 14mm at F/2 or faster from any reasonable manufacturer will get my money) and maybe the new RF 100mm L macro, since I never sprang for the EF version. Since I shoot primarily scenic, with a little nightscape and wildlife thrown in I think that will give me a very nice kit paired up with the R5 for a long time, and should outperform my 5DsR setup I used for years (EF 16-35 L, EF 24-105 L, EF 70-300 L) in about every way. I am very glad for the extra 2mm and the IS - would not have considered the lens without the IS and appreciate the extra 2mm on the wide end. All that is left is to see how it performs, but I expect it to at least match the existing excellent 16-35.

ML
I´m going for the exact same kit :) 14-500mm with three lenses is just awesome. Add another astro lense and Ive got all I want/ need
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaPhoto

Kiton

Too deep in Canon to list! :o
Jun 13, 2015
150
134
The pricing surprised me a bit. I guess going 2mm wider than its EF counterpart really does drive the cost up.
2 weeks ago I told my shop to order one for me as soon as they are announced.

I cancelled the order.

I want the smaller lighter f4, but jesus, this is over priced!
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
729
139
In Calgary, Canada, the Camera Store is taking preorders at 2249 CAD
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
Jan 28, 2015
5,627
4,037
Irving, Texas
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.
Just because you don't think the extra width is necessary, doesn't mean "nobody" else does. Asked for it? Obviously, Canon sees it differently. How in the world would you know? Adding features to increase the price... that's surprising? That's generally how things work in the world. If I want Shelby or Saleen... I pay more.
 
Last edited:

UpstateNYPhotog

EOS M50
Jun 3, 2021
41
33
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?!).
Agree the EF versions are excellent and using them with the adapter on a mirrorless really brings out how good they are as it gets rid of any focus accuracy issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,959
1,315
The latest use of Canon mirrorless with an EF lens was my R5 with the EF500mm f/4L IS II and EF2XIII.
The result was awesome constrained only a few times by the time of day and place used (due to heat waves).
So I see no reason to spend thousands upon thousands of Euros for a future upgrade of that lens for example.

P.S I had used that combo with my 5DsR in the past (with equally good results) but R5 was the new "toy" I had to play with :)
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,959
1,315
Or the 2x TC and one goes (nearly) gapless to 1.000mm :)
It is not gapless no matter which of the 2 RF teleconverters are used. If you put a teleconverter to 100-500 the minimum focal length that you have to set the lens in order to physically accept the teleconverter is 300mm.
 
Last edited:

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
292
653
No. Just no. Below are the lenses for which I've purchased an RF equivalent (had most of the EF lenses at one point, all but the 50 & 85mm primes actually). There is one huge anomaly, the 50 f/1.2. All these lenses are more costly they the EF lens counterpart, but not nearly "consistently $600 or so). Just these 7 samples average to a roughly $300 bump. The RF premium may be real, but in most cases it's minimal, and on average still reasonable. To be clear, the number in parenthesis is the "RF Tax".

EF 16-35 f/2.8 III launched in 2016 @ $2199 ($100)
EF 24-70 f/2.8 II launched in 2012 @ $2099 ($200)
EF 70-200 f/2.8 III launched in 2018 @ $2099 ($200)

EF 50 f/1.2 launched in 2007 @ $1599 (700)
EF 85 f/1.2 II launched in 2006 @ $2199 (100)
EF 100 f/2.8 Macro IS launched in 2009 @ $1049 ($350)

EF 100-400 II launched in 2014 @ $2199 ($500)
Still not sure why people can't understand that this lens (as well as the RF 100-500, for example) are not a direct equivalent replacement. You are going from 16 to 14 on the wide end. The 100-500 gained 100mm on the long end. Notice that it also has a large price differential compared to the 100-400.

In other words, it is a new, different lens. Yes, certainly expensive in the eyes of most (personally not considering it) but it is not an equivalent replacement for any Canon EF lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HenryL

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
914
274
Still not sure why people can't understand that this lens (as well as the RF 100-500, for example) are not a direct equivalent replacement. You are going from 16 to 14 on the wide end. The 100-500 gained 100mm on the long end. Notice that it also has a large price differential compared to the 100-400.

In other words, it is a new, different lens. Yes, certainly expensive in the eyes of most (personally not considering it) but it is not an equivalent replacement for any Canon EF lens.
Yes, the 14-35 is a little different from the 16-35, but I think most people would consider them essentially interchangeable in their kits, which is why people talk about the 14-35 as a replacement for the 16-35. I can't imagine too many people keeping both in their kits. I certainly see the 14-35 as just the 16-35 evolving to its next version, not something fundamentally different, and therefore as an update of and replacement for the 16-35.

I feel the same about the EF 100-400L II and the RF 100-500L.

Progress inevitably has a price, but Canon is certainly putting a very high price on it if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tron

BBarn

EOS M50
Nov 2, 2020
46
29
Perhaps Canon set the price point about right. Enough people hesitant to buy such that they can match demand.