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

[David - Sydney]

The price of this lens is why we need Nikon, Sony, Tamron, Sigma and other companies to release competitive products that will force Canon to reduce the prices. Competition is a good thing.

Aren't Nikon and Sony already providing competing products?
Canon is in business to make money. They don't have to be the cheapest if their overall system is better (whether technically or in people's minds) as long as they sell their target sales volume. That seems to be already happening for them and their market share is still going well. Good margins means continued investment in R&D for new products.

Tamron and Sigma have no RF lenses but have EF lenses. Samyang's removal of their RF lenses could be ominous to the future of 3rd party RF lenses (see 3rd party lenses for RF menu to the left).

Canon never had to reduce their own lens pricing because of 3rd party lenses. I get that you want the RF lenses but don't want to pay the asking price. New EF or second hand EF are great value in comparison. My EF16-35mm/4 works great on R5 and is good value for money! I will keep using it.

 

[privatebydesign]

The price of this lens is why we need Nikon, Sony, Tamron, Sigma and other companies to release competitive products that will force Canon to reduce the prices. Competition is a good thing.

The two are not necessarily linked, if Canon offer an intangible ‘value’ they can continue to charge what they are. Think Leica, there are other camera manufacturers making similarly styled and capable image capturing devices yet they can’t charge Leica money.

 

[Berowne]

Perhaps the 1800€ = double the price of the EF 16-35/4 will prepare us for the 8000€ or more the R3 will cost.

 

[Kit.]

2nd rf trinity lens. the 24-105 is a kit lens

I'd prefer this one as a kit lens. F/4 "trinity" is overrated anyway. If you have this lens and a 100-500 (or 100-400 II), what would you need any other f/4 lens for?

(except for 600/4, of course)

 

[stefang]

While I agree that the price is steeper than I would like, I'm surprised at how many folks are directly comparing it to the EF 16-35 f/4. This is not an equivalent lens. Did you really think that extra 2mm at the wide end wouldn't raise the price considerably?

Well, with the shorter flange distance, it should be easier to develop ultra wide lenses, so it's not that weird to think that ultra lenses are cheaper to make for RF than it was for EF.

 

[mb66energy]

Perhaps the 1800€ = double the price of the EF 16-35/4 will prepare us for the 8000€ or more the R3 will cost.

Looking at the price for RF 4.0 70 200 in US compared to Germany:
1600 USD -> 1800 EUR
I see a little bit more for the RF 4.0 14-35:
1700 USD -> 1900 or 1950 EUR

Hopefully you are right EDIT: YOU ARE RIGHT: 1819 EUR from a German seller!

 

[Kit.]

Hopefully you are right EDIT: YOU ARE RIGHT: 1819 EUR from a German seller!

Delivery date 26.08.2021 in major German photo stores. A bit late, I'd say.

 

[AlanF]

The two are not necessarily linked, if Canon offer an intangible ‘value’ they can continue to charge what they are. Think Leica, there are other camera manufacturers making similarly styled and capable image capturing devices yet they can’t charge Leica money.

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.

 

[addola]

It's priced higher than the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 ($1699 vs $1099), but it has a smaller filter (77mm vs 82mm).

 

[blackcoffee17]

I think Canon got some confidence after seeing the good sales of the R5/R6 and now thinks it can asks a bit more. Disappointed about the price. Nikon Z looks better and better every day.

I also probably would have preferred to be a 15/16-35mm and without IS for an even smaller/lighter lens.

 

[dilbert]

RF 14-35, does one wait for the 24-70/f4 or have Canon abandoned that for 24-105/f4? What's missing right now is the "f/4 L" zoom that goes beyond 200mm. With both the 14-35 and 24-105 being relatively small, I don't want a monster 100-400 in my bag. A shorter, lighter 70-300 would be nice if that were possible.

With no competition from Sigma or Tamron, maybe Canon are deciding to squeeze the market for all they can get out of it while they can. Your credit card balance will be theirs.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Well, with the shorter flange distance, it should be easier to develop ultra wide lenses, so it's not that weird to think that ultra lenses are cheaper to make for RF than it was for EF.

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.

 

[lawny13]

The $1700 pricing is indeed an issue.

To me at least pricing is also a matter of comparisons.

At B&H the EF 16-35 can be had for $1100

The RF 15-35 f2.8 is about 0.5 lb heavier and can be had for $2300. Though the 14-35 gains 1 mm on the side end, it is 2x slower than the 15-35. It makes it difficult to choose the 14-35 to save money rather than go for the faster 15-35 when the price difference is in fact not that big. Not to mention it would be cheaper to go for the EF 16-35 and just glue on an adapter permanently.

Not sure what canon is thinking. 1500 for example would have been understandable for that 1 extra mm. But 1700... wow. Cause here in the EU, it will cost 1819 euros

 

[neuroanatomist]

What's missing right now is the "f/4 L" zoom that goes beyond 200mm. With both the 14-35 and 24-105 being relatively small, I don't want a monster 100-400 in my bag. A shorter, lighter 70-300 would be nice if that were possible.

A 70-300/4 won’t be short or light, that’s physics. The EF 70-300 L is f/4-5.6.

The RF 70-200 lenses are short, one trade off is no TCs (else the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x would have given an f/4 zoom beyond 200mm).

 

[stefang]

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.

I must admit that I didn't ask Canon for it, but I find the RF 14-35 F/4 IS a very attractive lens.
I would never buy an RF 16-35 F/4 non-IS for more than $1000, since there's already an EF 16-35 F/4 IS for that price.

 

[BBarn]

I consider IS very beneficial on an ultra-wide lens. From what I've read, IS works far better than IBIS on wide lenses (several stops vs. about 2 stops).

 

[tron]

I consider IS very beneficial on an ultra-wide lens. From what I've read, IS works far better than IBIS on wide lenses (several stops vs. about 2 stops).

+1 Plus not all people have R5 and R6. I see no reason why R and RP owners to not benefit from IS.

 

[muentzer]

I consider IS very beneficial on an ultra-wide lens. From what I've read, IS works far better than IBIS on wide lenses (several stops vs. about 2 stops).

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.

 

[dilbert]

I must admit that I didn't ask Canon for it, but I find the RF 14-35 F/4 IS a very attractive lens.
I would never buy an RF 16-35 F/4 non-IS for more than $1000, since there's already an EF 16-35 F/4 IS for that price.

What people are saying is that a cheaper and less wide lens would be preferable to this - something around the same price as the 24-105/f4L.

Seems like lots of people would rather it be a RF 16-35/f4L for $1299.

 

[Czardoom]

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.

I believe that Canon added features because they understand that if they just offered the exact same lens (16-35mm f/4) in RF, they would sell far fewer of the RF version since; a) most photographers looking for this sort of lens probably already have the EF version and will just keep it and use it with an adapter, and b) if they don't already have a wide angle lens, the EF lens can be purchased used for far less. Yes, many folks on this forum feel the need to replace their EF lenses and have the newest RF lenses, but I doubt very much that the majority of photographers feel the same way. That extra 2mm will be the reason that some folks buy this lens. Without it, the vast majority of 16-35 f/4 owners will have no reason to replace that lens as it is considered one of Canon's best EF lenses. That's why Canbon added features, not to increase the price, in my opinion, anyway.