Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM one of the “crazy” lenses coming next year [CR1]

[Hector1970]

I have the 11-24 F4 and the Sigma 14mm 1.8
A 14-21 1.4 would need to be better than a 14mm 1.8 to justify its existence. There are very few other uses I can think for it (perhaps boxing or other martial arts in a ring where light is poor). For landscapes I can’t see a regular use for 1.4 (as a tripod should be with you).
The 11-24 is so heavy and wide it’s an awkward lens to travel with and front filters need a complicated and expensive solution. The bulbous glass makes me nervous. While I like the lens I rarely use it.
The Sigma 14mm 1.8 is more specialist but great for Astro and Aurora.
Let’s see if it comes to the market.

Better than 14mm 1.8 at Astro I mean.

 

[miketcool]

Fix the wretched coma aberration and this will be my astro setup.

 

[miketcool]

FYI this lens is perfect for video work as on the 4K crop it becomes a very fast 24mm-35mm. That’s exactly why this lens is in development.

 

[Andy Westwood]

Wow that's a mega lens and 1.4 however I would gladly settle for the RF 12 - 20 F2 and hoping it will be relatively compact with the short zoom range of just 8mm. Fingers crossed we won’t need to wait too long for these lenses to appear.

 

[crazyrunner33]

If the 28-70 is a $2999 lens, gotta imagine this would approach low-level super-tele prices. $3499 or $3999?

You're probably right. It could be even higher than that given that there's no glass that can compete with it. Canon knows that people who need that specialty lens will cough up the coin for it, or rent it.

 

[Viggo]

I’m so not in the market for this, but it just opens up for a lot of crazy lenses, like the 28-70 and IQ of the RF50. I’m loving every minute of it. And a 14-21 f1.4 is shockingly cool

 

[David - Sydney]

Coma, coma, coma!

 

[Phoenix 1000]

When it comes to lenses, they are one of the most innovative company. It isn't likeare others aren't either like Sigma and Nikon making 105 1.4, Sigma/Sony 135 1.8, Sigma 14mm 1.8, Sigma 14-24 2.8.

It's the camera that a lot of photographers are throwing this shade at. Canon still do not IBIS, good eyeAF, dual card slot, recycled 5D IV 2 year old sensor, limited FPS, 4K options while being more expensive than the competitions. They are behind the competition in a lot of areas.

I have only 5 lenses including a trinity lenses and fast telephoto prime lens. I have no problem taking trinity lenses from any manufacturers. Lenses are so good nowadays that it isn't the weakest link. It's the camera area where Canon is not innovating enough.

I love the sensor of my Canon 5D Mark IV. Don't no, what's wrong with it?

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

By the way, which company does IBIS that would work with my TS-E 17 when it's shifted?

I don't own a body with IBIS but I've read a number of threads discussing Canon tilt shift lenses on Sony bodies with IBIS and I've never heard that the IBIS doesn't work. Use cases for shifting a 17 and hand-holding might be limited but I can't visualize any reason why it wouldn't work. What do you think the problem would be? Geometric distortion from shifting the sensor?

 

[slclick]

I love the sensor of my Canon 5D Mark IV. Don't no, what's wrong with it?

Recycled 2 year old, oh that's rich. Hardly in the same category as the 18MP sensor usage era. Just rubbish (not the sensor, it's fantastic)

 

[dba101]

Canon still do not IBIS, good eyeAF, dual card slot, recycled 5D IV 2 year old sensor, limited FPS, 4K options while being more expensive than the competitions. They are behind the competition in a lot of areas.

If I had a dollar for everytime you've said that, I would defo buy this lens.

 

[Ozarker]

If the 28-70 is a $2999 lens, gotta imagine this would approach low-level super-tele prices. $3499 or $3999?

$7,777.77 USD

 

[amorse]

Oh boy. This one's going to hurt. A lens like that could convince me to really explore RF cameras. I never thought that patent would see the light of day.

 

[Ozarker]

If I had a dollar for everytime you've said that, I would defo buy this lens.

IBIS: Not the big deal people make it out to be. Silly people.

 

[Ozarker]

It's all a lie. Canon doesn't innovate. Canon is doomed. Now I'm going to need a lot more money. In my opinion: 1. Photographer's skill. (Composition,exposure and lighting). 2. Lens choice. 10. Camera body

 

[Michael Clark]

OK, here's the patent: http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20180314060

It looks like the front element is 86.215mm across.

The current 16-35/2.8 III is 88.5mm outside diameter, while the current 11-28/4 is 108mm wide.

It's possible this lens wouldn't be more significantly bigger than that.

Don't you mean EF 11-24mm f/4 L? Or was there an RF 11-28mm f/4 L announcement I missed?

Cost?
Most likely in the $1,500 range.

More like 2.5X that. Look at the EF 11-24mm f/4 at $2,700 ($2,900 - $200 instant rebate) or the RF 28-70mm f/2 L at $3,000.

By the way, which company does IBIS that would work with my TS-E 17 when it's shifted?

By the way, who needs IBIS at all when one has enough sense to use a tripod for certain applications?

 

[tron]

Maybe judge the lens when it's actually available and tested? Judging a Rumour or vapourware is just mental.
At the moment it's a rumour and a patent. Not much else.

Not judging. It would make a super lens. Just commenting on the practical issues: Price which will be huge and timing: Sigma is very close, exists now and has really good IQ.

 

[slclick]

Fix the wretched coma aberration and this will be my astro setup.

How does a CR1 have ANY characteristics?

 

[slclick]

IBIS: Not the big deal people make it out to be. Silly people.

I sure didn't like it on my Oly. Nothing special. IS blows it out of the water.

 

[miketcool]

How does a CR1 have ANY characteristics?

Canon’s fast and wide lenses all suffer from coma aberration. A few of the engineers I’ve spoken to claim that they will solve this in upcoming lenses. I hope it’s solved for this one.