Canon RF 14-35 f/4L just reviewed by TDP

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,201
1,521

Well, the lens is not as ideal as I hoped for (barrel distortion at the wide end, less than ideal sharpness at the long end, color fringing, focus breathing, not parfocal), but I'm buying it anyway.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,049
4,613
Was on the fence regarding using an adapted EF 16-35/4L vs. swapping that for the RF 14-35. Seems that Bryan finds that there's no significant IQ advantages to the RF lens, although there are trade-offs as expected (personally, I'd choose the additional vignetting of the EF over the additional geometric distortion of the RF lens).

If I had typically brought the 16-35 for travel, I would be more tempted to swap it for the RF. But I generally travel with a standard zoom (the RF 24-105/4L is ideal for that), 1-2 TS-E lenses (17/24) and the 11-24/4L.

Given that, I'm going to stick with the EF 16-35/4, at least for the foreseeable future.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
Was on the fence regarding using an adapted EF 16-35/4L vs. swapping that for the RF 14-35. Seems that Bryan finds that there's no significant IQ advantages to the RF lens, although there are trade-offs as expected (personally, I'd choose the additional vignetting of the EF over the additional geometric distortion of the RF lens).

If I had typically brought the 16-35 for travel, I would be more tempted to swap it for the RF. But I generally travel with a standard zoom (the RF 24-105/4L is ideal for that), 1-2 TS-E lenses (17/24) and the 11-24/4L.

Given that, I'm going to stick with the EF 16-35/4, at least for the foreseeable future.
You will need room for the RF 100-500mm from now on.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,049
4,613
You will need room for the RF 100-500mm from now on.
Actually, most of my travel is to urban locations for scientific meetings where I mainly shoot architecture (in the late evenings, which is the best time for it and also falls after the day's sessions), so I generally don't bring anything longer than a standard zoom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
Actually, most of my travel is to urban locations for scientific meetings where I mainly shoot architecture (in the late evenings, which is the best time for it and also falls after the day's sessions), so I generally don't bring anything longer than a standard zoom.
I know, but I am trying to convert you.
 

Flamingtree

EOS M6 Mark II
Dec 13, 2015
65
69
My wallet is very happy that this lens isn’t spectacular. My ef 16-35 f4 will stay with me for the foreseeable future.

Plus it allows me to focus my desires on the 100-500.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,335
442
Was on the fence regarding using an adapted EF 16-35/4L vs. swapping that for the RF 14-35. Seems that Bryan finds that there's no significant IQ advantages to the RF lens, although there are trade-offs as expected (personally, I'd choose the additional vignetting of the EF over the additional geometric distortion of the RF lens).

If I had typically brought the 16-35 for travel, I would be more tempted to swap it for the RF. But I generally travel with a standard zoom (the RF 24-105/4L is ideal for that), 1-2 TS-E lenses (17/24) and the 11-24/4L.

Given that, I'm going to stick with the EF 16-35/4, at least for the foreseeable future.

I'm surprised by the paragraph saying the barrel distortion is bad enough for Canon to correct it in both camera & DPP, regardless of settings to leave it uncorrected. Its one thing to rely on corrections for a superzoom, and another for an L lens.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,201
1,521
I'm surprised by the paragraph saying the barrel distortion is bad enough for Canon to correct it in both camera & DPP, regardless of settings to leave it uncorrected. Its one thing to rely on corrections for a superzoom, and another for an L lens.
If the alternative is the same kind of correction made with glass (which naturally leads to light falloff and reduced resolution in the corners, but also to increased weight and cost), then digital correction may be preferable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin and gruhl28

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
If the alternative is the same kind of correction made with glass (which naturally leads to light falloff and reduced resolution in the corners, but also to increased weight and cost), then digital correction may be preferable.
Quite true. It's one of the slower developments in the transition from film to digital.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
175
63
I'm surprised by the paragraph saying the barrel distortion is bad enough for Canon to correct it in both camera & DPP, regardless of settings to leave it uncorrected. Its one thing to rely on corrections for a superzoom, and another for an L lens.
Surprising perhaps, but if the end result is outstanding corner performance, what difference does it make if that was achieved just with glass or with distortion correction?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,049
4,613
I'm surprised by the paragraph saying the barrel distortion is bad enough for Canon to correct it in both camera & DPP, regardless of settings to leave it uncorrected. Its one thing to rely on corrections for a superzoom, and another for an L lens.
I missed that in the review, but if I were using this (or any lens where Canon applies a default geometric correction that cannot be disabled), I would certainly not use DPP (not that I do anyway, except when a camera is too new to be supported by DxO PhotoLab).

There are occasions when the standard geometric distortion corrections give undesirable results (usually when there are people close to the edge of the frame of a barrel-distorted image – correcting the geometric distortion actually accentuates the volume anamorphosis), and for those I apply less geometric distortion correction and use DxO's volumetric distortion correction tools to 'correct' the subjects in the image.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,335
442
Of course, as well as the SNR in the corners. My point is that correcting the distortion by adding more glass to the lens hardware does not necessarily bring better results than correcting the distortion in software.
In the sense that it is possible to take an optical formula and change it so it would, say, have more distortion? Sounds about right.

The RF 14-35mm f/4L is $600, or >50%, more expensive than the EF 16-35mm f/4L. Making it slightly smaller & lighter (78 grams, like three packs of cigarettes) doesn't sound like good news for Canon's bottom line.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
175
63
I missed that in the review, but if I were using this (or any lens where Canon applies a default geometric correction that cannot be disabled), I would certainly not use DPP (not that I do anyway, except when a camera is too new to be supported by DxO PhotoLab).

There are occasions when the standard geometric distortion corrections give undesirable results (usually when there are people close to the edge of the frame of a barrel-distorted image – correcting the geometric distortion actually accentuates the volume anamorphosis), and for those I apply less geometric distortion correction and use DxO's volumetric distortion correction tools to 'correct' the subjects in the image.
Interesting point
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,176
882
Davidson, NC
I really like EF 16-35 f/4 for travel shots, but now it just stays home. The RF24-105, RF100-500 and a TC are the only lenses I take with me.
Traveling, I don’t feel the need for long lenses. Maybe if I were doing safaris or hoping to catch exotic birds in flight that would be different. I take my G5X II, which has equivalent 24-120mm zoom. If I miss anything, it is having something wide enough for scenic vistas or cramped interiors. Then I will shoot to do stitching back home. If I took my DSLR along, I would definitely have the EF 16-35mm f/4, too. Zoomed out, the G can open to f/1.8, and even zoomed in is f/2.8, so the little camera still has advantages in dark interiors.
 

bhf3737

---
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
674
1,567
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
Traveling, I don’t feel the need for long lenses. Maybe if I were doing safaris or hoping to catch exotic birds in flight that would be different. I take my G5X II, which has equivalent 24-120mm zoom. If I miss anything, it is having something wide enough for scenic vistas or cramped interiors. Then I will shoot to do stitching back home. If I took my DSLR along, I would definitely have the EF 16-35mm f/4, too. Zoomed out, the G can open to f/1.8, and even zoomed in is f/2.8, so the little camera still has advantages in dark interiors.
Thanks for the insight. I think travel to me means taking pict of family, urban landscapes, and usually a brief refuge to where birds, insects and other local wild life could be found. RF100-500 can help with the latter cases. In the past I used to take EF70-300 for that.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,919
1,859
Thanks for the insight. I think travel to me means taking pict of family, urban landscapes, and usually a brief refuge to where birds, insects and other local wild life could be found. RF100-500 can help with the latter cases. In the past I used to take EF70-300 for that.
The RF100-500 has a much, much better magnification ratio than the EF70-300II. I used the 70-300 for flowers and insect and it was always a bit underwhelming, either needing a heavy crop or being not as sharp as I wanted. The 100-500 doesn't disappoint.

On vacation last week I brought the M6II +11-22,22 and 32m as well as the R5+100-500mm. That worked out very well, except for the first day when I didn't bring the R5 and a buzzard sat 4 meters away from us. On the upside, I now have a BIF picture taken with the EF-M 32mm :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhf3737