Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM to be one of the next lenses announced

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
235
338
Kenosha, WI
I don't get it... You're seriously disappointed that Canon has 5mm extra reach on a UWA 14-xx F4 zoom? Don't really get the reason your thought of train.
Yes, because I'd rather some other optimization be made...either IQ, or overall size/weight, or filter thread size, or some combination thereof. Just like how people buy 24-85 or even 24-70 over 24-105 for a variety of reasons. If I'm shooting the 35mm focal length, I'm either shooting a prime or a zoom that starts at 24mm.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,820
4,255
I don't get it... You're seriously disappointed that Canon has 5mm extra reach on a UWA 14-xx F4 zoom? Don't really get the reason your thought of train.
He posted that when the thread was erroneously about a 16-35, before CRguy fixed his typo.
 

JohnC

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
212
226
Gainesville,GA
While I have the 15-35 I would be tempted the pick this lens up as well if the size and weight are attractive. I think it would be great for long hikes/backing or travel where you are size and weight restricted. The 15-35 is great, but it is big and heavy.
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
235
338
Kenosha, WI
Your explanation makes no sense to me. I can see preferring a 14-30 over a 16-35, I can’t see choosing a 14-30 over a 14-35 with the same max aperture.
Again, for the same reasons people often prefer 24-85 over 24-105. More range isn't superior if it adds size, weight, makes the filter thread larger, and/or lowers the IQ. Even at 30mm there's crossover with a 24 - 105, in a range where that type of lens is almost always very good. I'd even rather have a 11 - 24 or 12 - 24, if it took filters in the front.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,820
4,255
Again, for the same reasons people often prefer 24-85 over 24-105. More range isn't superior if it adds size, weight, makes the filter thread larger, and/or lowers the IQ. Even at 30mm there's crossover with a 24 - 105, in a range where that type of lens is almost always very good. I'd even rather have a 11 - 24 or 12 - 24, if it took filters in the front.
Given the optical design of UWA zooms, the extra 5mm on the long end is unlikely to do any of those to a meaningful degree.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,820
4,255
I'm not sure about this lens. The 16-35 F4 is my go to lens for about 90% of my photography.
The extra 2mm on the wide end is sort of nice - but I'm really concerned about the ability to mount filters over the front. It that is not possible, then I'll stick with the 16-35 EF
At f/4, it will take front filters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t.linn
Oct 31, 2020
182
214
Yes, because I'd rather some other optimization be made...either IQ, or overall size/weight, or filter thread size, or some combination thereof.
If they keep the filter thread size at 77mm, that's perfect imho. We - me too - always wish for smaller size/ weight, but as far as I know/ learned, leaving out 5mm of range doesn't necessarily mean it would be smaller from an engineering point of view.

Just like how people buy 24-85 or even 24-70 over 24-105 for a variety of reasons.
I do get what you mean now, but I still doubt there'd be a noticeable difference with the 14-35mm in any way.


I'd even rather have a 11 - 24 or 12 - 24, if it took filters in the front.
That would be a dream! But I don't know of any UWA zoom wider than 14mm that takes regular filters. I doubt that the upcoming RF 10-24mm F4 will have a filter thread.
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
289
203
This will be unpopular on this thread... But I'm probably just going to stick with the Tamron 17-35 28-4.0. It's most likely still going to be lighter, and that 2.8 on the wide end has gotten more use from me than the extra 3mm (I probably wouldn't say this if I didn't also have the older EF 11-24 4.0 that I can use when 17 really isn't enough.) I still think this Tamron is underrated by purists :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: chasingrealness

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
235
338
Kenosha, WI
Given the optical design of UWA zooms, the extra 5mm on the long end is unlikely to do any of those to a meaningful degree.
I guess we'll see. Nikon's Z 14 - 30 f/4 is about the same length as Canon's EF 16 - 35 f/4, and most of Canon's RF lenses has been more complex designs that end up bigger than the EF counterparts, not smaller.
 

Traveler

EOS R6
Oct 6, 2019
118
152
This was the lens I was hoping for. If it’s 77 mm filter thread and is lighter/smaller than EF 16-35 then I’m buying it for sure. And of course if the price isn’t anything crazy
 
  • Like
Reactions: t.linn

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,820
4,255
I guess we'll see. Nikon's Z 14 - 30 f/4 is about the same length as Canon's EF 16 - 35 f/4, and most of Canon's RF lenses has been more complex designs that end up bigger than the EF counterparts, not smaller.
Yes, we’ll see. But the degree to which Canon has chosen to correct the aberrations at the wide end will be what mainly determines the relative size and weight, rather than the addition of 5mm at the long end.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
357
378
UK
Well I had the misfortune to have my 16-35mm F4 stolen a couple of months back. I'm glad I waited a while before replacing it, because this 14-35mm F4 will not only be a bit wider, but will also probably be even sharper. And if it sells for around £1200, I'll be reaching for my wallet. Canon are producing some really interesting lenses for RF - I'm also quite tempted by the 800mm F11, but what I'd really like is an RF version of the 180mm macro, with OIS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reisi007

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
943
790
www.flickr.com
Your explanation makes no sense to me. I can see preferring a 14-30 over a 16-35, I can’t see choosing a 14-30 over a 14-35 with the same max aperture.
I use the longer end for underwater shooting at times... 14mm underwater would be used as often for me unless I was shooting whales and I would probably use my 8-15mm in that case. Tonga would be a very special tip for me - sigh.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
943
790
www.flickr.com
Ha, I just wrote out a whole comment to refresh and see 14-35.

This sounds like an excellent lens that will make my life more difficult, since now I could swap my EF lens to get even wider. It's really a question between the 15-35 or the 14-35, of whether I want the wider aperture or wider lens.

Had it been another 16-35, I would have had no real incentive to swap my EF version which has always worked great for me.
My EF16-35mm/4 is my most used lens overall for landscape/seascape/underwater. Filter thread for landscape/seascape would be an issue for me if not 77mm though. To get a replacement filter setup (6/10 stop ND, 3 stop grad ND, CPL) to handle multiple thread sizes would cost about USD900. I may do this in the future but not in my current budget plans
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
943
790
www.flickr.com
I guess we'll see. Nikon's Z 14 - 30 f/4 is about the same length as Canon's EF 16 - 35 f/4, and most of Canon's RF lenses has been more complex designs that end up bigger than the EF counterparts, not smaller.
I wouldn't migrate from EF->RF if it was still 16-35mm.

The Z14-30/4 has a 82mm filter thread. I can't see Canon being able to go to 14mm without increasing the thread to 82mm as well.
The replacement would be very interesting for me. I would need to replace my filter set and the standard replacement filters would be heavily vignetted at 14mm. 150mm filters would probably be needed at a big price increase over 100mm sets.

Canon seems to be differentiating their RF lenses by bringing something extra to the table each time to tempt buyers to migrate besides AF speed and stabilisation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reisi007 and HMC11

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
736
1,438
To get a replacement filter setup (6/10 stop ND, 3 stop grad ND, CPL) to handle multiple thread sizes would cost about USD900. I may do this in the future but not in my current budget plans

I know we each have our own preferences, but this was definitely one of my favorite reasons for investing in the Lee 100mm filter system, it costs maybe $50 to adapt my filters to a different filter thread. That said, I know this also doesn't apply to all filter types.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC