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

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
504
500
www.diossiphotography.com
This will be a day one purchase for me. I’ve been tempted to just suck it up and buy the RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS USM and sell my EF version…but I also think that buying the f/2.8L was one of my biggest regrets in my camera bag. I very VERY seldomly use or need an ultra-wide lens to shoot at f/2.8…and there is some crazy vignetting on the EF and even worse on the RF.

I hope this is the lens I’ve been waiting for. If it comes in at under $1200 I might even keep my EF version just for some work in low light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stochasticmotions

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
836
696
www.flickr.com
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.
sure... I use round 6/10 stop ND and CPL Hoya filters and a cokin filter mount for my 3 stop grad NDs (soft and hard). Cheap and cheerful and built up over many years and has served me well. It is getting to the end of its useful life so will be replaced by an integrated system at some point in the near future. The new system will use step up rings for 77mm/82mm etc. Hard to decide between Nisi V6 starter kit plus and Haida M10 professional kit with pros and cons for each. Both 100mm systems have vignetting wider than 16mm.
Note that I would only use a CPL @16mm for waterfalls as wide angle sky shots with CPL is always tricky
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

JohnC

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
173
188
Gainesville,GA
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.
Likewise. For gnd or nd use it they great. Although, I ultimately switched over to breakthrough filters and love them. The point remains the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974
This is the first RF lens that I might buy, while the lenses that Canon has put out so far are likely great none of them give me anything I don't already have with the EF versions. I don't really need larger aperture since I mostly use these wide angle lenses for landscapes. The extra 2 mm will likely mean I won't get one of the more expensive ultra wide zooms. Currently the 16-35 F/4 L is nearly always on one camera while the telephotos live on the other. Really looking forward to a 14-35. Now the wait for it to actually come out....
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

noms78

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 6, 2013
65
24
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.
i really hope the image quality of this 14-35 f4 is at least as good as the ef 16-35 f4.

a longer FL range usually means worse image quality (at the long end?). also, zooms are less sharp at the long end and for critical shots i prefer to use my 24-70 f4 @35 instead of the 16-35 @35.

I'm still waiting for the rf 24-70 f4. was never excited about that rf 24-105.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

shire_guy

I'm New Here
Apr 29, 2020
16
21
Sydney AUST
A RF14-35mm f4 could be my first RF lens and as a very tempting replacement for my EF16-35mm f4, provided the weight and size were at least equivalent or less. Hopefully the price will be reasonable in Australia, I don't see any harm in wishful thinking ;)
 

HMC11

Travel
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
43
36
i really hope the image quality of this 14-35 f4 is at least as good as the ef 16-35 f4.

a longer FL range usually means worse image quality (at the long end?). also, zooms are less sharp at the long end and for critical shots i prefer to use my 24-70 f4 @35 instead of the 16-35 @35.

I'm still waiting for the rf 24-70 f4. was never excited about that rf 24-105.
There is indeed a reasonably good chance that the 14-35 f4 would have equal or better IQ than the EF 16-35 f4. Based on what I have read/seen and the two RF lenses that I actually owned, the IQ of the RF lenses matches or betters the EF counterparts. In some cases, the IQ improvements alone do not justify spending the money on the RF lens if one already owns the EF version. In others, such as the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4, the IQ difference probably justifies replacing the EF versions. Other factors, such as weight, length, would be considerations as well. Given that I mostly shoot outdoors during the day, and that I don't have the 16-35 f4, the 14-35 f4 would be a clear 'buy' once the supply settles and, hopefully, the price drops.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
413
269
Australia
Screw on 82mm filters would be nice. I'm guessing easily as much as Sony's 12-24 f/4 G, but $1200 would be nice surprise. Still using my 16-35 f/4L IS on my A7RIII, very nice lens. It would take something special to make me swap it and that certainly isn't the 15-35 f/2.8.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,688
1,560
And I recently bought the Samyang 14mm RF AF.
I'll see how many pennies I have left after I get the RF 100mm macro.
I hope we'll get word on availability on the RF100L soon, if it is delayed after the main macro season here (late september) I'd rather get the Laowa probe lens or the RF2x extender this summer and save up to get the 100L next spring.
 

sulla

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2012
344
132
Austria
www.flickr.com
What a nice lens. Up to now I have 2.8 zooms and a couple of 1.4 primes, but I guess in future I'll rather go with the smaller and lighter f/4 zooms and a few 1.2 primes, rather. The newer bodies handle high ISO-noise even better, and with IBIS the f/4 zooms should be no issue.
 

Andy Westwood

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 10, 2016
154
237
UK
I would also be interested in this lens, the old EF version weighs in at 615g vs 790g for the EF 2.8 version III and 840g for the RF 2.8 I guess the IS of the EF f4 and RF 2.8 adds grams.

It would be nice is Canon could keep the weight to around 500g for the new RF f4 whilst maintaining its durability, but as always this might be asking a little too much of Canon especially as the lens is slightly wider and will have IS

A few grams don’t seem much but when you’re holding the body and lens combo all day they are soon felt as is the case with the excellent RF 24-70 2.8
 
Aug 7, 2018
253
199
My favourite wide angle lens is the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC. It is very big and heavy, has IS and is a stop wider than f/4. I am not sure if 1mm more wide angle is better than one stop of more light, because the corners already get streched a lot at 15mm. Even 17mm is critical indoors.
 

Etienne

EOS R
Sep 19, 2010
1,472
278
Ottawa Ontario
The ultra ultrawide is a niche specialty lens. What I'd like is a compact 18-28 f/2.8 IS (or f/4).
This could be made quite small and light and covers the basic wide to ultrawide range.
Combined with a smallish RF 50mm f/1.4 IS and the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS would make the perfect do everything kit in a reasonable sized package.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,688
1,560
I would also be interested in this lens, the old EF version weighs in at 615g vs 790g for the EF 2.8 version III and 840g for the RF 2.8 I guess the IS of the EF f4 and RF 2.8 adds grams.

It would be nice is Canon could keep the weight to around 500g for the new RF f4 whilst maintaining its durability, but as always this might be asking a little too much of Canon especially as the lens is slightly wider and will have IS

A few grams don’t seem much but when you’re holding the body and lens combo all day they are soon felt as is the case with the excellent RF 24-70 2.8
Don't forget that the EF-RF adapter adds 110grams to those EF lenses when used on an RF body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reisi007

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,088
3,050
This must be a other vendor.
The original Canon weights 149g. Or is mine "broken" ?
The original Canon specs are 110 g for the basic adapter, 130 g for the control ring adapter, and 121 g for the drop-in filter version. So perhaps yours has a rock inside it or something.
 

chasingrealness

RF = Requires Funding
Feb 24, 2020
105
135
Queens, NY
www.chasingrealness.com
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 :)
The only problem with the Tamron lens is the build quality. The filter thread is really brittle. That said, I love mine and the image quality is phenomenal for what it costs. And the weight? Feels like carrying extra air in the camera bag.
 

Traveler

EOS R
Oct 6, 2019
94
122
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.
Nikon's Z 14-24 f/2.8 has a 112 mm filter thread whereas the Canon's RF 15-35 f/2.8 one is 82 mm. I know there's 1 mm difference but... there is still some hope. Canon got 1 mm wider from EF to RF but still kept the filter thread size.