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

Traveler

EOS R
Oct 6, 2019
94
122
I'm gonna be hated but I'd like to see an equivalent to the EF-S 10-22 for APSC. I don't mind f/7.1 or anything like that as long as is compact and has reasonable optical quality (yes, the EF-S one was garbage in terms of IQ).
 
  • Like
Reactions: reisi007 and i_SH

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,053
3,011
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.
The 28-70/2 takes 95mm filters, perhaps they’ll match that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stig Nygaard
Oct 31, 2020
149
164
I'm gonna be hated but I'd like to see an equivalent to the EF-S 10-22 for APSC. I don't mind f/7.1 or anything like that as long as is compact and has reasonable optical quality (yes, the EF-S one was garbage in terms of IQ).
If Canon comes up with an APS-C RF Camera (not in an R7 style) I think a RF-S 10-22mm should be a given.
My first wide angle lense was the EF-S 10-18mm, I think for many beginners that's where you start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stig Nygaard

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
166
35
Berlin
www.flickr.com
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.
Specs are one thing (lens weight is always without caps or tripod collar), but I checked it with my kitchen scale, which is precise.
The Meike adapter weights 111g - yes...
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,687
1,556
Specs are one thing (lens weight is always without caps or tripod collar), but I checked it with my kitchen scale, which is precise.
The Meike adapter weights 111g - yes...
The canon ones weight 109.91g according to my kitchen scale :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,053
3,011
Specs are one thing (lens weight is always without caps or tripod collar), but I checked it with my kitchen scale, which is precise.
The Meike adapter weights 111g - yes...
Your kitchen scale may be precise, but evidently it's not accurate. You know the difference between precision and accuracy – yes...?

Screen Shot 2021-06-21 at 10.35.48 AM.png
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,125
1,461
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.
Assuming Canon's usual naming scheme, the mount diameter of the 14-35 lens hood will be 83mm. It's highly unlikely that Canon would be able or willing to fit a 82mm threaded filter inside it (especially as they could just increase the lens hood diameter instead).
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,053
3,011
You're right, an EW-83 hood means the lens won't take 82mm filters, it actually suggests rather strongly that the RF 14-35/4 will take 77mm filters. That's great in one way (convenience), but makes be a bit concerned about the optical compromises necessary to make that happen (e.g. wicked vignetting wide open at 14mm).
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,053
3,011
And you know the difference between cap and no cap? ;-)

The Canon 111g without, 149g with.

Don't forget that the EF-RF adapter adds 110grams to those EF lenses when used on an RF body.
The original statement was, "...the EF-RF adapter adds 110grams to those EF lenses when used on an RF body."

You do understand that adapters, when used on an RF body, are used without the caps, right? Kinda hard to mount the lens to the adapter or the adapter to the body with the caps on the adapter.

So you do understand that when one is considering the extra weight added by using the adapter to mount an EF lens to an RF body, it's the weight of the adapter, without the caps, that is the relevant measurement?

Geez, I really didn't think anyone could be that daft. I was wrong about that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bseitz234

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
166
35
Berlin
www.flickr.com
The original statement was, "...the EF-RF adapter adds 110grams to those EF lenses when used on an RF body."

You do understand that adapters, when used on an RF body, are used without the caps, right? Kinda hard to mount the lens to the adapter or the adapter to the body with the caps on the adapter.

So you do understand that when one is considering the extra weight added by using the adapter to mount an EF lens to an RF body, it's the weight of the adapter, without the caps, that is the relevant measurement?

Geez, I really didn't think anyone could be that daft. I was wrong about that.
So you must be the one, who carry only one lens and the body alone. The bag industry is a whole scam, nobody need them really.

If you have to switch - even with all other RF native lens and only one EF lens, you carry the caps, I am sure about that.
And arrogance is never a good feature.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,053
3,011
So you must be the one, who carry only one lens and the body alone. The bag industry is a whole scam, nobody need them really.

If you have to switch - even with all other RF native lens and only one EF lens, you carry the caps, I am sure about that.
And arrogance is never a good feature.
Nice job doubling down on your ridiculous line of reasoning. The statement to which you responded was about using the adapter, not about carrying it around. In use, the weight of the adapter is 110g. Like many people on this forum, you apparently lack the ability to admit you are wrong. I find that to be pathetic.

Personally, I'm not concerned about an extra 39g or even an extra 149g in my camera bag where the weight is on my shoulders or waist. An extra 110g on the camera+lens in my hands is a different matter, although in fact it would be less about the weight of the adapter itself and more about the adapter putting the center of mass for the camera+lens further distal, which has ergonomic consequences (that's why I prefer 1-series bodies, or the new EOS R3 – yes they are heavier but most of my lenses are pretty heavy and the heavy body balances the load and actually makes them easier to handle for long shooting sessions).

Regardless, including the caps for the in-use weight of a lens or adapter is asinine, because they are not on the lens or adapter when it is being used to take pictures. Including the lens hood (and tripod collar, if available) in the in-use weight makes sense. But the EF-EOS R adapter has neither.

But I suppose it's possible you use your caps in a way that their weight is relevant to an in-use measurement. Maybe you really like things that dangle? :ROFLMAO:

Screen Shot 2021-06-21 at 11.36.48 AM.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC
Oct 31, 2020
149
164
Assuming Canon's usual naming scheme, the mount diameter of the 14-35 lens hood will be 83mm. It's highly unlikely that Canon would be able or willing to fit a 82mm threaded filter inside it (especially as they could just increase the lens hood diameter instead).
The name of the lense hood is directly linked to the size of the filter thread. The RF 24-105mm F4 L lense hoods name is EW-83N (at least in Germany) at the filter size is still 77mm.

There is noooo way Canon will introduce a new 83mm thread. Almost all filter systems rely on either 77mm or 82mm filter sizes and Canon would loose many customers to other camera manufacturers because most people would not be willing to buy a lense with RF markup and having afford a new filter system... needless to say, many landscape photographers use filters regularly.

Having a 14mm UWA zoom and being able to use regular filters will be one of the most attractive selling points!!! No way, their giving that away.

I can imagine Canon using a 82mm thread, but I believe it will be a 77mm. Usually, 82mm is for F2.8 lenses, 77mm for F4 lenses. Furthermore, I think Canon would rather have limited the lense to 15mm or 16mm than to change the filter thread.

Last but not least: Canon managed to "stretch" the already amazing EF 100-400mm into a RF 100-500mm with nearly the same size and same filter thread. They'll work their "magic" again by widening the F4 UWA by 2mm and keeping the filter thread at 77mm
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,053
3,011
So much text for so much about careless and about rightness.
And again flame war. Do you really need that to prove yourself?
Pathetic, indeed.
Obviously just admitting you were wrong and moving on is something of which you are incapable. Sad.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,053
3,011
The name of the lense hood is directly linked to the size of the filter thread. The RF 24-105mm F4 L lense hoods name is EW-83N (at least in Germany) at the filter size is still 77mm.
The number in the lens hood designation refers to the diameter of the attachment mount of the hood itself. Only in a few select cases is that the same diameter as the filter thread (mainly the 'pancake' lenses where the hood is threaded instead of a bayonet mount, and the hood replicates the filter threads at the front).

For bayonet mount hoods, it's the norm for the diameter to be several millimeters larger than the filter threads. Sometimes, it's not enough larger for convenience – for example, the ET-83C on the original 100-400L really didn't leave enough room to get a hand in and turn a CPL, which is why Canon's ET-83D hood for the 100-400 II has a 'window' to adjust a CPL.

Agree that based on the hood designation the RF 14-35/4 will use 77mm filters.
 
Oct 31, 2020
149
164
The number in the lens hood designation refers to the diameter of the attachment mount of the hood itself. Only in a few select cases is that the same diameter as the filter thread (mainly the 'pancake' lenses where the hood is threaded instead of a bayonet mount, and the hood replicates the filter threads at the front).

For bayonet mount hoods, it's the norm for the diameter to be several millimeters larger than the filter threads. Sometimes, it's not enough larger for convenience – for example, the ET-83C on the original 100-400L really didn't leave enough room to get a hand in and turn a CPL, which is why Canon's ET-83D hood for the 100-400 II has a 'window' to adjust a CPL.

Agree that based on the hood designation the RF 14-35/4 will use 77mm filters.
Thx for the explanation, now it's more clear to me what you mean. I think we're on the same page on this topic. .

Agree that based on the hood designation the RF 14-35/4 will use 77mm filters.
I agree as well. The 24-105mm. F4 with a "83" lense hood designation has a 77mm filter thread.

I am hoping for a 77mm filter thread because my lenses - whenever in stock - will all have a 77mm thread except the 35mm F1.8, which I rarely use with filters.