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

[entoman]

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.

Yes, Canon is bouncing back with fantastic new bodies and exciting new lenses. They've realised that photography has changed - people who bought Powershots and budget DSLRs are now more likely to buy high end smartphones, while advanced users seem willing to pay extra in order to get the best-specified and highest quality gear available.

But they still need to get newcomers into the system, so more budget lenses and budget MILCs will undoubtedly be forthcoming.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But they still need to get newcomers into the system, so more budget lenses and budget MILCs will undoubtedly be forthcoming.

The EOS M line continues to sell very, very well.

 

[JPAZ]

This lens looks tempting but I'll pass. My reasons? I sold my EF 14 f/2.8 II and my EF 16-35 f/4 then got the RF 15-35 f/2.8. Even though the lens listed in this topic might be lighter than the 15-35, the lens I got replaced two and does not need an adapter so the weight reduction in my bag is significant. Plus, the RF 15-35 f/2.8 can accommodate an circular filter (I have some 82mm filters from other lenses already). I really do not need to go to 14mm for what I shoot. And, at 15mm, lens coma actually seems better than the 14mm I sold.

I think if I was looking for a wide lens as an initial purchase, I might go with this to complete a triad of f/4 lenses (70-200, 24-105, and 14-35) but, for me, my choice made sense.

 

[davidcl0nel]

Obviously just admitting you were wrong and moving on is something of which you are incapable. Sad.

The bigger problem of the internet is, that you can show a behavior as an absolute dickhead and to think thats acceptable and a must to do to feel better. And to make fun of people. Normal people wouldn't react in normal life as you have shown here. Other readers can decide which is the bigger problem.

Can you read post 64 again? You read it and make this shitshow because there was all was I meant. No need to be a jack, or only if you choose to be it.

 

[Aaron D]

Good to see this one coming! No idea if I'll ever have reason to get one, but I hope so. And when that time comes I hope to be able to justify the 2.8 instead--we'll see.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The bigger problem of the internet is, that you can show a behavior as an absolute dickhead and to think thats acceptable and a must to do to feel better. And to make fun of people. Normal people wouldn't react in normal life as you have shown here. Other readers can decide which is the bigger problem.

Can you read post 64 again? You read it and make this shitshow because there was all was I meant. No need to be a jack, or only if you choose to be it.

Let me summarize:

koenkooi: "Using the EF-RF adapter adds 110g to an EF lens when used on an RF body."
you: "The Canon adapter weighs 149g."
me: "It weighs 110g."
you: "Well, you have to include the caps in the weight."
me: "The caps aren't on the adapter when it's being used to adapt an EF lens to an RF body."
you: "See post #64, where I say you have to include the caps in the weight, you dickhead."

By the way, I apologize for not answering your earlier question, "And you know the difference between cap and no cap? ;-)" The answer is yes, I do – a cap is something you put on the adapter when you are not using it.

So, you can either be mature and admit you were wrong, or continue being peurile. Your choice.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

This lens looks tempting but I'll pass. My reasons? I sold my EF 14 f/2.8 II and my EF 16-35 f/4 then got the RF 15-35 f/2.8. Even though the lens listed in this topic might be lighter than the 15-35, the lens I got replaced two and does not need an adapter so the weight reduction in my bag is significant. Plus, the RF 15-35 f/2.8 can accommodate an circular filter (I have some 82mm filters from other lenses already). I really do not need to go to 14mm for what I shoot. And, at 15mm, lens coma actually seems better than the 14mm I sold.

I think if I was looking for a wide lens as an initial purchase, I might go with this to complete a triad of f/4 lenses (70-200, 24-105, and 14-35) but, for me, my choice made sense.

For you it makes a lot of sense to use the F2.8 and yours reasons sound very plausible. I had actually decided to go with the RF 14-35mm F4, but now after I read your post, I'm torn/ tempted again to get the F2.8 instead.

Advantage F2.8:
- great Astro lense
- better for city nightscapes

Disadvantages F2.8:
- need to carry an adapter ring for filter thread
- possibly heavier
- "upgrade" is very expensive for little use...
- landscapes mostly shot in lower apertures --> F2.8 is overkill...

Advantage F4:
- probably lighter, smaller
- filter thread 77mm
- hopefully much cheaper
- 1mm wider

Disadvantage F4:
- low aperture for astro... (a tracker might help...)
- I might need another lense for astro... more weight when traveling

As mentioned, these are my personal pros and cons. If anybody would like to weigh in, please. Tips are always welcome especially if you're experienced in astro photography with these two apertures because that might be the decisive point for me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For you it makes a lot of sense to use the F2.8 and yours reasons sound very plausible. I had actually decided to go with the RF 14-35mm F4, but now after I read your post, I'm torn/ tempted again to get the F2.8 instead.

I had the EF 16-35/2.8 II, changed it for the EF 16-35/4 IS and have had no regrets. My need for anything faster than f/4 in an ultrawide is very rare, I don't do much astro (I do have the Samyang 14/2.8 for those rare occasions when I do).

The choice of f/2.8 vs. f/4 depends in part on the camera body – although a faster lens is always better for astro, the lower ISO noise in more recent bodies means using a higher ISO can give good results compared to older sensors.

The RF 15-35/2.8 is a bit remarkable among Canon lenses in it's relatively low coma and astigmatism, aberrations that are not well controlled in most Canon lenses. Maybe Canon is beginning to optimize for them in their designs now. A couple of the EF-M lenses have really low coma and astigmatism as well.

 

[Ozarker]

Your kitchen scale may be precise, but evidently it's not accurate. You know the difference between precision and accuracy – yes...?

View attachment 198479

Needs a N.I.S.T. traceable calibration to maintain forum integrity.

 

[xlksii]

So, you can either be mature and admit you were wrong, or continue being peurile. Your choice.

Or maybe you could pretend to be the mature guy and just drop the topic.

 

[Dantana]

This one is going on my list to replace my 17-40, while not a sexy lens, it has been a cost effective option for me and I have many pictures made with it that I am happy with. I’d love something that’s not too far off it’s size with the adapter and an improvement in image quality, at least in the corners.

I can only speak for my wants and needs, but a 77mm filter would be welcome, an 82 would not be a deal breaker. I would rather have 35 than 30 on the long end, as many times when I am traveling, I choose a lens for the day (or half day) and stick with that. Most of my shooting opportunities happen when I am traveling with my wife rather than on dedicated shooting trips, so I tend to try and not bring a ton of gear to an outing. I’d rather have the extra 5mm, but that’s my preference.

My only fear with this lens is that it will be quite a bit more expensive than mentioned in previous posts. I hope I’m wrong. I may have to wait until it’s been out long enough for the refurbs to show up though.

 

[stevelee]

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).

I don’t recall any problems with IQ of the pictures I took with mine. I haven’t used it in over 3 years, and I certainly haven’t taken comparison shots between it and my 16-35mm f/4 on full frame, but I don’t recall any dissatisfaction with it.

 

[BBarn]

Really looking forward to this lens. Really want an RF ultrawide to replace my EF 17-40. Would have bought the RF 15-35 were it not for price, size and weight. Hoping this new RF 14-35 comes in below the price/size/weight of the RF 15-35 since it's F/4 (I don't need f/2.8).

 

[jeanluc]

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.

I have the RF 15-35. It is very, very sharp. No real difference between it and the EF 16-35LIII except the IS and obviously it’s wider. I would have no problem recommending it. If you ever do any night/Milky Way etc the 2.8 makes a big did. I plan to get this one also, as it will be smaller and the extra mm on the wide end will be nice.

 

[JohnC]

I have the RF 15-35. It is very, very sharp. No real difference between it and the EF 16-35LIII except the IS and obviously it’s wider. I would have no problem recommending it. If you ever do any night/Milky Way etc the 2.8 makes a big did. I plan to get this one also, as it will be smaller and the extra mm on the wide end will be nice.

I agree. It gives my zeiss 15 a run for its money. It isn’t quite there but it is VERY good.

 

[David - Sydney]

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 hood mount diameter for the 14-35mm lens can't be 83mm as the filter thread would have to be at least 82mm.

Both the RF15-35mm and the EF16-35mm/2.8 have a 82mm filter thread. If the front lens is bulbous then the filter systems become custom as the mount is on (generally) fixed hood. I assume that the hood for a 14-35mm lens will mount in a similar way as the EF-88F hood but have wider petals.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Both the RF15-35mm and the EF16-35mm/2.8 have a 82mm filter thread. 82mm is the standard size after 77mm. No filters (to my knowledge) use a 83mm thread. If the front lens is bulbous then the filter systems become custom as the mount is on (generally) fixed hood. I assume that the hood for a 14-35mm lens will mount in a similar way as the EF-88F hood but have wider petals.

The point is Canon won’t use a filter thread that’s 1mm smaller than the hood mount dismeter, which likely means the 14-35/4 will take 77mm filters (like the RF 24-105/4 and RF 70-200/4).

But you have a good point that the lens may not take a front filter. But that’s unlikely (for example, Nikon’s 14-30/4 takes 82mm filters).

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

Yes, the Z 14-24mm/2.8 uses a massive 112mm thread into the hood (when used) or rear gels due to the bulbous front lens. Compared to the AFS 14-24mm/2.8 which can't accept filters at all except custom systems that mount to the outside of the hood. It actually comes with 2 hoods for filter or not which is remarkable! The cost of 112mm filters - especially from Nikon is very expensive

 

[Kit.]

Both the RF15-35mm and the EF16-35mm/2.8 have a 82mm filter thread. 82mm is the standard size after 77mm. No filters (to my knowledge) use a 83mm thread.

Where did you read about "a 83mm thread"?

Canon lenses with 88mm hood bayonets use 82mm filter threads.
Canon lenses with 83mm hood bayonets use 77mm filter threads.

If the front lens is bulbous then the filter systems become custom as the mount is on (generally) fixed hood. I assume that the hood for a 14-35mm lens will mount in a similar way as the EF-88F hood but have wider petals.

I assume that the EW-83P hood will mount "in a similar way as" the other EW-83* hoods, but have wider petals.

 

[David - Sydney]

Where did you read about "a 83mm thread"?

Canon lenses with 88mm hood bayonets use 82mm filter threads.
Canon lenses with 83mm hood bayonets use 77mm filter threads.

​

Agreed for the 83mm thread comment. I have edited the original post
The filter thread (if one is included with the RF14-35mm lens) will be a minimum of 82mm if the RF15-35mm/2.8 is used as an example.

David - Sydney said:

​

If the front lens is bulbous then the filter systems become custom as the mount is on (generally) fixed hood. I assume that the hood for a 14-35mm lens will mount in a similar way as the EF-88F hood but have wider petals.​

I assume that the EW-83P hood will mount "in a similar way as" the other EW-83* hoods, but have wider petals.

I didn't mention the EF-83 hood. The EW-88F hood on the RF15-35mm only goes to 15mm so if the RF14-35mm lens has a 82mm filter thread and hence needing a 88mm hood then the petals would need to be wider to suit 14mm.
I think that it is wishful thinking that the RF14-35mm will have a 82mm thread. The next step is 95mm filters which are a lot more expensive than 82mm