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

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,571
3,893
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
The leaked hood designation for the 14-35/4 is an EW-83 hood. That means the bayonet mount is 83mm in diameter. The filter must be several millimeters smaller, i.e., a 77mm filter thread.

There no physical possibility of a 95mm front thread with an EW-83 filter, the hood couldn’t fit. Nor is it at all likely that an 83mm hood mount would have a 1mm smaller diameter filter thread.

If the EW-83 leak is correct, the lens will either take only rear filters (unlikely) or have a 77mm thread (most probable).
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
767
www.flickr.com
The leaked hood designation for the 14-35/4 is an EW-83 hood. That means the bayonet mount is 83mm in diameter. The filter must be several millimeters smaller, i.e., a 77mm filter thread.

There no physical possibility of a 95mm front thread with an EW-83 filter, the hood couldn’t fit. Nor is it at all likely that an 83mm hood mount would have a 1mm smaller diameter filter thread.

If the EW-83 leak is correct, the lens will either take only rear filters (unlikely) or have a 77mm thread (most probable).
I didn't realise that the hood size had been leaked. I agree with the comment regarding 95/82mm thread if the leak is correct.
A 83mm hood seems surprising for a 14mm wide lens unless it is bulbous (no threaded filter) and/or has a lot of vignetting with a 77mm filter.
 

HMC11

Travel
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
50
45
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.
I am unlikely to say anything new that you have not already thought of, but perhaps having an 'observer' point out some factors could be useful. Here are some of my thoughts.

(a) Price. Assuming that the launch price of the 14-35 F4 follows a similar price ratio, say, between the 70-200 F2.8 & F4, then the 14-35 F4 would come in about $1399. Thus, buying the 14-35 F4 plus, say, a Samyang AF 14 F2.8 RF ($629) would still work out to be about $300 cheaper than buying the 15-35F F2.8 ($2299). All estimates based on launch prices so it could obviously be different with discounts etc. Overall, I would say there is not a whole lot of difference between getting the 15-35 F2.8 vs F4 plus a wide prime.

(b) Weight (only considering the lenses, without caps :)). Assuming that the weight of the 14-35 F4 comes in at about 700g, then the overall weight difference would be about 600g between F4+prime an F2.8. This could be significant. However, it depends very much on use case, ie. whether there is a need to have both lenses at the same time. My sense is that if I am doing 80% landscape vs 20% astro, then I would get 2 lenses. For the 20% of the time where I need to carry two lenses, it makes sense to be able to have a lighter weight in carrying only the F4 for the other 80%. If is it anything from 50% to below, then the F2.8 makes sense. Between 20-80 and 45-55 would then be debatable. One scenario is that if a car is involved in getting to places, then having 2 lenses would still work, so this is somewhat an area when one would have to decide what works best.

(c) IQ: this is highly debatable. I would probably prefer a fast prime for astro, assuming that coma etc are well controlled (the samyang seems very good, but I would probably wait for an RF wide angle lens. Perhaps the 16mm would work). Also, with the good low light performance of the R5/6, perhaps 14-35 F4 might be 'good' enough for me, as the 1 stop difference could be well compensated.

Happy deciding. That's part of the fun :).
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,152
1,495
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.
I don't think vignetting with a 77mm filter on an f/4 lens at 14mm is such an unsolvable problem. Laowa 14mm f/4 FF RL uses 52mm filters (lol).

There is no technical need for Canon to stick to the EW-83 hood diameter for a 14mm lens if Canon thinks it cannot control vignetting for a 77mm filter.
 

Traveler

EOS R
Oct 6, 2019
101
133
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.
I'd prefer if Canon chose FF-only path. Why bother with APSC when they can design same "quality" lenses for FF. It would be much easier for photographers to switch from beginner equipment to higher end. Switching from apsc to FF is a long-term pain for many photographers.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
130
131
The leaked hood designation for the 14-35/4 is an EW-83 hood. That means the bayonet mount is 83mm in diameter. The filter must be several millimeters smaller, i.e., a 77mm filter thread.

There no physical possibility of a 95mm front thread with an EW-83 filter, the hood couldn’t fit. Nor is it at all likely that an 83mm hood mount would have a 1mm smaller diameter filter thread.

If the EW-83 leak is correct, the lens will either take only rear filters (unlikely) or have a 77mm thread (most probable).
The RF70-200 f2.8 is a 77mm filter and 83 hood.
 

mccasi

EOS M50
Oct 24, 2019
41
60
this lens will be an essential for many use cases, I'm sure.
But I'm still sad as it seems the fabled 14-24 or 14-21 F2.0L seems much further out.
Night sky photographers have to wait some much longer it seems.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
251
228
UK
The EOS M line continues to sell very, very well.
Despite that fact, I can't help wondering if they'll phase them out, as an APS-C in RF mount seems to be forthcoming, and would be a more efficient way of getting people into the Canon system and keeping them there. I suspect an awful lot of birders etc would jump at an RF APS-C, as it would save them a lot of cost and weight in lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,571
3,893
Despite that fact, I can't help wondering if they'll phase them out, as an APS-C in RF mount seems to be forthcoming, and would be a more efficient way of getting people into the Canon system and keeping them there.
Not until there’s an APS-C EOS R plus standard zoom lens kit that sells for $600-700. Don’t hold your breath.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
251
228
UK
Not until there’s an APS-C EOS R plus standard zoom lens kit that sells for $600-700. Don’t hold your breath.
Well I think we can expect Canon to drastically undercut the price of the RP when they bring in a FF model beneath it, so the APS with kit lens could be doable for $800 as a loss leader to get novices into the RF system. But the more highly specified potential "birder's" model I referred to above would of course be double that cost.
 

BBarn

EOS M50
Nov 2, 2020
47
29
The large diameter mount of RF lenses doesn't strike me as good platform for crop frame cameras. Most FF zoom lenses are a clumsy on crop frame cameras, and the RF mount is excessively large for crop frame lenses. I guess I simply don't see a good path to incorporate RF lenses into a crop platform with a desirable path into FF later.

When I recently bought into a FF platform, I even switched brands since the crop frame lenses I owned were a poor match for FF even though they were adaptable.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,571
3,893
Well I think we can expect Canon to drastically undercut the price of the RP when they bring in a FF model beneath it, so the APS with kit lens could be doable for $800 as a loss leader to get novices into the RF system. But the more highly specified potential "birder's" model I referred to above would of course be double that cost.
But then why not just keep the EOS M line, which is the best-selling MILC in Japan and among the best-sellers globally, if not the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
251
228
UK
But then why not just keep the EOS M line, which is the best-selling MILC in Japan and among the best-sellers globally, if not the best.
Because it uses a different mount, and its lenses can't be adapted to use on RF cameras. Far better IMO to slowly phase out the M series, and introduce a couple of RF mount APS bodies - one a cheap starter for novices, the other a sports/wildlife model.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
251
228
UK
Because it uses a different mount, and its lenses can't be adapted to use on RF cameras. M series is basically a dead-end system for people who will probably only buy one extra lens as well as the kit lens. Far better IMO to slowly phase out the M series, and introduce a couple of RF mount APS bodies - one a cheap starter for novices, the other a sports/wildlife model.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,571
3,893
Because it uses a different mount, and its lenses can't be adapted to use on RF cameras. Far better IMO to slowly phase out the M series, and introduce a couple of RF mount APS bodies - one a cheap starter for novices, the other a sports/wildlife model.
Far better for you, maybe. Canon cares about profit, not about you. For the Nth time, Canon has ample data about the APS-C to FF upgrade behaviors of their customers. Recall that EF-S lenses can’t be adapted to work on FF cameras. With all those data, they chose to make EF-M and RF incompatible. Clearly they didn’t think your suggestion was ‘far better’ or they would have implemented it.

Do keep in mind that the vast majority of APS-C buyers never buy another lens than the 1-2 that came with the camera. It seems reasonable that for those relative few upgrading to FF, having to switch out lenses is not a significant barrier (and just means more profit for Canon).
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
Well I think we can expect Canon to drastically undercut the price of the RP when they bring in a FF model beneath it, so the APS with kit lens could be doable for $800 as a loss leader to get novices into the RF system. But the more highly specified potential "birder's" model I referred to above would of course be double that cost.
Hmm, me thinks you don't know Canon. They have never done high volume 'loss leaders' the loss leaders have been super exotic headline lenses like the 50 f1.0 and the 200 f1.8. Don't forget for years the Rebels and entry level kits were the cash cows of the camera industry and very few people who purchase entry level kits buy anything else.