Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM to be one of the next lenses announced
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
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.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
He posted that when the thread was erroneously about a 16-35, before CRguy fixed his typo.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
He was questioning why I wanted the lens to stop at 30 instead of going to 35, which I have now answered above.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
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.
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
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.
I do get what you mean now, but I still doubt there'd be a noticeable difference with the 14-35mm in any way.
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.
Upvote
0
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 
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
