Canon RF 14mm F/1.4 – Is it the Astrophography Dream Lens for RF?

[mimbu]

Yipp, I don't like it too, but most people stick to their brand (and usually Canon knows best how the market works).

Brand loyalty has never made much sense to me, but it does seem to be an affliction that many people suffer from.

I have the impression that Sony is more popular for younger users, so that Canon might get problems in the future.

I'm in my 50s and have used most major mounts at one time or another over the last 30 years, and some minor ones too. These days it's Sony but when Panasonic finally gets their AF issues resolved (right now they have about A7III levels of AF, as in 2018-level tech) I would seriously consider buying an L mount camera. Their IBIS is unmatched for video, it really is impressive.

But I also see that the new(er) 3rd party lenses - from China - are relatively good for their low price, but they can only offer MF lenses for the RF mount or AF for the EF mount with adapter. If these 3rd party lenses would be available with AF for the RF mount, that would probably hurt Canons financial results a bit (and they still recover from the smartphone competition).

Canon has always hated 3rd party glass. Back in the days when Sigma and Tamron used to reverse engineer mount protocols, Canon would break compatibility with every new camera release. Canon's shenanigans (and to a lesser extent Nikon's) are why Sigma went down the road of releasing a USB dock and having lens firmware updates. Prior to that a lens with broken compatibility would have to be sent back to Sigma for a chip swap. Very annoying, and of course eventually lenses would no longer be supported and would just stop working on most cameras.

Well, the lack of lenses for the RF mount is a severe issue!

Over time Canon will release more RF glass, but the Canon tax will always be high and the selection will never be as good as it would be with 3rd party glass in the mix. Lenses like the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8. Amazing lens. Will Canon release something like that? Probably not. Or the Sigma 135/1.4 or 200/2. Both are good astro lenses that will never come to RF. New Sigma 105mm should come sometime soonish and since they already have a 135/1.4 I personally think they might do something crazy and bring out a 105/1.2. Of course that will never come to RF either. Then there are lenses like the Sigma 300-600/4 or the almost unbelievably small 500/5.6. Or the all in one 20-200 lens which is surprisingly good for a superzoom. None of that will come to RF either.

And of course that does not touch what Viltrox is doing which is awesome itself. Their PRO and LAB glass is really top tier. Their first EVO lens (85/2) punches so far above it's price class that it feels almost criminal. Then the tiny AIR series like the 14/4 that I paid only $159 for. It's no astro lens, but it is very good wide open and lets me play with a crazy-wide lens for what is essentially pocket money.

Plus their are other Chinese companies like TT Artisans that have very cool little lenses like their 75/2 that comes on sale for $160 at times. I've taken some incredible photos with that lens. $160!

And for cool macro, T/S (at half the price of Canon or less!), and STF glass there is Laowa. I own several of their lenses too. Oh, and we shouldn't forget the Laowa AF 10/2.8 or AF 12/2.8 primes, either, nor their recent AF 200/2 release. A 200/2 for under $2k?? And that's not even a sale price! Really wild.

And China is only just getting started. This year we will start to see AF zoom lenses from them, and camera bodies (probably L mount) are not all that far behind.

 

[roby17269]

Brand loyalty has never made much sense to me, but it does seem to be an affliction that many people suffer from.

To be fair, there are some advantages with staying with a brand. Switching may be expensive if one has a number of high quality lenses...

New Sigma 105mm should come sometime soonish and since they already have a 135/1.4 I personally think they might do something crazy and bring out a 105/1.2. Of course that will never come to RF either. Then there are lenses like the Sigma 300-600/4 or the almost unbelievably small 500/5.6. Or the all in one 20-200 lens which is surprisingly good for a superzoom. None of that will come to RF either.

Please don't say that a 105/1.2 might be the thing that pushes me over to the dark side, together with the 135/1.4, the 200/2 and the near-mythical 35/1.2. This would be a disaster for my wallet, especially since all the money I have donated to Hasselblad

 

[Malm]

ick on the rain! where are you?

The Vixen is interesting! do you get enough precision with that? how long of exposures can you take?

Oh, I'm living in the rain capital of Europe: Bergen at the Norwegian Westcoast. Very nice scenery with challenging weather.

Concerning the Vixen: I never really tested the precision as I use it only for 30-sec wide-angle panoramas with a 35mm lens as the Vixen is relatively light, so well suitable for hiking trips. I want to have >= 4 images for stacking to remove the usual satellite trails by sigma clipping. 30 sec is often a good compromise between the total exposure time of the panorama and a decent exposure of the individual 'lights'.

 

[Malm]

....

And for cool macro, T/S (at half the price of Canon or less!), and STF glass there is Laowa. I own several of their lenses too. Oh, and we shouldn't forget the Laowa AF 10/2.8 or AF 12/2.8 primes, either, nor their recent AF 200/2 release. A 200/2 for under $2k?? And that's not even a sale price! Really wild.

.....

Yipp!
I just tested the Pergear 14/2,8 (same lens construction as Tartisan 14/2.8) for night photography and that lens is OK: Slightly more coma than the Samyang XP / Rokinon SP 14/2.4, the chromatic aberration is well under control, the quality control is OK but not perfect ( similar to the Samyang XP lenses which have sometimes decentering issues), the weight is low (500 g), the lens is really cheap but the vignette is a little bit high (probably due to the small and hence cheaper front lens). Imagine that they start to produce better quality lenses ......

I also went for the Laowa TS 17/4 which I use mostly for startrails as I don't like the strong distortion when pointing the camera to the stars. Well, that is not a cheap lens any more, but at the edge of what I'm willing to pay for such a special lens.

 

[mimbu]

To be fair, there are some advantages with staying with a brand. Switching may be expensive if one has a number of high quality lenses...

I think the key is to buy the new body along with whatever your "next lens" purchase was going to be. Then slowly switch over. It takes time. There's nothing wrong with owning two systems, especially if you segment the use cases somewhat. I've owned 3 or 4 different systems at the same time in the past. It keeps life interesting.

Please don't say that a 105/1.2 might be the thing that pushes me over to the dark side, together with the 135/1.4, the 200/2 and the near-mythical 35/1.2. This would be a disaster for my wallet, especially since all the money I have donated to Hasselblad

There are no rumors of a 105/2, but Sigma pretty clearly wants to keep doing things to elevate themselves above the Chinese makers, and they definitely want to be the go-to for astro glass. The 105/1.4 was a big deal when it came out and was a big (literally and figuratively) halo lens for Sigma at the time. Since they already have a 135/1.4, if they're going to bring out a 105 I think it will be faster. With that in mind, I'd be shocked if they weren't at least considering (and probably prototyping) a 105/1.2.

 

[scyrene]

Brand loyalty has never made much sense to me, but it does seem to be an affliction that many people suffer from.

On the other hand, people who swap brands or use more than one (and I imagine both are a minority) can overestimate how much brand loyalty there is. Speaking for myself, I have no loyalty but I do have inertia. My gear does most of what I want and any gripes or dissatisfaction aren't worth the hassle and expense of starting afresh. I suspect a lot of people are likewise in the middle.

 

[roby17269]

I think the key is to buy the new body along with whatever your "next lens" purchase was going to be. Then slowly switch over. It takes time. There's nothing wrong with owning two systems, especially if you segment the use cases somewhat. I've owned 3 or 4 different systems at the same time in the past. It keeps life interesting.

Still, given how spoilt I am changing systems is an expensive proposition. Just going through a migration Hasselblad H -> Hasselblad X and it is painful, financially . I do love the new toys
Counting pure ILC's (i.e. not drones, action cameras or phone cameras) I have 2 systems: FF 35mm (R5) and crop MF (X2D II 100c).
That's me sorted... more systems also means more types of accessories (batteries, memory cards, flashes, etc.) and, honestly, I do not shoot enough to justify more than I have....

There are no rumors of a 105/2, but Sigma pretty clearly wants to keep doing things to elevate themselves above the Chinese makers, and they definitely want to be the go-to for astro glass. The 105/1.4 was a big deal when it came out and was a big (literally and figuratively) halo lens for Sigma at the time. Since they already have a 135/1.4, if they're going to bring out a 105 I think it will be faster. With that in mind, I'd be shocked if they weren't at least considering (and probably prototyping) a 105/1.2.

I figured, but I was facetiously serious: with me being into portraiture / fashion and me loving more teles over wides, it means I'd be truly intrigued by a lens such as the 105/1.2... and given the other interesting Sigma lenses available for L mount and Sony... pity if I had to choose a mount from scratch right now it'd probably be Nikon but no FF Sigma for them too

 

[David - Sydney]

And Canon steadfastly refusing to allow 3rd party glass on to RF is why Canon is dead to me. It's too bad because if 3rd party glass was allowed, there is a reasonably high probability I would own an R5 II.

To be specific, RF allows 3rd party crop sensor lenses that have full access to Canon's AF/IBIS protocols.
I think that you are referring to FF lenses instead.

I believed that Canon should allow 3rd party FF lenses for niches that Canon wasn't interested in themselves. UWA prime was one that they weren't interested in for a very long time.
With the RF14/1.4 and RF7-15, they hit 2 of the missing niches in their lineup. Canon might not have cheap options but they have coverage in that sense.
There are still some missing niches though: TS-R, long/short and 5x macro, mid priced zoom telephotos, 300/4, completion of f2 trinity, etc

 

[David - Sydney]

Yipp, I don't like it too, but most people stick to their brand (and usually Canon knows best how the market works).

Canon have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders but not their customers. Keeping customers happy is wise though. As @scyrene says, inertia is a powerful motivator.

But I also see that the new(er) 3rd party lenses - from China - are relatively good for their low price, but they can only offer MF lenses for the RF mount or AF for the EF mount with adapter. If these 3rd party lenses would be available with AF for the RF mount, that would probably hurt Canons financial results a bit (and they still recover from the smartphone competition).

A manual 14/1.4 or 14/1.8 from a Chinese supplier with good performance would be an instant buy for me. Could be released on EF or RF mount and meet my needs.
I am yet to test my new AstrHori RF6/2.8 for milky way but I am happy with it for architecture.

Well, the lack of lenses for the RF mount is a severe issue!

Yes and no. Some customers complain loudly and some of that subset do something about it. It might shift the needle a little from a financial results perspective but isn't proving a massive issue for Canon (yet).

 

[David - Sydney]

Brand loyalty has never made much sense to me, but it does seem to be an affliction that many people suffer from.

It would cost me a lot to switch and I don't think that the competition is that much ahead of Canon. I've mentioned the cost of underwater housings for instance.
I had an opportunity to switch when R mount was released but my collection of EF L lenses stopped me. I have now done what Canon wanted me to do which is to switch to RF lenses over the last 5 years. Kudos to Canon for their engineering/marketing.

Over time Canon will release more RF glass, but the Canon tax will always be high and the selection will never be as good as it would be with 3rd party glass in the mix. Lenses like the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8. Amazing lens. Will Canon release something like that? Probably not. Or the Sigma 135/1.4 or 200/2. Both are good astro lenses that will never come to RF. New Sigma 105mm should come sometime soonish and since they already have a 135/1.4 I personally think they might do something crazy and bring out a 105/1.2. Of course that will never come to RF either. Then there are lenses like the Sigma 300-600/4 or the almost unbelievably small 500/5.6. Or the all in one 20-200 lens which is surprisingly good for a superzoom. None of that will come to RF either.

Sigma have a choice... they could release their current lenses in EF and use the older AF protocols but they haven't. A deliberate decision and different this time around. Sigma/Tamron don't want to annoy Canon and are happy to wait. There might be a point where that strategy changes and risk lawsuits but it isn't now.

And China is only just getting started. This year we will start to see AF zoom lenses from them, and camera bodies (probably L mount) are not all that far behind.

It wasn't that long ago when I thought that China was a long way behind the Japanese suppliers. That gap is reducing and tempting.
For the money, I was happy to take a risk on AstrHori RF6/2.8 and no complaints. It is wider, faster and much cheaper than Canon's RF7-15.

If a good performance manual 14/1.4 or 14/1.8 on RF or EF mount was released then it would be a no-brainer for me. No different to my Samyang 14/2.8 decision in the past.

 

[David - Sydney]

On the other hand, people who swap brands or use more than one (and I imagine both are a minority) can overestimate how much brand loyalty there is. Speaking for myself, I have no loyalty but I do have inertia. My gear does most of what I want and any gripes or dissatisfaction aren't worth the hassle and expense of starting afresh. I suspect a lot of people are likewise in the middle.

A rare group will be able to justify 2 systems and have the disposable income to support it. A mid priced telephoto + Z8 Nikon pairing is a good example for a particular use case.
The internet echo chamber of outrage at Canon's decisions on 3rd party glass is overblown (see what I did there... glass - blown )

 

[mimbu]

On the other hand, people who swap brands or use more than one (and I imagine both are a minority) can overestimate how much brand loyalty there is. Speaking for myself, I have no loyalty but I do have inertia. My gear does most of what I want and any gripes or dissatisfaction aren't worth the hassle and expense of starting afresh. I suspect a lot of people are likewise in the middle.

You can call it loyalty, or inertia, or whatever you wish. It's all the same thing. You keep buying from the same company even if there are potentially better options for some of what you do. A lot of people don't even educate themselves on what those options are! Like the author of the article this thread comes from, posting about how Sigma is dead to him because they don't exist on RF. Maybe expand horizons a bit.

 

[mimbu]

To be specific, RF allows 3rd party crop sensor lenses that have full access to Canon's AF/IBIS protocols.
I think that you are referring to FF lenses instead.

Canon allows a limited subset of available APS-C glass onto RF-S. Currently two Tamron lenses and a few more from Sigma. There are no signs that the same thing will happen for FF RF which is the type of lens being discussed here.

I believed that Canon should allow 3rd party FF lenses for niches that Canon wasn't interested in themselves. UWA prime was one that they weren't interested in for a very long time.
With the RF14/1.4 and RF7-15, they hit 2 of the missing niches in their lineup. Canon might not have cheap options but they have coverage in that sense.
There are still some missing niches though: TS-R, long/short and 5x macro, mid priced zoom telephotos, 300/4, completion of f2 trinity, etc

Personally I hope that eventually the EU forces open mounts to increase competition and improve consumer selection. Besides prying open RF and Z, it would hopefully include requiring a level playing field and thus remove the limits that Sony places on E mount for 3rd party glass. I doubt it will be Sigma or Tamron who will force this, it will probably be a well-funded Chinese maker.

 

[benperrin]

You can call it loyalty, or inertia, or whatever you wish. It's all the same thing. You keep buying from the same company even if there are potentially better options for some of what you do. A lot of people don't even educate themselves on what those options are! Like the author of the article this thread comes from, posting about how Sigma is dead to him because they don't exist on RF. Maybe expand horizons a bit.

Easier said than done. I went from Canon to Sony and then back to Canon. The grass is not always greener. A company might have a better option in one area and not in another. Personally I think that most camera systems are fantastic these days and it's usually not worth switching unless you are a professional and switching will make you money. Most people would benefit more from getting out and shooting rather than worrying about the latest tech.

 

[Malm]

If a good performance manual 14/1.4 or 14/1.8 on RF or EF mount was released then it would be a no-brainer for me. No different to my Samyang 14/2.8 decision in the past.

I think that there is a larger niche for a manual fast and good 14mm RF lens as the 'astro' community isn't that small any more.
I theory Sigma can just add an aperture ring to their lenses and replace the AF by a MF system and sell them with an RF bayonet. Well, there might be reasons why they don't do it ...

 

[scyrene]

You can call it loyalty, or inertia, or whatever you wish. It's all the same thing. You keep buying from the same company even if there are potentially better options for some of what you do. A lot of people don't even educate themselves on what those options are! Like the author of the article this thread comes from, posting about how Sigma is dead to him because they don't exist on RF. Maybe expand horizons a bit.

It's not the same though, is it?

As for education, I know it's impractical for me to change system (and I have seen nothing compelling that would entice me to do so) so why waste my time learning about the alternatives? It might be interesting for the sake of curiosity but that's about it.

Some people are always searching for something to make things better, some people meet the world where it is. Neither is necessarily superior (and most people do both at different points). Not everyone can or should be like you.

 

[David - Sydney]

I think that there is a larger niche for a manual fast and good 14mm RF lens as the 'astro' community isn't that small any more.
I theory Sigma can just add an aperture ring to their lenses and replace the AF by a MF system and sell them with an RF bayonet. Well, there might be reasons why they don't do it ...

I believe that a Chinese brand is more likely to bring out such a lens as they don’t currently seem concerned about keeping canon happy for potential authorised lenses in the future….

But you are correct that sigma/tamron could port their existing lenses to EF or RF (EF protocols) but they choose not to. I would like to think that any r&d cost would be relatively low vs potential sales but I don’t have the data to support that viewpoint

 

[Malm]

I believe that a Chinese brand is more likely to bring out such a lens as they don’t currently seem concerned about keeping canon happy for potential authorised lenses in the future….

But you are correct that sigma/tamron could port their existing lenses to EF or RF (EF protocols) but they choose not to. I would like to think that any r&d cost would be relatively low vs potential sales but I don’t have the data to support that viewpoint

Behind of 'keeping Canon happy' and economic thinking:
The EF mount is appropriate for 3rd party lenses when the AF is important. That might be the case for most (wide-angle) zooms and telephoto lenses.
A manual RF mount can be used for 'exotic' prime lenses like TS or the classical astro-lenses as such lenses are usually used with a tripod and manual focus.
And a Canon RF 14/1.4 for 2500 EUR leaves enough space for a cheaper 3rd party manual 14/1.4 RF lens.

Most 3rd party lenses are recently going the 'cheap' way with a low price tag as the main feature (and with a good image quality). OK, that is probably the main consumer group, but Laowa is already looking into the 'more-expensive' segment.

 

[mimbu]

​

I guess my question is, what's "astrophography"?

 

[P-visie]

I guess my question is, what's "astrophography"?

It is a special kind of astrophotography, without spellchecker.