Canon to Come Out with a Canon RF 14mm f/1.4L VCM?

[David - Sydney]

This could be the missing lens in the Canon setup for underwater photography. I'm very interested in knowing what the minimum focus distance is.

Bokeh underwater isn't really a thing (unless for macro with coloured backgrounds and strobes) so low light is the only benefit I can see of f1.4.
Good ISO performance and denoise algorithms have basically nullified those constraints.

Are you thinking of using it for wide-angle macro eg laowa probes? Maybe the EF8-15/4 would be a current/cheaper option.

 

[David - Sydney]

The fact that Canon hasn't released a fast ultra-wide prime for their main lens ecosystem when they've had 7 years to do it is nuts to me.
I've seriously considered the move to Sony due to Canon's attitude towards rounding out their ecosystem & limiting third-party lenses, especially since gear like this is so helpful for the type of stuff I shoot.
That being said, the VCM primes are phenomenal from the perspective of a hybrid shooter. Extremely interested in this (and I hope they get a move on!)

Not just 7 years of RF but in the EF lifetime there was only the 14/2.8 (I and II) were the only ultra wide angle primes as far as I know. Not great coma quality though. The Samyang 14/2.8 is a much better option.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The fact that Canon hasn't released a fast ultra-wide prime for their main lens ecosystem when they've had 7 years to do it is nuts to me.

The RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM is a fast, ultrawide prime.

 

[Tidy Media]

The RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM is a fast, ultrawide prime.

I guess by a lot of people's standards yeah, although it's a little bit semantics. Personally I wouldn't consider anything over 16mm FF ultra-wide, that's where I feel the use-case between focal lengths on each side becomes more defined. Maybe ultra-ultra-wide is more accurate if we're splitting hairs.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I guess by a lot of people's standards yeah, although it's a little bit semantics. Personally I wouldn't consider anything over 16mm FF ultra-wide, that's where I feel the use-case between focal lengths on each side becomes more defined. Maybe ultra-ultra-wide is more accurate if we're splitting hairs.

Conventionally:
<24mm = ultrawide
24-35mm = wide
36-69mm = normal
70-299mm = telephoto
≥300mm = supertelephoto

We can all make up our own definitions, of course.

‘Fast’ is more loosely defined, but generally faster than f/2.8 for primes and f/2.8 or faster for zooms (not counting supertelephoto lenses, where ‘fast’ is anything with a front element diameter ≥100 mm).