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).

 

[toodlebug]

Incredibly disappointing if true. This is something I am waiting for before making the switch from EF, and the 14mm f/2.8L II was an expensive investment, $2000 when I got it 20 years ago. So I'm guessing it would be like $4000 now since pretty much everything is twice the price now. To buy a $4000 lens where the image circle doesn't cover the sensor, and there's some kind of bullshit image scaling happening in the camera, what is this?? The image should be, without exception, exactly the light falling onto the sensor. If someone wants image correction that should be an optional feature not a crutch for a bad lens design. To make the lens body the same size as the rest of the RF lenses is the tail wagging the dog if I've ever seen one.

 

[toodlebug]

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

Okay that just tells me you've never used a 14mm (or wider) lens, that's a preposterous statement.