Canon Will Announce A New VCM L Lens This Month

[kirbic]

If this lens is another along the lines of the 35/1.4 VCM, it is a hard \"no\" for me. One look at the uncorrected distortion and vignetting behavior killed that one for me. Yes, it is true, the corrected performance of the 35/1.4 VCM can impress, but when you "correct out" that much vignetting, there will be *very* noticeable negative impacts on noise and DR off-center.

 

[thebigman]

85 1.4 vcm

 

[Loswr]

Can folks tell me why they like these VCM lenses? If you like shooting video that much, why not get video lenses and a camera that specializes in them? They must be selling because Canon keeps rolling them out, but I'm baffled. Lower image quality, but somewhat better for video applications seems like a hard no for me, at least for putting on an R5 or R3 or whatever.

Can you tell me why you don't? Lower image quality than what? Sure, if you want a 50mm lens the RF 50/1.2 has better IQ. It's also a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive. There are no RF 24mm or 35mm L-series primes, so what is your IQ comparator? The RF 24/1.4L VCM delivers much better IQ than the EF 24/1.4L II. The RF 35/1.4L VCM is as good as the already-excellent EF 35/1.4L II...and the RF VCM lens is $600 cheaper.

 

[SHAMwow]

I can tell this is the next photo friction point/revolution. All the lenses are going this way. People will either have to adapt, literally, or stop shooting. I wish some youtuber would just do a massive comparison between identical photos of the 50 1.2 and the 50 1.4. I doubt any of us can tell.

 

[Tomba]

If this lens is another along the lines of the 35/1.4 VCM, it is a hard \"no\" for me. One look at the uncorrected distortion and vignetting behavior killed that one for me. Yes, it is true, the corrected performance of the 35/1.4 VCM can impress, but when you "correct out" that much vignetting, there will be *very* noticeable negative impacts on noise and DR off-center.

I'm happy with my RF 24mm f1.4L VCM. Dislikers gonna dislike.
It is the best 24mm Ive ever used from any brand. I use it for stills, no video at all.
So I will buy other upcoming VCM primes. 85mm 1.4 i.e.

 

[kirbic]

Can you tell me why you don't? Lower image quality than what? Sure, if you want a 50mm lens the RF 50/1.2 has better IQ. It's also a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive. There are no RF 24mm or 35mm L-series primes, so what is your IQ comparator? The RF 24/1.4L VCM delivers much better IQ than the EF 24/1.4L II. The RF 35/1.4L VCM is as good as the already-excellent EF 35/1.4L II...and the RF VCM lens is $600 cheaper.

The EF 24/1.4 II was never a great lens... a decent one, yes. Great, no. With regard to the 35/1.4 VCM, read Dustin Abbot's review. Yes, it is about as good as the EF 35/1.4 II in some respects; in others, definitely not. Pardon me, but I would expect that optical performance would be substantially improved in a lens introduced 9 years later and for a more modern mount.
In the end, it's a case of horses for courses. If you want a more compact, video-friendly lens that gives pretty good performance for stills in good light at a fairly reasonable cost, then I guess the VCM lenses are winners. If you want a high-performance stills lens with as few compromises as possible, then no.

 

[bn5fg]

If this lens is another along the lines of the 35/1.4 VCM, it is a hard \"no\" for me. One look at the uncorrected distortion and vignetting behavior killed that one for me. Yes, it is true, the corrected performance of the 35/1.4 VCM can impress, but when you "correct out" that much vignetting, there will be *very* noticeable negative impacts on noise and DR off-center.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN and Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM have the same amount of vigneting. Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM is also very similar in term of vigneting. So you basically hate 35mm in general? Do I get it right?

With regard to the 35/1.4 VCM, read Dustin Abbot's review. Yes, it is about as good as the EF 35/1.4 II in some respects; in others, definitely not. Pardon me, but I would expect that optical performance would be substantially improved in a lens introduced 9 years later and for a more modern mount.
In the end, it's a case of horses for courses. If you want a more compact, video-friendly lens that gives pretty good performance for stills in good light at a fairly reasonable cost, then I guess the VCM lenses are winners. If you want a high-performance stills lens with as few compromises as possible, then no.

Sorry, I buy lenses to get nice photos, not to please Dustin Abbott. In fact, every wide-angle lens has some distortion — the only difference is the type you get out of the box: linear or barrel. It’s a basic geometry concept. Personally, I shoot portraits, not brick walls, and barrel distortion often works better for faces, so I usually roll back some of the distortion correction in post.

Can you tell me why you don't? Lower image quality than what? Sure, if you want a 50mm lens the RF 50/1.2 has better IQ. It's also a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive. There are no RF 24mm or 35mm L-series primes, so what is your IQ comparator? The RF 24/1.4L VCM delivers much better IQ than the EF 24/1.4L II. The RF 35/1.4L VCM is as good as the already-excellent EF 35/1.4L II...and the RF VCM lens is $600 cheaper.

Who cares about actual lenses? We just have to repeat some memes from influencers to fight against Canon's evil conspiracy! It’s also a good strategy to cope with the inability to buy new gear for whatever reason.

 

[Loswr]

With regard to the 35/1.4 VCM, read Dustin Abbot's review. Yes, it is about as good as the EF 35/1.4 II in some respects; in others, definitely not. Pardon me, but I would expect that optical performance would be substantially improved in a lens introduced 9 years later and for a more modern mount.

I have. He can't get past the need for software correction of distortion. I mean, he can't demonstrate that it has any negative effect whatsoever, but he can't get past it anyway. I personally compared the RF 14-35/4 at 14mm to the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm; the latter needs no distortion correction at that focal length, and the corrected RF lens was optically just as good in the extreme corners. The bottom line is that there's no free lunch, correcting the distortion 'optically' (with glass in the lens) is not inherently or empirically better than correcting it with software. Dustin (and you, it seems) have a philosophical problem with it. What matters to me is the output. After years of asking, I have yet to see a demonstration showing that software correction is worse. Let me know when someone makes a film camera that takes RF lenses, because that's the only time it will actually matter. At least he acknowledges that the vignetting is the same as the EF version. Again...there's no free lunch.

It's worth noting (again) that the RF 35/1.4L is significantly cheaper than the EF 35/1.4L II. Canon didn't make the RF version optically better, they made optically equivalent and also made it 30% lighter and 30% cheaper. That's what the 9 years brought, and IMO that's great given that the EF 35/1.4L II is an excellent lens (far better than the MkI that I had for a while).

So, what you're saying is saying is that the RF 35/1.4L is optically inferior to the lens you imagine it could have been. Lol, well ok then, hard to argue with that. Imaginary lenses have their place in discussing optics (e.g. the thin lens approximation), but in my experience imaginary lenses don't take very good pictures. Good luck with yours, though.

 

[Canon Rumors]

It's up now. RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM and it will cost more than the 24/35 VCM's.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Can folks tell me why they like these VCM lenses? If you like shooting video that much, why not get video lenses and a camera that specializes in them? They must be selling because Canon keeps rolling them out, but I'm baffled. Lower image quality, but somewhat better for video applications seems like a hard no for me, at least for putting on an R5 or R3 or whatever.

I love the 50 VCM. Small, light, silent, aperture ring, an "affordable" L lens. Ridiculous good sharpness and rendering.

 

[koenkooi]

I love the 50 VCM. Small, light, silent, aperture ring, an "affordable" L lens. Ridiculous good sharpness and rendering.

Same here, it pairs well with the R8.

 

[Del Paso]

Fact is, the new VCM lenses are extremely sharp, compact and affordable.
Electronically corrected? Does it matter if pictures taken with them are great and mostly better than the ones taken with their predecessors?
The RF 50 is much better than the EF 1,2 or 1,4/50, the RF 24 is also classes better than the EF, the VCM 35 is at least as good, lighter and less expensive than the EF.
Why all this whining?

 

[DrToast]

Looking at the 35mm and 24mm makes me think the distortion is going to be even worse on this lens.

 

[roby17269]

I have. He can't get past the need for software correction of distortion. I mean, he can't demonstrate that it has any negative effect whatsoever, but he can't get past it anyway. I personally compared the RF 14-35/4 at 14mm to the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm; the latter needs no distortion correction at that focal length, and the corrected RF lens was optically just as good in the extreme corners. The bottom line is that there's no free lunch, correcting the distortion 'optically' (with glass in the lens) is not inherently or empirically better than correcting it with software. Dustin (and you, it seems) have a philosophical problem with it. What matters to me is the output. After years of asking, I have yet to see a demonstration showing that software correction is worse. Let me know when someone makes a film camera that takes RF lenses, because that's the only time it will actually matter. At least he acknowledges that the vignetting is the same as the EF version. Again...there's no free lunch.

Rationally, there can be 2 impacts:

1. higher ISO degradation in the corners to correct a lens with higher vignetting
2. "invented" data: if a lens' image circle does not cover the corners, the software correction stretches the image to cover the corners and those pixels are therefore extrapolated - in other words, the stretched image has been created from less data than an image recorded with a lens that does cover the full sensor

Both of those impacts are likely to be small enough to be practically invisible in most situations, and both are likely to matter less and less with more and more modern NR techniques and AI computational stretching... and with higher and higher resolution sensors (more data to work with see what I did there?)

Emotionally, that's a personal thing and each one of us will have a different view on the matter. Me, I am not in love with the 35 1.4, not because it does not technically deliver, it does. But because to my eyes it doesn't have anywhere near the same "magic" as the 50 and 85 1.2... and I hope an eventual 35 1.2 will do better in that sense.
Now please do not ask me for proof of "magic". For I have none

 

[ashmadux]

It is totally fine to not be totally fine with what some feel is compromised optics being totally dependent on a profile to be usable. Especially for those prices.

Likers are just gonna like.

But honestly, how many choices do the likers have anyways. That may be encouragement to support this..direction. Sometimes it is better to have SOMETHING than have nothing at all, right? Hmm.

Others might say, with a closed mount, you simply take what canon gives you and hush. Others rightfully balk at the wonderful prices of these "affordable" lenses.

As long as your reasons aren't illegitimate , illogical, or just plain basura, feel how you feel. Consumers make choices. That's our job.

And to all a good day.

 

[exige24]

Really looking forward to Canon getting through all this VCM garbage and never touching it again.

 

[Del Paso]

Looking at the 35mm and 24mm makes me think the distortion is going to be even worse on this lens.

A case of pre-capture criticism?

 

[Exploreshootshare]

It's up now. RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM and it will cost more than the 24/35 VCM's.

Now that's a news that makes me laugh and cry at the same time On the one hand, I want(ed) a RF 20mm F1.4, but I think the 24mm/ 35mm VCM lenses are overpriced in Germany... (1.749 € each).

If the 20mm VCM turns out to be even more expansive, I'll rent it once and wait a couple until one can buy it for a reasonable price...
I was hoping for a cheaper 20mm VCM and that it´d be closer to Sigmas offering for e-mount (new Sigma 20mm F1.4 cost 1.039 €). I knew it would be more expansive, but presumably crossing the 1.800 € threshold... no, thanks.

Seems like I´ll be renting the new 20mm VCM once (I am really curious about it) and then settle for a used copy of the much heavier, optical great imo Sigma 20mm F1.4.

 

[exige24]

Rationally, there can be 2 impacts:

1. higher ISO degradation in the corners to correct a lens with higher vignetting
2. "invented" data: if a lens' image circle does not cover the corners, the software correction stretches the image to cover the corners and those pixels are therefore extrapolated - in other words, the stretched image has been created from less data than an image recorded with a lens that does cover the full sensor

Both of those impacts are likely to be small enough to be practically invisible in most situations, and both are likely to matter less and less with more and more modern NR techniques and AI computational stretching... and with higher and higher resolution sensors (more data to work with see what I did there?)

Emotionally, that's a personal thing and each one of us will have a different view on the matter. Me, I am not in love with the 35 1.4, not because it does not technically deliver, it does. But because to my eyes it doesn't have anywhere near the same "magic" as the 50 and 85 1.2... and I hope an eventual 35 1.2 will do better in that sense.
Now please do not ask me for proof of "magic". For I have none

I believe we're down grading resolutions (32 to 24; No hirez R1) and are supposed to like it

 

[john1970]

One lens I will not be purchasing. 24 mm works for me.