Here is the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

fentiger

EOS 90D
Dec 26, 2015
193
93
England
I do wonder what the price of the R3 is going to be, I predicted earlier that it would be £5500.
Im not so sure now, and in light of this lens price think the R3 could be closer to £6000.
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
299
215
The suggested price is just 420 USD less than my current best price for the RF 15-35mm. I'd wait and hope the price comes down somewhat. YMMV.
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
299
215
I do wonder what the price of the R3 is going to be, I predicted earlier that it would be £5500.
Im not so sure now, and in light of this lens price think the R3 could be closer to £6000.
Better to sell more cameras up front than lenses down the line. That R3 will be wanting some glass to go along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
121
121
Good point.
My experience is that the zooms of various manufacturers have different ideas of focal length.
My Tamron 28-75 was shorter at 75 than my Canon 70-200 at 70. I was scolded by many online that that was the way things are.
IMO that is nonsense as the camera enthusiast and professional market obsess over published specs and treat them as gospel.
I am thinking that the Sigma may not be quite as wide as you think or maybe the Canon will not be. Its a toss-up. Frankly, the markings out to be accurate. If the Canon is really 14.8mm then that makes significant difference while at longer FLs a 1 or 2 mm difference is negligible.
At least the TV makers will specify with precision the actual display dimension of their “75 inch class” TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Normalnorm

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
121
121
Pricing feels like the pricing for the 70-200 zooms. Close enough that anyone tempted by the faster big one will go for it.
But if it’s truly 7% wider measured linearly then the f4 has its own argument. But if that matters then the 10-24 is the one to await.
 

john1970

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
309
391
Northeastern US
Looks to be a nice lens, but I am surprised to see that in the US it is only $600 less than the 15-35 mm f2.8 lens. I anticipated that the 14-35 mm f4 would have been significantly less. For landscape photographers I can see this being a great wide angle zoom.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,524
3,809
Good point.
My experience is that the zooms of various manufacturers have different ideas of focal length.
My Tamron 28-75 was shorter at 75 than my Canon 70-200 at 70. I was scolded by many online that that was the way things are.
IMO that is nonsense as the camera enthusiast and professional market obsess over published specs and treat them as gospel.
I am thinking that the Sigma may not be quite as wide as you think or maybe the Canon will not be. Its a toss-up. Frankly, the markings out to be accurate. If the Canon is really 14.8mm then that makes significant difference while at longer FLs a 1 or 2 mm difference is negligible.
manufacturers don’t have different ideas of focal length, that’s a physical property and rounding can only get you so far from the value printed on the lens. The actual focal range will be close to the specified focal range. A Canon 14-35 lens is not going to be 14.8mm at the wide end. 14.2mm, possibly.

The thing to keep in mind is that lens focal length is specified with the lens focused at infinity. Lenses exhibit varying degrees of focus breathing, which results in a shorter focal length as the lens is focused closer. Zooms generally suffer more from focus breathing than primes, and it’s often better corrected in more expensive lenses.

As an example, the Canon 100L Macro IS lens is 100mm at infinity, but at the minimum focus distance (1:1 magnification), it’s focal length
only 68mm.

One reason cine lenses are so expensive is minimal focus breathing, so focus can be pulled in a scene without the framing changing.

So, your Tamron 28-75mm is probably something like 28.4-73.5mm, but has a fair bit of focus breathing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeanluc

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
121
121
The numbers on top of the lens go to small to large left to right, just like the way you read left to right. Forget the screw analogy. Heck, forget thinking about rotation direction at all. Just tell your brain that left side of the barrel is small number and right side is large number. By turning the ring you are just moving across a page.
Thanks, I'll really try to program my brain to think of it that way. I may just have needed a model or way to frame the thinking to train myself.
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
741
372
manufacturers don’t have different ideas of focal length, that’s a physical property and rounding can only get you so far from the value printed on the lens. The actual focal range will be close to the specified focal range. A Canon 14-35 lens is not going to be 14.8mm at the wide end. 14.2mm, possibly.

The thing to keep in mind is that lens focal length is specified with the lens focused at infinity. Lenses exhibit varying degrees of focus breathing, which results in a shorter focal length as the lens is focused closer. Zooms generally suffer more from focus breathing than primes, and it’s often better corrected in more expensive lenses.

As an example, the Canon 100L Macro IS lens is 100mm at infinity, but at the minimum focus distance (1:1 magnification), it’s focal length
only 68mm.

One reason cine lenses are so expensive is minimal focus breathing, so focus can be pulled in a scene without the framing changing.

So, your Tamron 28-75mm is probably something like 28.4-73.5mm, but has a fair bit of focus breathing.
I compared the Tamron to my Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS at infinity.