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
301
216
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
301
216
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
151
160
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
151
160
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
347
441
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
25,820
4,271
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
151
160
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
746
373
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.
 

bergstrom

Photographer
Feb 23, 2015
307
183
Did no one post any reviews of this. The price is just too much, would buy an EF one and adaptor.
 

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
533
548
www.diossiphotography.com
Did no one post any reviews of this. The price is just too much, would buy an EF one and adaptor.
It's hard to fully review this lens right now because it's not supported in Lightroom, and I refuse to use Canon DPP software to edit any of my actual work. What I can say so far from my experience with the lens this past month or so, roughly, is that this lens is worth the price for me. The only negative attributes to this lens are its price and the uncorrected distortion (which actually comes with a tangible strength). The list of positives is extremely lengthly and, at least for me, help justify the price. I'm currently using the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 lens profile for distortion correction and it works really well for images shot wider than 17mm, but it's not perfect and over-corrects beyond that....so I(we) really need an Adobe profile because it's how I work.

From a sharpness standpoint, this is a very VERY sharp lens - all the way into the corners wide open, I don't know where people are getting off saying it's not sharp because they've clearly had no experience with it. 14mm is extremely useful and I personally have been wanting something just a little bit wider and almost jumped on the 15-35...but I'm glad I waited. The minimum focusing distance is also very useful. The flare control is brilliant and takes on a very beautiful aesthetic that I honestly think looks like a prime lens. The image stabilization paired with the R5/R6 is rock solid and bests my 24-105...but it's also wide, so it should. Size and weight...wow, thank you Canon - it's perfect!

Let's talk about these "negatives" because they are directly linked, IMO.

At this price, which I admit is higher than I believe it should be, you would expect and should expect an optically perfect lens. We didn't get that here...Canon made obvious compromises in the design to allow the use for screw-on filters...and I'm OK with that. I refuse to buy bulbous front element lenses. But because of these compromises, the lens requires correction in post to work correctly. It was designed from the ground up for this and uses some of the best quality glass in the world to compensate for the "stretching" that will occur in software or in camera for JPEGs. There are THREE Aspherical elements in the design, two are glass-moulded and these are not cheap to produce in addition to the coatings. Canon threw the kitchen sink at this thing to make sure the optical performance survived correction with minimal deterioration. This design comes with a really great benefit - 14mm wide-angle shots with a 77mm CPL or ND filter WITHOUT seeing the filter vignette. This is possible because the corners are essentially thrown away. A common misconception with this lens is that it's a 16mm after correction, this is totally incorrect. This is more realistically a 12mm lens that "flattens" out to a 14mm lens. The worst parts of the image are removed and you're only left with the good stuff.

If you can pay the price and use wide angle lenses on a tripod a lot like me, I don't think there is a better option out there for Canon. I can't wait to unload my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM on the used market because this lens is everything I need and more for my work.

The price is wrong. The performance is world-class.
 
Last edited:

BBarn

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 2, 2020
57
36
I'm very happy with the lens. I use DPP and place considerable value on size , weight, the additional width at the short end, and lack of need for a converter. It does seem over priced, but I also see it holding it's long term value better than a similar EF lens.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,163
1,506
Did no one post any reviews of this. The price is just too much, would buy an EF one and adaptor.
I'd say the price was correct for the launch, given that the lens is still on backorder in major shops.

As to the performance, the lens is great when/if you can use DPP; I'm still waiting for Adobe to add the lens profile to ACR. A minor annoyance is the placement of the zoom ring, poorly suited for people with big hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bergstrom