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

Nov 9, 2020
6
4
It indeed looks the same size as the 24-105 f/4. Here's a comparison of that lens with the 15-35 from camerasize.com
View attachment 198521
This looks about the same difference as between the 24-105 and 14-35 in the OP.
It indeed looks the same size as the 24-105 f/4. Here's a comparison of that lens with the 15-35 from camerasize.com
View attachment 198521
This looks about the same difference as between the 24-105 and 14-35 in the OP.
The problem is the zoom ring is too small and too close to the other rings. The more compact they are, the more problematic it is to use the rings (for me)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brikna

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
130
131
The problem is the zoom ring is too small and too close to the other rings. The more compact they are, the more problematic it is to use the rings (for me)
This is also important to me. I picked the RF 24-70 f2.8 after side-by side evaluation with the 24-105 f4 (CPS loan) in part because the adjacent rings meant I often bumped the wrong one. In fact, as I now recall, the f4 was the lens I got with the original Canon R I bought when I first contemplated a switch from Nikon Z6. Too many ergonimic challenges. I got over them and am much happier with Canon and its lens selection, but am wary of adajacent rings. But... the RF 15-35 f2.8 has adjacent focus ring and zoom ring, so this isn't a real issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: benpisati

BBarn

EOS M50
Nov 2, 2020
49
30
Was looking forward to this lens. But it's a bit of a disappointment, being larger and heavier than I hoped. I really like the size of the RP, but most of the RF lenses are overly cumbersome on that handy camera. I would have preferred 16 on the low end in the size and weight of the 24-105 IS STM or 85 f/2, which is the limit of true convenience on the RP. In terms of size and weight, this lens doesn't improve much on the adapted 17-40.

On the flip side, I do like the benefits and performance of the 24-240 on the RP, even though it is cumbersome. And that lens appears to be a bit larger than this 14-35. But the size and weight of the 24-240 often lead me to carry something else on the RP.

For the time being, I guess I'll stick with the adapted 17-40 and wait and see what the RF 16 looks like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R Ramina and Cmam

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
299
215
Looks nice. Probably not a buyer, but used the EF 16-35 f/4 on a backup camera and was very happy with the results. Expect no less quality from this lens.
 

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
235
426
Oops, true. I forgot that this is actually an L lens. I wonder if Canon is ever going to release a non-L FF ultrawide…

I saw an interesting observation on another forum. This is Canon’s first truly digital from the ground up platform. EF glass is designed to work on film where distortion corrections aren’t possible.

I think with RF, some degree of distortion correction will be present with every lens. And they’ll be designed with not only glass in mind, but size, weight, AF, speed, etc.

It won’t be 10x zoom type corrections. But it wouldn’t surprise me if some barrel distortion or pincushioning will be corrected for even in L glass.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,807
1,728
I saw an interesting observation on another forum. This is Canon’s first truly digital from the ground up platform. EF glass is designed to work on film where distortion corrections aren’t possible.

I think with RF, some degree of distortion correction will be present with every lens. And they’ll be designed with not only glass in mind, but size, weight, AF, speed, etc.

It won’t be 10x zoom type corrections. But it wouldn’t surprise me if some barrel distortion or pincushioning will be corrected for even in L glass.
Or massive vignetting being corrected.
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
731
140
It doesn't look like this lens has a bulbous front element. That's good! I was a bit worried about that.
 

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
235
426
Or massive vignetting being corrected.

If you’re referring to the RF 24 -240, that’s just the challenge of a full frame 10x zoom that size. Make the lens bigger, or compromise elsewhere.

Look at Sony’s 24-240 raw files at 24 without corrections applied.

E209115A-D949-45AD-8E06-B8A54E69C5DB.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
731
1,429
Oops, true. I forgot that this is actually an L lens. I wonder if Canon is ever going to release a non-L FF ultrawide…
Definitely will be interesting to see what Canon does with the rumored non-L 16mm F/2.8. I would love to see that end up somewhere in the ballpark of $600-800.

It is F/2.8 in an ultrawide, after all, so I doubt it will be $400, but definitely would be excellent at a pricepoint to compete somewhat with the third-party 16mm options. At $600, I might very well pick one up to use as a cheap astro / remote camera lens, even if the IQ isn't fantastic and it uses extensive distortion correction.

All in all it would be a massive missed opportunity if Canon makes such a lens "RF-S" only, since the third-party lenses pull off full frame coverage at that pricepoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMC11

GMAX

moments that matters
Jan 26, 2021
14
39
Wow, this in combination with the RF4.0/70-200 (and the hopefully sometimes coming RF4.0/24-70) will be a desirable "travel light" L-trinity, in case the picture quality is on par or above the beloved EF4.0/16-35L. And there is no doubt about it ;-)

Maybe the RF 1.8/50 as a small, light and cheap lens in the middle will help to bridge the waiting time for the 4.0/24-70.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: noms78

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,154
1,497
Even today I would still prefer buying EF lenses, as they work on both the RF and the EF mount.
It's not reasonable to expect a compact 14mm full-frame zoom for the EF mount. It might be worth to just buy an EOS RP and attach it to this lens. The lens focal range definitely shouldn't need an R6-grade autofocus system.
 
Last edited:

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
608
343
With the RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS and the 14-35 f/4 IS, I wonder how Canon will slot in a 14mm prime. I hope Canon goes like sigma with a 14mm f/1.8 rather than like its overpriced EF 14mm f/2.8. And hopefully, it'll be designed for minimal coma.
Canon's never made a habit of coming to markets late with lenses that undershoot the competition. If other makes are doing 1.8's, Canon will either match it or beat it.

Maybe we see something a bit specialized for astronomy? A big expensive lens that nonetheless eliminates coma, for instance?
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
608
343
I've shot an f/2.8 trinity since 1995 or so. I think I had the 20-35/2.8 just before the 17-35 came out? (Where was Canon rumors, THEN? You could have saved me a few hundred!)

Anyway I'm thinking the f/4 trinity is where it's at these days. I don't think f/2.8 really gives noticeable bokeh in this day of 35/1.2's and 135/1.4's, and with today's low noise at high ISOs and IBIS/IS, you can shoot moving subjects in poor light and non-moving subjects in candlelight with f/4 at these focal lengths. And the tele can be variable aperture again for the same reasons; the old 70-200/2.8 is in effect variable anyway as you use it a lot with 1.4x and 2.0x so are up to 400mm f/5.6, which I think the 100-500/4-7.1 either does, or is within a 1/3 stop of doing.

Of course you do need blur on occasion, but the 24-105/4 has a 25mm aperture when you want a light portrait, which is the same as the 70/2.8's 25mm. And 500/7.1 at 500mm is a 70.4mm aperture, pretty much the same as your 70-200 at 200/2.8, 280/4, or 400/5.6.

So, I was thinking about two possible directions for the wide-angle.

14-35/4 is basically super-wide to almost normal. You can shoot street with it, and other quick-changing subjects. The huge overlap with the 24-105 means you can get away without changing lenses.

The other direction they could have gone would be like 10-24/4: even wider, but then you have to change lenses. That'd be more appropriate for landscape, real estate, backpacking, etc. where you'd typically have more time to get the exact right lens on. Interestingly this also might have been a better example for shooters with two cameras? The only advantage of a big overlap might be when having a failure yet still being able to shoot 24-35 is so valuable?

On the third hand, we've got the 100-500, not a 70-400 or some such. So maybe they're just throwing darts at a board, not trying to design a coherent product line for a specific use case. In other words having a lot of overlap at one end serves some users that would be dis-served by having no overlap at the other end, and vice versa.
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
742
372
A number of people have noted that this would make a good match with an APS-C body. However it still has all the bulky goodness of a FF lens. The M series lenses are nice and small and would be the better choice for APS fans IMO.
A large R series body with a small sensor seems to sacrifice the entire proposition of APS. One could just crop an R5 frame with superb results.