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

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
731
1,429
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.

While I agree with you and love my R5's crop mode far more than I would a crop-only R7, I do think there is definitely a big market for a cheaper, crop-sensor camera for sports/wildlife shooters that have no interest in full frame. The 7D and 7D Mark II are two of the cameras I see most often working in a smaller market, between prosumer sports shooters, small market pros, and wildlife photographers in the woods. I personally wouldn't own one even if it was given to me for free, but those users definitely have their uses for it and there is a large market for it if it was $1500-2000 dollars cheaper than the R5 with sorta-1D-level specs like the 7D/7D2 had.

Those sports/wildlife users are also the same who stick large full-frame glass on such a camera, so they don't particularly need crop glass or smaller bodies.

That said, the other big market for APS-C is travel and vlogging, both of which need tiny ergonomics like you mention. I hope Canon has a serious plan for that, and I do think we'll see something tiny out of the rumored 18-45 f/4-5.6 IS STM which sounds from the range/aperture like it should hypothetically be absolutely tiny.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,445
329
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.
One consideration in favor of f/2.8s is decreased working distance. It also helps with flashes. Some flashes only support zoom settings of 105 or 200mm.

I love having overlap in the 24-35mm range. It really does reduce a lot of lens changes. 35mm is one of my favored focal lengths, so it's great having it on both the normal and ultrawide zooms.

I suspect an RF version of the EF 11-24 to come eventually, but it is not a direct competitor to the 15-35 f/2.8 or 14-35 f/4 zooms. The RF zooms are filterable while the 11-24 is not. The 11-24 is also a lot heavier and larger. I'd love to know what Canon has planned. Will they go the Sony route with a 12-24 f/2.8 or will they stay at f/4 but extend the range to 9-24 or 10-24mm? I'm guessing that Canon would do a f/4 9-24 or 10-24, and maybe release a prime at f/2.8.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank
Aug 7, 2018
347
294
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.
Depends on if you really need 14mm with IS. Otherwise I would buy the Sigma 14-24 F/2.8 Art for 1449 Euros. It is very sharp and should work very well on a DLSR and even on a high resolution mirrorless camera, as it was designed for cameras with 50 megapixels and above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMC11

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,154
1,496
Depends on if you really need 14mm with IS. Otherwise I would buy the Sigma 14-24 F/2.8 Art for 1449 Euros. It is very sharp and should work very well on a DLSR and even on a high resolution mirrorless camera, as it was designed for cameras with 50 megapixels and above.
It likely weights twice as much, is 1.5 times longer, and only accepts rear filters. Also, lots of flares due to the bulbous front element.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
677
843
Depends on if you really need 14mm with IS. Otherwise I would buy the Sigma 14-24 F/2.8 Art for 1449 Euros. It is very sharp and should work very well on a DLSR and even on a high resolution mirrorless camera, as it was designed for cameras with 50 megapixels and above.

Brighter is not always better. Sometimes being lightweight has more value. The Sigma is a brick.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,598
3,940
14mm f/4 and takes 77mm filters. Gives me hope for a possible future 14 or 15 mm TS lens that takes standard front filters (even 96mm to match the 28-70/2 would be an improvement over the 145mm Wonderpana salad plates I use with the TS-E 17).
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
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.
Only Canon will know the sale volume of the 14mm/2.8 but I can't imagine it is a volume seller especially at that price with Samyang options being so cheap for astrolandscape. The RF24-105mm is slightly cheaper (in my market) than the EF version but I think we can agreed that the rest of the RF lenses are more expensive... but they do add new features to tempt EF owners to migrate.

I can't image a Canon RF 14mm/1.8 will be cheaper than the EF14/2.8 or in line with the Sigma version. I believe that Canon would improve coma as astro is a market that they can't ignore for a 14mm prime.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,441
5,658
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.
Clearly the observer in the other forum isn’t familiar with the best selling MILC platform in the world, the Canon M series....

As for thinking the RF lens designers have any consideration for size or weight I’d point out the lenses they have made so seem to make zero allowances for that!
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
419
276
Australia
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.
I hope it's Sigma that releases a 14 f/1.8, becuase I know the Canon will be way too expensive especially if it's an L.
 
  • Like
Reactions: another_mikey

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
Clearly the observer in the other forum isn’t familiar with the best selling MILC platform in the world, the Canon M series....

As for thinking the RF lens designers have any consideration for size or weight I’d point out the lenses they have made so seem to make zero allowances for that!
Depends on the RF lens.... RF24-105mm, RF70-200mm (f2.8 and f4), RF100-500 (cf EF100-400mm) are all smaller and lighter especially when taking the adapter into consideration. There are definitely bigger examples though!
 
  • Like
Reactions: InchMetric

HMC11

Travel
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
51
47
It likely weights twice as much, is 1.5 times longer, and only accepts rear filters. Also, lots of flares due to the bulbous front element.
It actually weighs 'only' 795g, so about the same as the RF 15-35 F2.8. It's overall length including the non-detachable hood is 131mm, so not quite 1.5 times longer than the 14-35. It is very sharp and the flaring is well controlled (at least above 'average', or better than most equivalent lenses). I was hoping there would be an RF version, but it has been 2 years since it first came out for the Sony E mount. Yes, only rear filters. Overall, an attractive option for about $1300.
 

noms78

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 6, 2013
65
24
Annoyed there is no FL marking for 16mm? Nikon 14-30 has 14,16,20,24,30. RF lens has 14,20,24,28,35
 

exige24

EOS M6 Mark II
Jun 7, 2018
75
108
United States
Not just them. Anyone who does not want to carry the almost 1kg 15-35 and would rather save a few 100 grams. Some people never use 2.8 aperture on a wide angle.
Categorizing and prioritizing every quality of what makes a good lens a good lens, if that one characteristic isn't at the very bottom of that list, it's damn near close to it.

I can't take any pictures because the light lowered, but damn if this lens doesn't fit in my pocket!!!! What a great lens!!!
 
Last edited: