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

jim

Sep 13, 2019
2
2
Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJ

xwxw

I'm New Here
Nov 3, 2020
14
20
Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?
The lens is at its shortest when zoomed to 22mm. If you have ever used one of the ubiquitous EFS 18-55 lenses you know it’s understandable when size is one factor in the design.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,045
2,999
Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?
Many UWA zooms do not extend – they have an inner barrel that moves in and out during zooming, but all of that movement is behind the filter threads. However, the RF 15-35/2.8 does have a traditional extending barrel.
 

mb66energy

EOS 5D Mark IV
Dec 18, 2011
1,514
378
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
Two weeks ago I had two options in mind: 2nd RP body with EF 16-35 4.0 IS for 1772 EUR or a 2nd M50 for 600 EUR to extend capabilities for (1) VLOG style video and (2) to get an ultra wide which is usable with my EOS M cameras.
Finally I bought a 2nd M50 (mark ii) with the 15-45 lens for 680 EUR because it's open to me if I should invest in a real video camera or stay with hybrid cameras. And the 15-45 @ 15mm with IS does give me the same technical possibilities like EF 16-35 with 25% of the weight!

RF 14 - 35 makes this lens a very interesting candidate for the EOS RP, just with its crippled 4k mode (roughly 21-50 equiv) and a good candidate for e.g. a future C50 ... and finally it will be a good photographic lens for FF too. With 1092 EUR open to be spend!

I see a nice combo: RP with 14-35, one M50 with EF-M 32 (50mm equiv) and 2nd M50 with EF 70-200 (110 - 320mm equiv) which fits in a small backpack and avoids my most hated action: changing lenses in adverse environments!
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
650
777
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!!!

You can take as many landscapes as you want from a tripod. That's what i meant. Probably 90 percent of people want a lens like this for landscapes from a tripod. One stop of light won't make a difference.
But for them a 2.8 aperture is a hindrance because of the lens weight.
 

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,690
409
50
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
You can take as many landscapes as you want from a tripod. That's what i meant. Probably 90 percent of people want a lens like this for landscapes from a tripod. One stop of light won't make a difference.
But for them a 2.8 aperture is a hindrance because of the lens weight.
For Landscapers there are several criteria. Firstly, size and weight are important factors. No one wants a long walk / hike with a bunch of heavy lenses. Brightness, less so as usually these lenses are heavily stopped down for extended depth of field. Landscaper's (generally) couldn't give a hoot at the lens' wide open sharpness. Then there's flare resistance, Ability to natively wield a pair of filters with out mechanical vignette. Strong light leak prevention for long exposures and nice looking sun stars (best so far is the ef 16-35IIL). Low CA and geometric distortion...too corrected and it'll look like an architectural lens, too little and everything looks like it has strong barrel distortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

noms78

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 6, 2013
65
24
Quickly choosing 15/16mm could be difficult to eyeball. But I have a feeling 14mm might be too wide for outdoor shots.

I may end up adding two white dots for 15 and 16mm if those FL get used more often than 14mm.
 

HMC11

Travel
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
43
36
You seem to confuse it with the DG DN lens, which doesn't exist for the EF mount.
You are, of course, correct. I was referring to the DG DN and not the HSM, which weighs about 1.15kg. The DG DN lens seems like a good option for RF if/when Sigma decides to produce it for the RF mount.
 

wockawocka

EOS R
Sep 13, 2011
855
158
It will surprise me a lot if it's better than the 16-35 F4 IS. I'm findin RF lenses hit and miss atm. I still miss me EF 24-70 mkii due to the excessive vignetting of the RF version.
 

wsmith96

Advancing Amateur
Aug 17, 2012
942
32
Texas
Why? Nether the 15-35 or the Nikon 14-30 have bulbous front elements.
probably because my only experience at 14mm is the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, also when looking at the ef 11-24, it has a large front lens. At what point (mm wise) is a large front end required?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,045
2,999
Quickly choosing 15/16mm could be difficult to eyeball. But I have a feeling 14mm might be too wide for outdoor shots.

I may end up adding two white dots for 15 and 16mm if those FL get used more often than 14mm.
Do you actually pick the focal length you want and then compose your image? Personally, I select the composition and perspective I want, and if the lens on the camera cannot deliver that then I change lenses. I don’t care about the focal length that ends up written to the EXIF.

Imagine – I’m going to drive my little hatchback today, not the big SUV. I want to take 6 friends with me, but I chose the hatchback so three of them can’t go. That would be silly.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
650
777
probably because my only experience at 14mm is the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, also when looking at the ef 11-24, it has a large front lens. At what point (mm wise) is a large front end required?

Not sure but looks like the short flange distance of mirrorless allows flat front element at wider angles. I would guess around 12mm, considering that Sonys 12-24 F4 has a bulbous front element. It also depends on the compromises being made, like the amount of vignetting allowed (pretty high for the 15-35) and lens size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wsmith96

xwxw

I'm New Here
Nov 3, 2020
14
20
Canon is taking deliberate efforts to set itself apart from other manufacturers:

14-35 - starts wider than most manufacturers. and for the only one that can match Canon on 14mm, it pales in terms of reach and filter size.

15-35 - still wider than Sony and Nikon, plus IS

24-70/2.8 - IS is still absent from Sony and Nikon

70-200/2.8 or 4 - well, at least size matters, and it carves out a new path nobody has contemplated before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reisi007

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
Of course I had to buy the EF 16-35 f4L IS a few months back to go with my control ring adapter and EF 100mmL. I had found a Like New 16-35 at KEH for $700. But this RF lens was what I wanted. I would look for that lens to retail at $1599 at most, with $1349 being my final guess.
I live in deep poverty, but I will definitely be after this lens, after using the RF 85mm f2 and discovering that focus peaking turns on as soon as you take over focus after one-shot AF. With EF lenses the focus peaking only works in MF. Also the EF 16-35 is HUGE on my tiny RP. I use the 16-35 for street photos, so smaller lens is great. (Please Canon, make a 28-35 f2 for my street work!!!) The EF lenses are fantastic on R bodies, but the RF lenses offer more features, even IF you have the control ring adapter.
So I am very excited and glad that this is finally coming out. I want the f2.8s and the f2's, but I can't afford them. The R5 and RF 50L broke me for months.
So looks like I will be selling my 16-35 this year sometime...unless I hear a good rumor about a 24-35mm lens, I am all in on that zoom.