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

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
That size is... really compelling. If it's $1200-1300, it may not be the worst idea for me to sell my EF 16-35 F/4 and pick this up for the $500 price difference. I really don't use my ultra ultrawide enough to really warrant the $1500 extra over selling my EF F/4.

Honestly may just depend on the price of the R3. If the R3 is cheaper than expected, that's extra money towards a new lens.
Is there a consensus on the suspected price of the R3? Logic says it will be right between the r5 and 1D in price, but other factors like competitor prices may influence it.
My guess is $4,998 to $5498 in price for the R3, and I would call this a middle range of pricing not based on anything Sony sells, which to be honest is their only competitor for full frame. With Nikon's move to cheap manufacturing, they are toast, one of the longest deaths ever, considering the death knell was sounded in 1987 with the introduction of Canon Electro-Focus and Electro-Optical System. Poor Nikon...I guess they'll always have the hunting scopes market.
 

Marximusprime

EOS M50
Sep 18, 2018
42
41
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.

Sigma makes a 24-35 f2 in EF mount. It's not small, though.
 

mangobutter

EOS 90D
Dec 11, 2014
185
95
www.e46mango.com
I wouldn't have minded a 17-40 remake, especially if they can make it super light and small, no IS etc. i'd buy that in a heartbeat. of course it would have to be cheaper. the 17-40 got many, including myself, into L lenses well over a decade ago. Got my first 17-40 in 2006. it was so exotic and high end to me... made me proud to own and got me into the L club. they need a lens like that for young people.. an affordable dream
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
73
71
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.
It never in my life occurred to me to frame a shot with a zoom lens by setting according to the little numbers on the barrel.
 

Traveler

EOS R
Oct 6, 2019
94
122
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.
I used the RF 15-35 for some time, then I switched to EF 16-35 (size, 77mm filter thread). I miss that extra 1 mm almost half the cases. Can’t wait for this lens if has 77 mm filter thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noms78

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
248
561
Is there a consensus on the suspected price of the R3? Logic says it will be right between the r5 and 1D in price, but other factors like competitor prices may influence it.
My guess is $4,998 to $5498 in price for the R3, and I would call this a middle range of pricing not based on anything Sony sells, which to be honest is their only competitor for full frame. With Nikon's move to cheap manufacturing, they are toast, one of the longest deaths ever, considering the death knell was sounded in 1987 with the introduction of Canon Electro-Focus and Electro-Optical System. Poor Nikon...I guess they'll always have the hunting scopes market.
Well, I certainly hope Nikon is not toast. After 25 years as a Canon shooter, I sold my R a couple months ago and got both a Z5 and Z50. The Z5 refurbished was $899, it was too good a deal to pass up as I continued to wait for a low or mid priced FF mirrorless and an APS-C RF mount camera from Canon. There are no doubt trade-offs in switching, but Nikon offered certain things in FF mirrorless that Canon so far has not brought to the table (lighter, smaller high-quality lenses, and a low-priced FF with a high quality sensor and 2 card slots). What convinced me to switch was their Z 24-200mm f/4 and 14-30mm f/4 lenses. I much prefer a lens with a wide zoom range, and while I thought the Canon RF 24-240 was a very good lens for its type, the 24-200 just blew me away. Both lenses (as well as their 24-70 f/4) are smaller and lighter than comperable Canon offerrings, something that I was really hoping for with a switch to mirrorless with Canon. I miss the back screen touch AF (and focus in general is noticeably slower) but I'm using the Nikon Z5 mainly for landscape, so neither of those specs are particularly needed. One keeps hearing negatives online about Nikon, but as a photographer and not a gear-head, their lenses were so good I decided to switch. (The price of the cameras was also a factor, of course.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7 and FrenchFry

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
73
71
Well, I certainly hope Nikon is not toast. After 25 years as a Canon shooter, I sold my R a couple months ago and got both a Z5 and Z50. The Z5 refurbished was $899, it was too good a deal to pass up as I continued to wait for a low or mid priced FF mirrorless and an APS-C RF mount camera from Canon. There are no doubt trade-offs in switching, but Nikon offered certain things in FF mirrorless that Canon so far has not brought to the table (lighter, smaller high-quality lenses, and a low-priced FF with a high quality sensor and 2 card slots). What convinced me to switch was their Z 24-200mm f/4 and 14-30mm f/4 lenses. I much prefer a lens with a wide zoom range, and while I thought the Canon RF 24-240 was a very good lens for its type, the 24-200 just blew me away. Both lenses (as well as their 24-70 f/4) are smaller and lighter than comperable Canon offerrings, something that I was really hoping for with a switch to mirrorless with Canon. I miss the back screen touch AF (and focus in general is noticeably slower) but I'm using the Nikon Z5 mainly for landscape, so neither of those specs are particularly needed. One keeps hearing negatives online about Nikon, but as a photographer and not a gear-head, their lenses were so good I decided to switch. (The price of the cameras was also a factor, of course.)
I was a big fan of Nikon mirrorless after years with Nikon DSLRs (back to the D100). Z6 was a delight. But... Canon was producing great lenses and Nikon's are ho-hum. The deal-breaker was the 70-200, with Canon's amazing compact form compared to Nikon's horse's leg. I did love the Z24-70 f4, except for the irritant that it was non-functional in its normal compact position.

I'm thrilled to be able to screw on and off lenses the right way after decades of Nikon, but am still struggling to get the zoom direction right each time.
 

noms78

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 6, 2013
65
24
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.
are you saying the rf 24-70 f/2.8 vignettes more then the ef 24-70 f/2.8 ii? i thought the rf glass was at least as good as the ef.
 

noms78

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 6, 2013
65
24
I didn't believe this too until I read the opticallimits reviews of the rf 15-35 2.8 and rf 24-70 2.8. They concluded vignetting was worse than the ef equivalents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pzyber

noms78

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 6, 2013
65
24
It never in my life occurred to me to frame a shot with a zoom lens by setting according to the little numbers on the barrel.
The 16-35 f4 is my most used lens. i usually know what focal length to select before looking through the viewfinder. there is a big difference between 14mm and 20mm. i think it is a mistake that canon did not put a 16mm marking on the lens. nikon had the foresight to do it.

anyway, i will get used to it. first world problems hehe
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pzyber

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,311
5,447
Yes, almost 5 stops of vignetting in the corners is a bit too much for a lens costing over $2000 and weighting 850g.
I thought that before I bought the EF 11-24, a $3,000 lens that weighs 1,180g and vignettes over 4 stops in the corners. Then I got it and shut up and took pictures with it, what an amazing lens. Funny thing is I have never looked at the corners and thought 'darn that vignetting is an issue'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcm

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
166
35
Berlin
www.flickr.com
(Please Canon, make a 28-35 f2 for my street work!!!)
Really? That small zoom range?
For that I would use a 28mm, maybe a upcoming 28 1.2 and crop if needed.

I have nothing between a 35 and a 70(-200) and don't miss anything. I can easily crop 50mm or so out of the 35mm, if I want to.
I also don't have anything between my 17 TZE and a 35 (except a 1.4 TK for 17=>24), and this works too. I sold my 24-105 years ago.
But I can imagine to buy this 14-35/4 to use this and with the 70-200/4 as a small two lens setup. I would never add a 24-105 or a 24-70 to fill any gaps between... so I never understand the holy-trinity (or the one for f/4) talk, but everybody is different...
 

12Broncos

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2019
77
73
I really don't care about the lens. The announcement of the R3 is what caught my attention. I know this is a rumor site and I should at least be a little skeptical. Which I am, however, right now I'll cling to any good news I can get. Here's hoping the announcement is next week for the R3!!
 

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
Sigma makes a 24-35 f2 in EF mount. It's not small, though.
Yes, and it is lovely to behold. (chef kiss)
However, I bought a 50 f1.4 art, and its AF was so bad it could not be corrected because it shifted depending on distance. I know it isn't their fault, it is Canon's fault supposedly, but I swore then I would never use a Sigma lens EVER. I am too much of a perfectionist and too addicted to wide open shooting to put up with f1.4 shots being off in AF. It is a shame, because I love the company. I loved my Sigma dp2 Quattro with the foveon sensor, and if I had the money, I would go all in on the fpL with the incredible viewfinder that allows top down viewing. That would make an excellent street shooting camera, with the multi-angle viewfinder. Geez I miss waist-level finders. Hint-hint, Canon. Canon got so close with a few of the M bodies and that first detachable VF that allowed 90-degree viewing angle (not the mark 2 viewfinder.)
Anyway, thanks for the tip. That 24-35 isn't too well known.
 

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
Well, I certainly hope Nikon is not toast. After 25 years as a Canon shooter, I sold my R a couple months ago and got both a Z5 and Z50. The Z5 refurbished was $899, it was too good a deal to pass up as I continued to wait for a low or mid priced FF mirrorless and an APS-C RF mount camera from Canon. There are no doubt trade-offs in switching, but Nikon offered certain things in FF mirrorless that Canon so far has not brought to the table (lighter, smaller high-quality lenses, and a low-priced FF with a high quality sensor and 2 card slots). What convinced me to switch was their Z 24-200mm f/4 and 14-30mm f/4 lenses. I much prefer a lens with a wide zoom range, and while I thought the Canon RF 24-240 was a very good lens for its type, the 24-200 just blew me away. Both lenses (as well as their 24-70 f/4) are smaller and lighter than comperable Canon offerrings, something that I was really hoping for with a switch to mirrorless with Canon. I miss the back screen touch AF (and focus in general is noticeably slower) but I'm using the Nikon Z5 mainly for landscape, so neither of those specs are particularly needed. One keeps hearing negatives online about Nikon, but as a photographer and not a gear-head, their lenses were so good I decided to switch. (The price of the cameras was also a factor, of course.)
Gee, I feel bad for you a bit. I feel bad for anyone that is suckered into Nikon who doesn't already have a large glass commitment to them. They just barely limp in with gear now, playing catch-up with Sony and Canon. If it was anytime before 1987, I would go all in on Nikon, they are legendary, BUT it isn't 1986.....the world has moved on. If I was wealthy and impatient I too may have bought the Z, just to play with for a few months, but I remember reading the specs and not being impressed, as usual, when I compared it to Sony. At that time I just bought a Sony rx1rm2 to tide me over. The last time Nikon impressed me was the 36mp d800E, which was the last Nikon body I ever owned. It was when they moved manufacturing that I realized they were probably done, and would end up the next Ricoh or Pentax, making a few cameras for extreme fans, but making nothing really innovating or industry-changing.
I would love to be wrong on this, but Nikon is going to need to make major changes if they still want that market share they once had in their glory days.
 

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
Really? That small zoom range?
For that I would use a 28mm, maybe a upcoming 28 1.2 and crop if needed.

I have nothing between a 35 and a 70(-200) and don't miss anything. I can easily crop 50mm or so out of the 35mm, if I want to.
I also don't have anything between my 17 TZE and a 35 (except a 1.4 TK for 17=>24), and this works too. I sold my 24-105 years ago.
But I can imagine to buy this 14-35/4 to use this and with the 70-200/4 as a small two lens setup. I would never add a 24-105 or a 24-70 to fill any gaps between... so I never understand the holy-trinity (or the one for f/4) talk, but everybody is different...
Yes, that small a zoom range, but because I am imagining it being half the size of a 24-70, which isn't necessarily true. My 16-35 f4 is my first zoom ever, so I am new to zooms. With the adapter, the EF 16-35 is HUGE on my rp and r5. I used to favor an 85 prime doing street, isolating subjects in narrow DoF, but now I want to do entire scenes at f4 or slower, and I find myself using 24, 28, and 35 most of all.
The biggest factor for me is hiding the gear, the reason I want small or discreet lenses. I only shoot full frame, so this doesn't leave many options for my budget. ( I had tried sigma dp2, canon m3, m5, m6, canon g5x, and I hate aps-C.)
So that is what motivates me to have a zoom like that. Sigma makes a 24-35 f2, but it is designed for several brands, and the lens is accordingly 10 feet long. I don't mind 3rd party sometimes, but in this case it needs to be special-designed for the massive R mount, not compromised by making sure the lens also fits the tiny APS-C Sony E-mount. Why SONY chose an aps-c mount to go over a full frame sensor seems stupid to me. It would be like if Canon had put the M mount on the R cameras. Yes, the smaller backfocus allows for aps-c DSLR to work on FF MILC, but at huge detriment to lens size and price.
I will likely do what you suggest, buy a fast 28 prime. I have no idea why I own so many 50's. I hardly use them. Anyway...thanks for the 28 advice.