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

[Marximusprime]

Could make a fairly useful kit lens for an APS-C R body.

Probably going to be very expensive for a kit lens, but the focal length range (in APS-C) would be nearly identical to the Panasonic 20-60, which is something I'd like to have for a walkaround. And I guess I would have it in crop mode, haha. But I recently bought the Sigma 14-24 because I want to do astro, not just landscapes.

 

[Rivermist]

Wow, compact indeed. I love my 16-35 f:4L, but with adapter it is a large lens combination. Just like the RF 70-200 lenses, compactness becomes an additional motivation to upgrade. The cost will be the (hopefully reasonable) price for the new lens minus the revenue from selling the EF 16-35 and the adapter (about $700 for both)

 

[InchMetric]

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.

That size is... really compelling. If it's $1200-1300, it may not be the worst idea for me to sell my RF 15-35 F/2.8 and pick this up for the $700 price savings difference.

But I'll trade "down" for compactness only if I'm convinced it's not a compromise in image quality.

 

[xwxw]

One design attribute, as you could see from this picture, is that the lens is at its shortest when zoomed to 22mm. This is different from the 16-35/4 which is more conventional and at its shortest at the wide end. This must be the reason why it’s possible to make the RF shorter than the EF version.

 

[xwxw]

It’s a smart choice and make it a natural fit for APS (if that ever comes to market as rumored). Really smart.

 

[xwxw]

I was seriously tempted by the Nikon 14-30 for a long time due to its size advantage and superb image quality but now I know where my purchase will be made.

Only concern I have with this lens is the level of distortion at its wide end without camera correction, which seems to have been the price paid to achieve size savings in some of the recent offerings of Nikon and Canon. Hope it will not be like that.

 

[tigers media]

Continue reading...

looks great hopefully they price it in my ball park !

 

[Maximilian]

Looks like it is practically the same size as the RF 24-105L assuming a 77mm filter thread.

Thanks for that comparison. seems to be really compact (for an L lens).
if so.

 

[Random Orbits]

I believe Canon has three options:
1. go wider just like with the UWA zooms. I imagine an RF 12mm
2. keep 14mm, but give it more light like F2 at least
3. Design a completely new and super light 14mm F2.8.

With the zooms getting wider and the RF 16mm F2.8. about to come, I think option No 1 makes a lot of sense. Give it F2 and it would be a killer astro lense

I like options 1 and 2. I don't think Canon will do number 3 just because Canon doesn't do "cheap" for the most part. Canon has an EF 14mm f/2.8 that sells for a lot of money even though it has been surpassed by 3rd party offerings for much less. When the EF 14 f/2.8 II came out, it was the widest rectilinear EF option. Now there is a 11-24, and I think the 15-35 and 14-35 will be good enough for people looking for an AOV similar to a 14mm prime. If Canon does a RF 10-24, then I think there should be a prime at 10mm or wider.

 

[stochasticmotions]

oh, look....there's my next lens

 

[Random Orbits]

Sony also has an excellent 14mm f/1.8. Lighter than the sigma too. I would expect Canon to match the brightness on their 14mm, given their current RF lineup

Match or possibly surpass it. Sony got into mirrorless full frame at the right time, and their lenses targeted EF and Nikon's F-mount DSLR lenses. Canon fired back by highlighting the advantages of a wider mount and by releasing the 28-70 f/2 and the 50 and 85mm f/1.2 primes. Sony now releases a 50 f/1.2. Now, I'd like to see lenses that only Canon can make because of the mount diameter. I suspect the relative advantages will be greater the wider the design goes.

 

[Sharlin]

So, the million dollar question: Do you think the image circle will fully cover the sensor at 14mm or will there be mandatory distortion correction shenanigans involved?

 

[Joules]

So, the million dollar question: Do you think it will fully cover the image circle at 14mm or will there be mandatory distortion correction shenanigans involved?

My bet is on shenanigans being involved.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I’ll be damned. They did it. I am very happy I held off buying the f/2.8 version. A small, light f/4 ultra wide. Now I have to prepare my body, mind, and soul for the purchase of the R3 at the same time.

 

[LSXPhotog]

So, the million dollar question: Do you think the image circle will fully cover the sensor at 14mm or will there be mandatory distortion correction shenanigans involved?

No way they slap a red ring on a lens that has mandatory distortion correction! God I hope I’m right! Haha

 

[mangobutter]

This could make me come back to R. 14-35 F4, RF 35 Macro, 70-200 F4 (RF) would be the ultimate setup. case closed, done, never buy another lens in my lifetime type setup. Need bokeh? 200mm @ F4. Done. Landscape and low light--done. I'm guessing this lens will be $1399 as the Nikon version (Nikon Z 14-30 F4) is $1099.. but started at $1299.

 

[xwxw]

Canon only did it for their very budget friendly 24-105 non L so there is a glimmer of hope. But...

 

[Cmam]

Could make a fairly useful kit lens for an APS-C R body.

I do not think so. The focal range of 22-56mm (full-frame eq.) would be indeed useful, but not for the expected prise and bulk of this lens.

 

[danfaz]

Nice! This, the 24-105 and 70-200 f4s...all small and easy to carry.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Even today I would still prefer buying EF lenses, as they work on both the RF and the EF mount. Even if I buy a mirrorless camera at some point in future, I might still also take my DSLR on my journeys. So I really need lenses that work on both of them.