Review: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,920
1,861
I found Canon JPEGs unusable in both 1D series cameras I owned so far. No matter how I change the settings, there seems to be some kind of noise reduction always applied even if you turn off all noise reduction. The images look like wrapped into plastic. I decided to only use them for previews.
Even with the 'Fine Detail' profile enabled? I haven't used in-camera JPEGs in years, but selecting 'Fine Detail' improved video quality a lot for me! DPP4 will also use the profile you have selected in the camera.
 

dilbert

EOS 90D
Aug 12, 2010
119
96
What if Canon offers Lightroom the exact correction data (which Adobe otherwise would have to find on their own) in return for a correction that happens even before hitting the lens profile checkmark?

Adobe already effectively have a process to do that. Adobe's software also competes with DPP and you can bet that there would be internal political pressure at Canon to not supply Adobe with that information.

It is strange that no Youtube review I saw so far mentions that distortion. Are they not aware of it, because they use DDP or are they just ignoring it?

No. Canon is known for stopping the sending of review copies of cameras and lenses if you provide the Internet with bad reviews of their equipment or call them out all the time. When you make money from "first" reviews, you're not going to bite that hand that feeds you.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,420
4,075
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Adobe already effectively have a process to do that. Adobe's software also competes with DPP and you can bet that there would be internal political pressure at Canon to not supply Adobe with that information.
I don't buy that for a second. Adobe is the 800lb gorilla of software and I'm sure Canon has a close and positive working relationship with Adobe. Canon has much more to lose by not cooperating with Adobe than Adobe has. Canon knows that DPP is just a gnat on the windshield of processing software and has no interest or financial reason to jeopardize their relationship with Adobe for the sake of DPP.
 
Aug 7, 2018
356
306
Even with the 'Fine Detail' profile enabled? I haven't used in-camera JPEGs in years, but selecting 'Fine Detail' improved video quality a lot for me! DPP4 will also use the profile you have selected in the camera.
Where can I find that? I only found settings for changing the JPEG quality from 0 to 10 or so. I always opted for the highest quality. I also disabled JPEG sharpening and all noise reduction that I can disable.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,920
1,861
Where can I find that? I only found settings for changing the JPEG quality from 0 to 10 or so. I always opted for the highest quality. I also disabled JPEG sharpening and all noise reduction that I can disable.
It should be in the Camera icon menu under 'Picture Style'. The presentation is a bit disingenuous, every style listed has a different baseline, so the individual adjustments are against that specific baseline, you can't recreate a style on your own by copying the slider settings.
 
Aug 7, 2018
356
306
It should be in the Camera icon menu under 'Picture Style'. The presentation is a bit disingenuous, every style listed has a different baseline, so the individual adjustments are against that specific baseline, you can't recreate a style on your own by copying the slider settings.
I only have the picture styles Auto, Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Natural and Monochrome.
 

snapshot

5d2,5d4,r5
CR Pro
Jul 24, 2020
59
44
Oh really?

Does DPP make any money for Canon that Adobe's software wouldn't?
i assume dpp is there so that canon can claim owners can access all of the advertised functions of the equipment without 3rd party products and without disclosing protocols and formats. some users it is good enough so as not to have to rent the adobe stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

snapshot

5d2,5d4,r5
CR Pro
Jul 24, 2020
59
44
Yes, for a camera with an OVF they would never have produced an L-lens with such a heavy distortion, because they know that people would hate that, even if that photo looks still start after correcting it in software. Now people have an EVF and Canon knows that most buyers will never know about the distortion, as the EVF gives Canon the chance to hide it.

I am still curious if the distortion will be visible in the RAW if you open it with Lightroom, as there applying lens profiles is optional. Or does Canon have an agreement with Adobe to force correction on this lens?
all of this stuff are tools to be used within a system. when i bought into the EF system i chose to mount a ef28-70L to my elan-7e and used various developer/print makers to see the results. In that system, a lens with noticeable geometric distortion would not have produced the results i was looking for. Some folks might still be shooting and processing film and digital correction may still not be an option. I used a tamron 28-300 for a light weight travel rig, and while that lens has some distortion i was pretty pleased with the results i obtained with correction. This was for me a better tool and system choice for different goals.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,420
4,075
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I assume dpp is there so that canon can claim owners can access all of the advertised functions of the equipment without 3rd party products...
Agree
...and without disclosing protocols and formats...
Disagree. I believe Canon probably shares relevant protocols and formats with Adobe so that users can process Canon files as seamlessly as possible with the world's most popular photo processing software.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,136
4,747
i assume dpp is there so that canon can claim owners can access all of the advertised functions of the equipment without 3rd party products and without disclosing protocols and formats. some users it is good enough so as not to have to rent the adobe stuff.
I use DPP only when a camera is too new to be supported by DxO PhotoLab.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,420
4,075
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I am still curious if the distortion will be visible in the RAW if you open it with Lightroom, as there applying lens profiles is optional...
Just a side note. I noticed that when I downloaded the latest version of Camera Raw, the default setting was to have the "apply lens profile" option checked. I had to turn it off. I wonder if this is a function of the move to mirrorless.
 

dilbert

EOS 90D
Aug 12, 2010
119
96
Oh really?

Does DPP make any money for Canon that Adobe's software wouldn't?

Every time someone buys a Canon camera that comes packaged with DPP, they're paying for DPP. So yes, DPP does make money for Canon. You pay for everything in the box, camera, battery, strap, charger, manual(s), and software package. You don't buy "just the camera".
 
Last edited:

dilbert

EOS 90D
Aug 12, 2010
119
96
I don't buy that for a second. Adobe is the 800lb gorilla of software and I'm sure Canon has a close and positive working relationship with Adobe..

Adobe has to wait for a retail version of the product to test and develop profiles with - for reasons that should be obvious.

That and there is always a lag between when a Canon camera/lens is released and when ACR/LR support it.

Just a side note. I noticed that when I downloaded the latest version of Camera Raw, the default setting was to have the "apply lens profile" option checked. I had to turn it off. I wonder if this is a function of the move to mirrorless.

Or people compare LR/ACR images with those from other products that do apply this correction automatically and decide the non-Adobe product is better.

Or they surveyed users and found that many had it in profiles and wanted it enabled by default because it suitd their workflow better.

Mirrorless cameras have been around for ages now...
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,208
1,524
Every time someone buys a Canon camera that comes packaged with DPP, they're paying for DPP.
So what?

If I buy a Canon camera, I get DPP no matter whether I use it or not.
If I buy Adobe software, I can buy a Canon camera if it's supported by Adobe, or I can buy a camera from another manufacturer that is better supported by Adobe.
In which of these scenarios Adobe software and DPP compete for my money, and how exactly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused
Aug 7, 2018
356
306
I am still looking for a way to import camera profiles into Lightroom 5.7. With lens profiles that works great. I can just download Adobe Camera RAW for free and copy the profiles to Lightroom. Unfortunately the same trick does not work for camera profiles. So with a mirrorless camera I would have to switch to a different software, as I will never pay for a software subscription.
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
760
177
Because that is what they are used to. People have been very quick to dump DSLR’s but you can’t do this kind of shenanigans with an optical viewfinder.

If the ‘lens improvements’ the RF mount gives amount to nothing more than clever software tricks (I wondered how Nikon and Canon had managed to make non bulbous front element ff 14mm lenses) then I’d be pretty pissed too.

When compared to stand out lenses like the EF 16-35 f4 IS and the EF 11-24 f4, let alone the TS-E 17mm some of these current RF premium lenses seem like a bit of a bad joke.
To me the bad joke is f/4. They teased us with patents for ultrawides in the f/1.2 to f/1.0 range - crazy wide and crazy fast. And what do we get - f/4. And at a hefty price, too.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,136
4,747
Every time someone buys a Canon camera that comes packaged with DPP, they're paying for DPP. So yes, DPP does make money for Canon. You pay for everything in the box, camera, battery, strap, charger, manual(s), and software package. You don't buy "just the camera".
By that logic, Canon makes money on camera boxes, and competes with Adobe to sell packaging material. Oh, wait…that’s not really logical, is it?

No doubt Canon covers the costs of DPP development through camera sales, in the same way they cover the costs of printing warranty cards. But no one ‘buys’ warranty cards, and Canon doesn’t sell DPP. It’s a free download.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaPhoto
Aug 7, 2018
356
306
By that logic, Canon makes money on camera boxes, and competes with Adobe to sell packaging material. Oh, wait…that’s not really logical, is it?

No doubt Canon covers the costs of DPP development through camera sales, in the same way they cover the costs of printing warranty cards. But no one ‘buys’ warranty cards, and Canon doesn’t sell DPP. It’s a free download.
The difference is that developing software is really expensive.