- Sep 26, 2021
When you test your RF 14-35mm f/4, can you please compare the uncorrected and software corrected images to confirm the extent of cropping that occurs? ThanksI just sold my EF 16-35/4L IS.
The degree of cropping are reported for the 16/2.8 seems excessive, and given that it was an unsubstantiated comment on a review I take it with a large grain of salt. Regardless, to deliver the camera’s full resolution, the cropped images must be upscaled.
I also don’t find a comparison between two corrected profiles (Canon 14-35 vs Samyang 14) to be especially compelling. Distortion correction changes framing, and the degree to which distortion is corrected may differ between the profiles.
I am pretty sure that if Canon labels a lens 16mm or 14mm, the FoV delivered in the final images will be that. Keep in mind that focal length is specified at infinity focus. Since people testing for lens distortion aren’t using charts or walls large enough to fill the frame with the lenses focused at infinity, focus breathing must be considered. For example, the EF-S 18-200mm at the long end frames at ~150mm equivalent with a close subject, the EF 100/2.8L Macro frames like ~67mm at 1:1. The 16/2.8 probably has a fair bit of breathing, the 14-35 less so.
For me, an additional factor is the small size of the 14-35, compared to the 16-35/4 (with adapter). Also, the relevant comparison to me is both lenses at the wide end, so even if the 14-35 isn’t quite 14mm, it’s wider than 16mm, and smaller and lighter in my bag.
I ordered the RF 14-35, once it arrives I’ll run some comparisons, including vs my EF 11-24 for FoV.