The Canon RF 14mm F1.4L VCM is Right Around the Corner

[David - Sydney]

The peak of the aurora activity is usually 1 year AFTER the peak of the solar cycle which is measured by the sunspot numbers. That is related to more frequent coronal holes after the sun-spot maximum and the move of the sun-spots to the solar equator over the solar cycle. The effect also depends on the terrestrial latitude with the aurora oval only little affected by this variations while locations further away from it (e.g. central Europe or the mid- and southern US) being more affected.

The southern hemisphere aurora also has differences eg kp index intent really useful, bz numbers are more important instance.
Given the number X class flares recently, the sun is still pretty active! Just need them pointing more our way and less moonlight

 

[David - Sydney]

While I also like 14mm for aurora, I find the light-gathering capacity of any 14mm too poor for the milky-way.
14/1.8 = 7.8mm so open aperture proportional to 7.8 * 7.8 = 60
Compared to a fast 24 or 35mm lens:
24/1.4 = 17, so open aperture ...... = 294
35/1.4 = 25, so open aperture ..... = 625
So the 35/1.4 is collecting 10x more light than the 14/1.8 lens and that's what you see on the pictures.
So it's a compromise between a more-easy but darker 14mm image or more time-consuming but brighter (better s/n) stitched 35mm images.
I don't like this strong digital image correction, so I will rather wait and hope for a pure photography 35/1.2 lens.
In practice the manual focus for astro-images is usually more simple with full-manual third party lenses, but the selection is limited and most of them are rather budget-oriented lenses.

My multi panel Milky Way panoramas have way too many pixels so pixel peeping would be hard to tell the difference. A lot of my shots used the 14/2.8 so it is still possible for a decent result.
My sigma 20/1.4 doesn’t have great coma so I generally stop down anyway when tracking 1-2 minute exposures.
Would a rf35/1.2 have great coma performance as one of its design priorities?
Personally stitching multiple row panoramas is a pain in my butt YMMV

 

[Malm]

My multi panel Milky Way panoramas have way too many pixels so pixel peeping would be hard to tell the difference. A lot of my shots used the 14/2.8 so it is still possible for a decent result.
My sigma 20/1.4 doesn’t have great coma so I generally stop down anyway when tracking 1-2 minute exposures.
Would a rf35/1.2 have great coma performance as one of its design priorities?
Personally stitching multiple row panoramas is a pain in my butt YMMV

Hi!
Just different ways of working (and many roads lead to Rome).
I like the better s/n ratio to get more structure out of the nebula with stretching. I prefer natural colors.
And yipp, the Sigma 20/1.4 doesn't has a good reputation for coma. I'm using the Sigma A 28/1.4 (but 28mm isn't 20mm).
The coma of a potential RF 35/1.2: Good question! To be honest: the 'old' Cano EF L 35/1.4 II is a very good lens for panoramas of the milkyway, so I would only go for another 35mm lens if I see a clear advantage (like f/1.2 and similar low coma and vignette).
Stitching: Well yes, it is some additional work, but I'm used to stitch my aurora pictures, so it's relatively easy for me (and PTGui is your friend).

Happy chasing!

 

[David - Sydney]

Hi!
Just different ways of working (and many roads lead to Rome).
I like the better s/n ratio to get more structure out of the nebula with stretching. I prefer natural colors.
And yipp, the Sigma 20/1.4 doesn't has a good reputation for coma. I'm using the Sigma A 28/1.4 (but 28mm isn't 20mm).
The coma of a potential RF 35/1.2: Good question! To be honest: the 'old' Cano EF L 35/1.4 II is a very good lens for panoramas of the milkyway, so I would only go for another 35mm lens if I see a clear advantage (like f/1.2 and similar low coma and vignette).
Stitching: Well yes, it is some additional work, but I'm used to stitch my aurora pictures, so it's relatively easy for me (and PTGui is your friend).

Happy chasing!

I think that my standard is a bit lower than yours. Nebula would mean Ha - correct? I haven't gone down that route and probably won't although the technical challenge. Getting viewers to appreciate adding Ha to a picture seems to be a step too far for them as they don't know what it is and definitely can't see it with the naked eye.
For colours, there seems to be controversy about what would be the "correct" white balance. Seems to be a personal preference with some too purple for me for instance.
PTGui is great but sometimes I can't get it to stitch properly - even when adding control points and need to do a lot of work in post to get it looking okay. Simple is good for me

 

[CRFan]

Any sample astro pics that weren’t taken during a full moon?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Any sample astro pics that weren’t taken during a full moon?

Not that I’ve seen. Might have to wait a bit since the lens ships in late Feb and the moon is waxing toward a March 3rd full moon at that point.

 

[P-visie]

Any sample astro pics that weren’t taken during a full moon?

Petapixel has a review of the RF14mm f1.4 with a few astro pics. They complain about stars in the corner streaking towards the image center.

EDIT: Petapixel used the profile of the RF16mm f2.8 lens to correct the astro pictures.

See: https://petapixel.com/2026/02/12/canon-14mm-f-1-4l-vcm-review-major-trade-offs-for-compactness/

 

[CRFan]

Petapixel has a review of the RF14mm f1.4 with a few astro pics. They complain about stars in the corner streaking towards the image center.

See: https://petapixel.com/2026/02/12/canon-14mm-f-1-4l-vcm-review-major-trade-offs-for-compactness/

Thanks, seems to be some questions about focus points and lens profile corrections selected. Not sure why they used the RF 16 profile when a RF 14 correction profile exists.

 

[Del Paso]

Thanks, seems to be some questions about focus points and lens profile corrections selected. Not sure why they used the RF 16 profile when a RF 14 correction profile exists.

How to damage a brand...
If indeed they used a wrong profile, they should at least apologise!

 

[P-visie]

Thanks, seems to be some questions about focus points and lens profile corrections selected. Not sure why they used the RF 16 profile when a RF 14 correction profile exists.

Where did you get the information about the lens profile from?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Where did you get the information about the lens profile from?

From the pinned comment:

Hi all! As an explanation for the star streaking results, Jordan used the Canon 16mm profile as a starting point, with additional vignetting and distortion correction added manually. That said, the streaking of stars is still prominent in the uncorrected RAW files.

Not only the wrong profile, but one for a relatively cheap, 2-stop slower non-L lens. Manual distortion correction is linear and barrel only, while a proper profile corrects for the nonlinear nature of most distortion and any mustache components.

Or course the streaking will be present in uncorrected RAWs, as well.

So personally, I’d take all their conclusions with a chunk of salt…one big enough to choke on.

 

[P-visie]

From the pinned comment:


Not only the wrong profile, but one for a relatively cheap, 2-stop slower non-L lens. Manual distortion correction is linear and barrel only, while a proper profile corrects for the nonlinear nature of most distortion and any mustache components.

Or course the streaking will be present in uncorrected RAWs, as well.

So personally, I’d take all their conclusions with a chunk of salt…one big enough to choke on.

Thanks, that comment was added after I read the review and watched the video. Very poor performance from stupid by Petapixel. I’ve ordered the lens, so I can do my own testing (hopefully) soon.

Edit: See strikethrough.

 

[Del Paso]

From the pinned comment:


Not only the wrong profile, but one for a relatively cheap, 2-stop slower non-L lens. Manual distortion correction is linear and barrel only, while a proper profile corrects for the nonlinear nature of most distortion and any mustache components.

Or course the streaking will be present in uncorrected RAWs, as well.

So personally, I’d take all their conclusions with a chunk of salt…one big enough to choke on.

Was it sabotage or simply stupidity?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Was it sabotage or simply stupidity?

Does it matter? Either makes them an untrustworthy source.

 

[Del Paso]

Does it matter? Either makes them an untrustworthy source.

I think it does matter, many naive readers still believe they are a reliable source. Intellectual honesty would suggest a quick correction, but I doubt this will happen...

 

[P-visie]

I think it does matter, many naive readers still believe they are a reliable source. Intellectual honesty would suggest a quick correction, but I doubt this will happen...

I agree. The pinned comment to the review was added by the "Editor-in-chief", so I suspect that Petapixel did not feel "comfortable" with the review.
They should add a comment box at the start of the review to make it clearer that they used an incorrect lens profile.
This is very bad for their credibility (I've corrected my earlier posts).

 

[Del Paso]

I agree. The pinned comment to the review was added by the "Editor-in-chief", so I suspect that Petapixel did not feel "comfortable" with the review.
They should add a comment box at the start of the review to make it clearer that they used an incorrect lens profile.
This is very bad for their credibility (I've corrected my earlier posts).

I can only guess it wouldn't have happened with a Sony lens! The old Sony bias still present, I presume.

 

[Quack]

I think it does matter, many naive readers still believe they are a reliable source. Intellectual honesty would suggest a quick correction, but I doubt this will happen...

There is only one reliable source and that is personal experience. Anyone can start a website. Anyone can be a blogger. Expertise is not a requirement. Not being biased or having an agenda is not a requirement. Even with the best intentions, lenses vary. Experience varies. Needs vary. Clicks, followers, subscribers are usually the goal.

 

[P-visie]

I can only guess it wouldn't have happened with a Sony lens! The old Sony bias still present, I presume.

I don’t know. Jordan Drake, who shot the astro pics, is a videographer. The correct lensprofile may not have been available when he shot and processed the pictures and maybe he selected the lensprofile with the nearest focal range. Maybe he was lazy, but as @neuroanatomist posted, manual corrections have their limitations. It is stupid to apply another lenses profile for a lens which requires software corrections and not mention it in the text and video and draw any conclusions from those pictures.

 

[Del Paso]

There is only one reliable source and that is personal experience. Anyone can start a website. Anyone can be a blogger. Expertise is not a requirement. Not being biased or having an agenda is not a requirement. Even with the best intentions, lenses vary. Experience varies. Needs vary. Clicks, followers, subscribers are usually the goal.

I fully share your opinion, basing one's choice of lenses on pictures of charts, MTFs at full aperture only, or reviews by self-declared experts is always a risk.
Renting and testing before buying, whether from friends or a store, is a much more reliable practice. Or simply buying with the possibility of returning the lens to the seller if dissatisfied.