# Canon officially announces the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 29, 2021)

> *MELVILLE, NY, June 29, 2021*– Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM lens. This dramatic new lens brings 14mm, ultra-wide-angle coverage to full-frame EOS R-series users. On top of the ultra-wide capabilities, the 14-35mm zoom range is the broadest ever in a Canon wide-angle zoom for full-frame AF cameras. For many Canon users, one single lens can potentially handle all wide-angle needs, from vivid, creative ultra-wide imagery to traditional street photography.
> The new wide-angle lens is designed for use within the expanding family of EOS R full-frame mirrorless cameras, including the upcoming EOS R3, currently in development. Whether you capture stills, video, or like many creatives today – both – this new wide-angle lens from Canon can help elevate users’ content game when capturing images or video in a wide variety of...



Continue reading...


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jun 29, 2021)

This looks like a lovely wide zoom lens, Canon have produced a beauty pushing the lens a couple of mm wider. 5.5 stops of IS and 7 stops coupled with IBIS bodies and keeping the weight down to just 540g which is very pleasing, I would love this lens.

However, Wow! It is priced in the UK to pre order at £1749, I might be getting tighter in my old age, but it seems like a lot of money for an f/4 lens in this range, but I think I'll still buy it eventually to replace my 17-40 mm


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 29, 2021)

The pricing surprised me a bit. I guess going 2mm wider than its EF counterpart really does drive the cost up.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 29, 2021)

The price was certainly a little higher than I anticipated it would be, but I still bought the lens. Ultra wide lenses help me make a large portion of my income between races with real estate photography. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate 14mm and not having to adapt my damn 16-35 anymore. This will be great to use and I am honestly sad I have to wait a minimum of a month before I can get my hands on it!


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 29, 2021)

Close to have the double price of the 16-35 4.0!
I have bought mine for around 950€.
Also 1500€ would be heavy!
Is it 1700€ or even higher?

edit:In Germany it is *1.819,00 €*! Holy smoke!


----------



## canonmike (Jun 29, 2021)

With early estimates of this lens's price range being $1199-1399, like others I was surprised to see the $1699.00 MSRP projection. Still, I did pre-order because I like the specs. However, this may not bode well for pricing of the EOS R3 and I'm now afraid Canon will price it on the high side, as well, closer to $6k instead of the $5-5500.00 range many of us were hoping for. Prove me wrong, Canon.......

Update: I was really hoping and waiting for the rumored RF 10-24 F4L but seeing that it apparently isn't coming anytime soon, I decided to bite the bullet on the RF 14-35. I figure that I can always sell the 14-35 once the 10-24 is available. Since I don't own an EF 16-35, this made sense to me, in spite of the RF's high price. It now appears that there may be a delay on the anticipated ship date of Aug 8 for the RF 100 mm F2.8 L is macro that I pre-ordered on Jun 1, when ordering was made available. There was no delay on my orders for both the R6 body and RF 24-105 F4L is lens. It took two months to get the RF 800 F11 once I ordered it. I only purchased the R6 to tide me over until I can get my hands on the R3, after Canon Price watch provided a link offering a $200.00 seller discount and a sales tax credit back on the R6, for a combined saving of almost $400.00 on the transaction. Plus, I figure I can always keep the R6 as a back up to the R3. I briefly considered an R5 but opted for the R6 instead, when my bank account started crying over my R5 consideration, knowing that I hope to be picking up the R3 as soon as it's available.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 29, 2021)

$1699 removes most temptation to sell the RF 15-35 f2.8. That cuts the expected value difference to pocket in half.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The pricing surprised me a bit. I guess going 2mm wider than its EF counterpart really does drive the cost up.


Also current market where supply chains remain disrupted and demand being equally lower is going to drive costs up.


----------



## noncho (Jun 29, 2021)

It looks great, but with this price I'll wait for 16 2.8.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 29, 2021)

Far too expensive. 

No way I can justify upgrading from the EF 16-35 F/4 - especially when that lens performs so well.


----------



## tron (Jun 29, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> This looks like a lovely wide zoom lens, Canon have produced a beauty pushing the lens a couple of mm wider. 5.5 stops of IS and 7 stops coupled with IBIS bodies and keeping the weight down to just 540g which is very pleasing, I would love this lens.
> 
> However, Wow! It is priced in the UK to pre order at £1749, I might be getting tighter in my old age, but it seems like a lot of money for an f/4 lens in this range, but I think I'll still buy it eventually to replace my 17-40 mm


Wow I got my RF15-35 a little cheaper than this!


----------



## tigers media (Jun 29, 2021)

Too rich at $2300 Australian for an F4 ? Canon needs some affordable glass now.. they seem to be trying to match Leica for ridiculous prices, not everyone can write it off against tax ..


----------



## BBarn (Jun 29, 2021)

Like others, I'm surprised by the price. Only $600 less than the faster RF 15-35. One millimeter with less volume and weight comes at a high cost despite the loss of speed. Clearly an alternative to the RF 15-35 as opposed to an addition.

No doubt the extra 1mm will be very important to some, but I would have sacrificed it for further reductions in size, weight, and/or cost.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 29, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Far too expensive.
> 
> No way I can justify upgrading from the EF 16-35 F/4 - especially when that lens performs so well.


I honestly think that Canon believes that’s what you should do then. Unfortunately, I think their mindset is that if you want something more affordable, there is nearly zero compromise to using the EF lens other than the addition length and “hassle” of the adaptor. I really don’t see any reason to upgrade from the 16-35 you have now unless you were unhappy with the image quality or you thought you would benefit from the additional 2mm on the wide end.

My biggest disappointment with the RF mount is that their “affordable” lenses -particularly the zooms- are basically terrible. The 24-105 variable apaerture lens and 24-240 aren’t winning any image quality awards.


----------



## styoda (Jun 29, 2021)

Canon's new Stops technology, stopsi and stopsii ...........



> Up to 5.5 stopsi of optical Image Stabilization is built-in, and Coordinated IS with cameras such as the EOS R6 and EOS R5 delivers up to 7 stopsii of shake-correction.


----------



## tron (Jun 29, 2021)

There is a CR3 rumor that my EF16-35mm f/4L IS can be used without adaptors on my 5DMkIV and 5DsR 

The same applies to my EF16-35 2.8L III    

Sorry I could not resist!


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Jun 29, 2021)

I thought this was going to be my very first RF lens but at that price point I am going to have to hold on to my EF 16-35 f/4 just that bit longer.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 29, 2021)

I miss the good old times when F4 zooms were the affordable choice...


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 29, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> edit:In Germany it is *1.819,00 €*! Holy smoke!


Considering sales rebate (like 10% off Canon EF glass at some foto stores), It is actually twice the price compared to the EF 16-35mm F4...
That is just absolutely insane. Consumers should really not order the lense until reasonable pricing is introduced...


> I thought this was going to be my very first RF lens but at that price point I am going to have to hold on to my EF 16-35 f/4 just that bit longe


I would have been my third RF lense but I'm actually back on eBay looking for a used copy of the EF 16-35mm F4...


----------



## dilbert (Jun 29, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I miss the good old times when F4 zooms were the affordable choice...



Yes, it is almost like Canon has detected that people prefer the slower, high quality, lenses and has decided to charge more for them.

While the R5 & R6 sales may have surprised them, I don't know how those camera owners are going to feel looking at this lens.

But once they discontinue the 16-35/f4L, people will have no choice.

With price rises like this, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Canon wanted to chase away buyers.


----------



## BBarn (Jun 29, 2021)

Comparing the RF 14-35 f/4 to the EF 16-35 f/4, the former is shorter, lighter and 2mm wider. Not sure a 55% premium (US retail) is all that far out of line. A few hundred less for the RF, say $1399, and it would almost seem like a bargain compared to the $1099 EF.


----------



## JustAnotherCanonShooter (Jun 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> $1699 removes most temptation to sell the RF 15-35 f2.8. That cuts the expected value difference to pocket in half.


Same here. I was thinking of lightening my pack by selling the 15-35 and picking this up. The price absolutely killed that plan.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2021)

At $1199 I’d have preordered. At this price, I’ll pass for now. If I used my 16-35/4 IS more, it might be a different story. If I need wider than 14mm, I have the 11-24/4.

I haven’t been traveling due to the pandemic, but I will go back and see how many of my 11-24 lens shots are in the 11-13mm range, and if there aren’t many I might consider the 14-35 for travel, instead – it would save a lot of weight, and takes filters.


----------



## anden (Jun 29, 2021)

I thought I would buy this lens right away, but with this price and for my amateur usage, I guess I’ll keep using my Iphone’s 13mm f/20 (32mm equivalent I believe) 12mp camera for ultra-wide needs for some more time.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 29, 2021)

Yeah same here. I was really going to upgrade from my EF16-35 f4, but I'll probably wait till the price drops by 300-500 AUD.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 29, 2021)

The size and weight is really appealing to me.

One feature that is easy to overlook is the minimum focus distance of 20cm, which is the same as the EF14mm f2.8 L. When shooting wide, going very close to your subject can make the image much more interesting (fill the frame). The difference in perspective you get with a wide angle lens makes is tempting to photograph smaller subjects, like flowers, while still getting nice bokeh, and include an interesting background . That is the feature I love the most with the EF 14mm. I also own the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 classic, and I find the Zeiss much harder to use because of a poorer minimum focus distance, which is making it harder to fill the frame with my desired subject, and harder to get pleasing bokeh.


----------



## tron (Jun 29, 2021)

The same with RF 70-200 4L IS at 1929 euros!!! I was lucky to get before BREXIT the RF70-200 2.8L IS for 2090 euros. So I will stick to that despite the small weight and size of the f/4 version.


----------



## Fotofriend (Jun 29, 2021)

While the specs sound really good for the third RF "f4-trinity-lens", the pricing is clearly over the top imo. I'm really doubting whether Canon are doing themselves a favor with this, be it 1700$ but for sure with 1819€ in Europe. First comments / reactions on European photographers sites are extremely negative about the pricing going so far as to even consider changing the system, not to forget since almost all RF lenses are priced so ambitiously, and now this for a f4 UW lens. 
Do you remember some years ago Canon initially pricing the EF 35 f2, 24 f2.8 and 28 f2.8 IS USM way too high? Finally (and probably with regard to sales figures as well) they significantly reduced the price to realistic levels. Although I'm not too optimistic, I hope they would come to the same conclusion here after a while...


----------



## Fotofriend (Jun 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The pricing surprised me a bit. I guess going 2mm wider than its EF counterpart really does drive the cost up.


I think it's not driving up the cost so much, but used as a reason to drive up the price...


----------



## BBarn (Jun 29, 2021)

JustAnotherCanonShooter said:


> Same here. I was thinking of lightening my pack by selling the 15-35 and picking this up. The price absolutely killed that plan.


The 14-35 is close enough to the 15-35 to make it more of an either/or decision rather than a possible addition for most customers. Most 15-35 owners will likely just keep what they have and passover the 14-35.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 29, 2021)

Not that much lighter than the EF 16-35 f/4 (adaptor will be in my bag until I convert all my lenses), minimum focus distance is ~3 inches closer. So, it really gets down to IBIS + in lens stabilization plus being 2 mm wider. All nice improvements and I am sure this is a great lens, but I will continue to stay put with my EF glass for awhile longer.


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 29, 2021)

Fotofriend said:


> I think it's not driving up the cost so much, but used as a reason to drive up the price...


Absolutely, it’s a pure margin grab.


----------



## zonoskar (Jun 29, 2021)

So no R3 today?


----------



## muentzer (Jun 29, 2021)

zonoskar said:


> So no R3 today?


No: https://www.canonrumors.com/i-may-have-been-wrong-about-the-eos-r3-official-announcement-date/


----------



## padam (Jun 29, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> Absolutely, it’s a pure margin grab.


The profit margin is probably constant, but the development + production costs, parts shortages, increased shipping costs etc. have ramped up the price.


----------



## muentzer (Jun 29, 2021)

Thought I would pre-order today but 1819 Euros is more than I expected :-( Keeping my EF 16-35 for the moment ...


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 29, 2021)

Maybe I should have bought the EF 4.0 16-35 IS for 1770 EUR with an EOS RP and the adapter included.

But now I will wait for a IQ comparison + evaluate if 2 mm are important for me + the max magnification is a reason to buy this lens .


----------



## FlashBazbo (Jun 29, 2021)

Manufacturers' raw materials prices are up by between 15% and 800% over the past 12 months. I'm not surprised that things are starting to cost more at the retail level. (But no, I won't be ordering.)


----------



## Fotofriend (Jun 29, 2021)

The f4-L (zoom and other) lenses are appealing to a wide range and huge number of people from professionals to semi-pros and "enthousiasts". I think Canon were wise to offer the EF 17-40 L and also the EF 16-35 f4 L at moderate prices to profit from sales in a best possible way. And I'm sure profits from those (for sure from the 17-40 over many years) was very good by hitting the right price point for many people to afford and buy it. I cannot image that hiking the prices for RF-f4-successors like the 14-35 this far will be equally profitable now by focusing more on a maximum profit share per product sold. In addition, the full frame market is much more competitive nowadays for sure. Premium products with premium prices and focus not primarily on market but profit share works for Apple for example, and maybe I'm wrong, but Canon is not Apple. As Canon I would watch out a little more for too many willing Canon users and potential new buyers that now turn away and reconsider Sony, Nikon etc. or just sticking to their older gear (as can be read in this forum too).


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 29, 2021)

styoda said:


> Canon's new Stops technology, stopsi and stopsii ...........



Assuming the official announcement includes footnotes. The first ‘i’ would be an explanation or disclaimer of lens only stops. The second ‘ii’ would explain that it’s in combination with IBIS.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jun 29, 2021)

The price is where I feared and expected it to be, considering the 70-200 f4L and the 100mm macro pricing. Out of reach for me, by about 30-40 %.


----------



## APP (Jun 29, 2021)

At $1300, I would have preordered. Here, I'm in "wait for detailed reviews" territory. At this price it will need to check ALL the boxes to justify replacing my 16-35/4. 

-Vignetting (comparable to 16-35 f/4, at least at equal focal lengths)
-exceptional sharpness
-well corrected coma (stars/astrophotography).

I hope the reviews can justify the price, since I'd love the smaller/lighter/wider combo. But for now I'm in "wait and see" mode.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 29, 2021)

FYI - The RF version costs 50% more than the EF equivalent. Looks like I'll be keeping my EF.


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 29, 2021)

padam said:


> The profit margin is probably constant, but the development + production costs, parts shortages, increased shipping costs etc. have ramped up the price.


I partly agree.

I think the loss of volume of sales is what is hurting them. I think their gross margin is significantly higher but they are aiming to achieve the same level of profit on them as they did on a lens in the EF days, without the volume. 

I can’t remember the thread it was in but canon talked about the high margins in RF lenses in their annual report. It’s clear they are looking to maximise that strategy with this lens, unfortunately.


----------



## gsm (Jun 29, 2021)

I was excited for this lens (it would be my first ultra-wide), but like many of you I find the cost too high. It makes sense for Canon as a business though. The cost of materials, shipping, etc. has gone up with the pandemic. They have had production shortages and cannot keep up with demand (for example, the 100-500 has been on back-order for a while). Increasing the price until demand matches production lets them sell the same number of lenses at a higher price. If the high price is keeping a lot of us from buying, my hope is that once production ramps up they will drop the price to tap into a new segment of the market. Hopefully that will happen sooner than the usual schedule for drops in price.


----------



## mangobutter (Jun 29, 2021)

To be honest $1699 was my first thought... then I backspaced and went nahhh... that can't be. Look at the Nikon Z 14-30... so then I went.. yeah it'll be $1399.

$1699 is heavy but I think as per usual, the price will go down a couple hundred after a few months. This is the early adopter price for professionals that need it now. At this point, you may as well pay a bit more and get a 2.8. 

I'd be all over a $700 17-40 replacement for the RF, no IS. But who are we kidding, those days are gone.


----------



## Jemlnlx (Jun 29, 2021)

I feel everyone else's disappointment. I was very excited to replace my current 16-35mm f/4 lens, which I love, with new RF glass gaining 2mm on the wide end. This would have been my first RF lens upgrade.

I was hoping for about a 23% price increase, similar to what they did with the 70-200 f/4 (EF - 1299 --> RF - 1599).

I was suprised to see the ~55% increase on the RF 16-35 f4... (EF - 1099 --> RF 1699). I was hoping they would market this as an "affordable" L RF lens...just as they did with the EF version. 

I think I will eventually start switching over to RF lenses...but currently I cannot justify upgrading my go-to EF lenses (24-70 ii +$,1000 after resale, 70-200 ii + $1500 after resale, and 16-35 f/4 + 900 after resale) given the prices of their RF equivalents. The "pros" in upgrading are just not worth it TO ME. Others may feel different.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 29, 2021)

Seems like another win from Canon - price seems a bit higher than Nikon Z' version.


----------



## carlosalberto (Jun 29, 2021)

After reading the messages, it seems to me that many do not accept that the photographic market that we knew, ended up dying with the pandemic. In my opinion we will see increasing prices in Prime lenses and Pro line cameras, in an increasingly smaller market.


----------



## reefroamer (Jun 29, 2021)

Considering many Canon products seem to be back-ordered, Canon likely set the price at a point — for now — that won’t worsen their production difficulties. At this price, they are probably hoping they can mostly meet demand. As supply constraints ease, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the price come down somewhat. But as a consumer, a low price is meaningless if I can’t actually buy the product. I haven’t seen the $99 Canon EF-RF Adapter available for months now.


----------



## edoorn (Jun 29, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> To be honest $1699 was my first thought... then I backspaced and went nahhh... that can't be. Look at the Nikon Z 14-30... so then I went.. yeah it'll be $1399.
> 
> $1699 is heavy but I think as per usual, the price will go down a couple hundred after a few months. This is the early adopter price for professionals that need it now. At this point, you may as well pay a bit more and get a 2.8.
> 
> I'd be all over a $700 17-40 replacement for the RF, no IS. But who are we kidding, those days are gone.


to be honest, I don't really see a price drop of RF lenses after a few months, at least not here in Europe. Both the 15-35 and 24-70 have been more or less stable in the past two years


----------



## alexp (Jun 29, 2021)

It might be *1.819,00 € *in Germany which is already crazy expensive for EU pricing, but over here in Spain is actually priced at *1.949,99 € *which is even crazier, also it's already of out stock here... Glad I didn't upgrade to a RF body yet.


----------



## Tom W (Jun 29, 2021)

Price is a little steep, but that is likely to drop a bit after the initial "gotta have it" sales have occurred.

This lens is one that, barring some optical oddities, I'd want to add to my collection eventually. But I can make do with the 16-35 f/4 IS EF lens and adapter for now.


----------



## Flyingskiguy (Jun 29, 2021)

focus breathing looks super well controlled in the B&H video. fantastic news for us video shooters. MTFs look pretty good, not too much vignetting in the sample images... I'm really looking forward to picking one of these up.


----------



## Amoma (Jun 29, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> I honestly think that Canon believes that’s what you should do then. Unfortunately, I think their mindset is that if you want something more affordable, there is nearly zero compromise to using the EF lens other than the addition length and “hassle” of the adaptor. I really don’t see any reason to upgrade from the 16-35 you have now unless you were unhappy with the image quality or you thought you would benefit from the additional 2mm on the wide end.
> 
> My biggest disappointment with the RF mount is that their “affordable” lenses -particularly the zooms- are basically terrible. The 24-105 variable apaerture lens and 24-240 aren’t winning any image quality awards.


I've been consistently impressed by the 24-240. No, it's not an L lens, but for the crazy range it offers and the fact you can find it around $600 used the results are quite good. My only real complaint is the fringing can get pretty bad under certain conditions but it's usually totally fixable and that's such a small trade off for the versatility of the lens.

I also think it's a mistake to compare RF lenses to EF equivalents outside of "trinity" lenses when it comes to pricing. When the 16-35 F4 came out, it was on a very mature system with a 30ish year history and dozens of alternatives from several manufacturers at various price points. The 14-35 is on an almost brand new system with one real alternative at the moment. I don’t think the 16-35 F4 would have anywhere close to the cult status it does if it wasn’t such an amazing value.

It’d be awesome if this new RF cousin was marketed similarly but there’s no real incentive for them to do that when they don’t need to undercut a vast used market for what is ostensibly a niche lens. And that’s not even taking pandemic supply and material and production restraints into account. It’s higher than I hoped but still what I’d consider fair and I’m definitely preordering.


----------



## angelisland (Jun 29, 2021)

Wow, the mint EF 16-35 f4 L which I just got for $550 used is now looking like an even greater bargain! IQ is great, IS, etc. 
It’s also adaptable to my Sony A7r4 - unlike the RF lenses.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 29, 2021)

JustAnotherCanonShooter said:


> Same here. I was thinking of lightening my pack by selling the 15-35 and picking this up. The price absolutely killed that plan.


It's an underwhelming "26% off!" the price of the superlative 15-35 f2.8. Which I already own and would leave me with less than half the $600 difference after selling used and shipping. I'm staying put (but still have a preorder just in case), and likely to swap when the 10-24 comes out.

This f4 new is $200 less than I paid for a perfect RF 15-35 f2.8 used at FM. 

I don't have any of the info Canon has, so trust they made the best choice, but I'd have expected having the f4 for ~2/3 of the f2.8 (~$1499) would feel much better.


----------



## SHAMwow (Jun 29, 2021)

I'm surprised people are still shocked at Canon's pricing. I don't love it either, but to me it's not going anywhere. Anytime your hobby or industry shrinks and becomes more niche, the prices for all of the gear goes up. I too want cheaper RF lenses, but I think this is here to stay. Even when they reiterate on each lens.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 29, 2021)

The only thing it does, like the 70-200 f4, is make the 2.8 version more attractive. RF f4’s costs more than the EF 2.8 did… $2360 here is ridiculous, that’s 200 more than the 70-200 f2.8 III at release…


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 29, 2021)

Sidenote, I thought it was interesting the RF 14-35 was possibly going to be announced alongside the R3. It turns out, it wasn't.

That leaves me wondering, what lenses will be announced alongside the R3? I'd hazard a good bet that they'll announce the RF 35mm F/1.2 at the same time, since the 35mm F/1.4 lenses were always the pro prime of choice for photojournalism and tended to be featured on 1-series bodies. Even if this isn't "1-series," it's to the same general audience.


I'd also hazard a guess that they'll announce the 70-400 at the same time, even though it's a consumer lens. They did announce the F/11 primes with the R5/R6. I'd like to see something like the slight rumors of a 500mm F/4L, but that sounded like more of 2022-territory.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Jun 29, 2021)

gsm said:


> I was excited for this lens (it would be my first ultra-wide), but like many of you I find the cost too high. It makes sense for Canon as a business though. The cost of materials, shipping, etc. has gone up with the pandemic. They have had production shortages and cannot keep up with demand (for example, the 100-500 has been on back-order for a while). Increasing the price until demand matches production lets them sell the same number of lenses at a higher price. If the high price is keeping a lot of us from buying, my hope is that once production ramps up they will drop the price to tap into a new segment of the market. Hopefully that will happen sooner than the usual schedule for drops in price.


If you don't need 14mm, the EF 16-35 F/4 IS is an excellent lens. They are in stock in the Canon USA refurb store at $989 as of Tuesday 6/29 at 3:30 pm


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Jun 29, 2021)

Looks like an absolutely awesome lens. Likely worth the cost, but retired, on a fixed income, so Canon mirrorless is a fading dream for me.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Jun 29, 2021)

Jemlnlx said:


> I feel everyone else's disappointment. I was very excited to replace my current 16-35mm f/4 lens, which I love, with new RF glass gaining 2mm on the wide end. This would have been my first RF lens upgrade.
> 
> I was hoping for about a 23% price increase, similar to what they did with the 70-200 f/4 (EF - 1299 --> RF - 1599).
> 
> ...


Do you think prices will hold up on used EF lenses? I look at sites like MPB.com and they have what seem to be large inventories of lenses like the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 IS III and the 100 2.8 IS Macro. Prices are still high now, but I wonder 6 months to a year from now with no new EF bodies causing demand and little high end demand from people who could afford to trade in for RF glass already having done so, if MPB and other dealers will have to lower prices to sell to less well off individuals who still own EF bodies and wanted but couldn't afford the top of the line glass?


----------



## Copland (Jun 29, 2021)

With this pricetag for a f4 lens , we can only hope the R3 will under 8.5k. But it would not out of this new Canon World.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 29, 2021)

Given the price of the 'budget' RF f4 L options I think the EF system has a pretty positive future in the secondhand market. You can get an EF 17-40 L for under $500, the superb EF 16-35 f4 IS L for under $800. An RF 14-35 f4 IS L is $1,700 and you can't get one.

Those are huge price differentials and it will be years before the RF equivalents are available on the secondhand market in any volume.


----------



## njohnson (Jun 29, 2021)

Good god that's expensive. Guess this is what happens with few viable third-party lenses. If Sigma and Tamron were in the game perhaps they would have been forced down some. I was actually looking forward to this one but on principle alone, I won't spend $1700 on it. I'd rather just stick with the 16-35.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 29, 2021)

I'm having trouble figuring out why RF glass is so overpriced. Is it the Canon branding?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 29, 2021)

dwarven said:


> I'm having trouble figuring out why RF glass is so overpriced. Is it the Canon branding?


Because they can and enough people feel the feature set of MILC’s is worth it. Personally it’s an equation that doesn’t balance for me yet, but I’m cheap!


----------



## navastronia (Jun 29, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Clearly an alternative to the RF 15-35 as opposed to an addition.


This right here is the most important take.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 29, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Sidenote, I thought it was interesting the RF 14-35 was possibly going to be announced alongside the R3. It turns out, it wasn't.
> 
> That leaves me wondering, what lenses will be announced alongside the R3? I'd hazard a good bet that they'll announce the RF 35mm F/1.2 at the same time, since the 35mm F/1.4 lenses were always the pro prime of choice for photojournalism and tended to be featured on 1-series bodies. Even if this isn't "1-series," it's to the same general audience.
> 
> ...


I'm hoping for the 500mm, 300mm, 400mm DO, 200-500, and anything else they can squeeze out ASAP! Really looking forward to seeing some native primes that are lighter weight! These would all be perfect on the R3 with integrated grip.


----------



## Max TT (Jun 29, 2021)

$1699 what the what now!


----------



## noms78 (Jun 29, 2021)

tigers media said:


> Too rich at $2300 Australian for an F4 ? Canon needs some affordable glass now.. they seem to be trying to match Leica for ridiculous prices, not everyone can write it off against tax ..


$2500 aud with gst. will probably be available for $2100-2200 after a year


----------



## noms78 (Jun 29, 2021)

Fotofriend said:


> While the specs sound really good for the third RF "f4-trinity-lens", the pricing is clearly over the top imo. I'm really doubting whether Canon are doing themselves a favor with this, be it 1700$ but for sure with 1819€ in Europe. First comments / reactions on European photographers sites are extremely negative about the pricing going so far as to even consider changing the system, not to forget since almost all RF lenses are priced so ambitiously, and now this for a f4 UW lens.
> Do you remember some years ago Canon initially pricing the EF 35 f2, 24 f2.8 and 28 f2.8 IS USM way too high? Finally (and probably with regard to sales figures as well) they significantly reduced the price to realistic levels. Although I'm not too optimistic, I hope they would come to the same conclusion here after a while...


2nd rf trinity lens. the 24-105 is a kit lens


----------



## AJ (Jun 30, 2021)

Yeah that is indeed pricey for an f/4 lens. At that price I suspect the optical performance will be stellar.


----------



## esglord (Jun 30, 2021)

I would like to own this lens and am sure it will be great, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon at this price. Oh well


----------



## Talys (Jun 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Because they can and enough people feel the feature set of MILC’s is worth it. Personally it’s an equation that doesn’t balance for me yet, but I’m cheap!


Also... They can't keep it on the shelf, even at thr prices they are, so there is zero incentive to reduce the prices. 

The only thing that would happen if they dropped RF to EF prices is that everything would be sold out at stores (as it is now...) and also be resold on places like ebay for as much as the market allows.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 30, 2021)

I think that people are missing is that Canon RF lens strategy is not supposed to be an exact replacement of EF lenses. They offer something additional: focal range, compact size/weight, fast AF, excellent stabilisation, closer MFD, cheap/light telephotos and a reasonable replacement of 3 primes with the 28-70/2. The f1.2 lenses are clearly aimed to exceed quality and focus speed over their EF counterparts - weight/size be damned!

Canon isn't forcing anyone to migrate but are providing unique offerings if you choose to migrate over time at a cost premium. 
The only questionable lenses in my theory are the 400/600mm with no changes except RF mount but they are pretty awesome in EF version anyway.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 30, 2021)

It will be interesting to see how 100mm filter systems vignette with 14mm focal length on a 77mm filter thread. The systems normally specify 16mm focal length with no vignetting. Noting that the Nikon 14-30mm has a 82mm thread.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 30, 2021)

wockawocka said:


> FYI - The RF version costs 50% more than the EF equivalent. Looks like I'll be keeping my EF.


While I agree that the price is steeper than I would like, I'm surprised at how many folks are directly comparing it to the EF 16-35 f/4. This is not an equivalent lens. Did you really think that extra 2mm at the wide end wouldn't raise the price considerably?


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 30, 2021)

The price of this lens is why we need Nikon, Sony, Tamron, Sigma and other companies to release competitive products that will force Canon to reduce the prices. Competition is a good thing.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 30, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> The price of this lens is why we need Nikon, Sony, Tamron, Sigma and other companies to release competitive products that will force Canon to reduce the prices. Competition is a good thing.


Aren't Nikon and Sony already providing competing products? 
Canon is in business to make money. They don't have to be the cheapest if their overall system is better (whether technically or in people's minds) as long as they sell their target sales volume. That seems to be already happening for them and their market share is still going well. Good margins means continued investment in R&D for new products.

Tamron and Sigma have no RF lenses but have EF lenses. Samyang's removal of their RF lenses could be ominous to the future of 3rd party RF lenses (see 3rd party lenses for RF menu to the left).

Canon never had to reduce their own lens pricing because of 3rd party lenses. I get that you want the RF lenses but don't want to pay the asking price. New EF or second hand EF are great value in comparison. My EF16-35mm/4 works great on R5 and is good value for money! I will keep using it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 30, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> The price of this lens is why we need Nikon, Sony, Tamron, Sigma and other companies to release competitive products that will force Canon to reduce the prices. Competition is a good thing.


The two are not necessarily linked, if Canon offer an intangible ‘value’ they can continue to charge what they are. Think Leica, there are other camera manufacturers making similarly styled and capable image capturing devices yet they can’t charge Leica money.


----------



## Berowne (Jun 30, 2021)

Perhaps the 1800€ = double the price of the EF 16-35/4 will prepare us for the 8000€ or more the R3 will cost.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 30, 2021)

noms78 said:


> 2nd rf trinity lens. the 24-105 is a kit lens


I'd prefer this one as a kit lens. F/4 "trinity" is overrated anyway. If you have this lens and a 100-500 (or 100-400 II), what would you need any other f/4 lens for?

(except for 600/4, of course)


----------



## stefang (Jun 30, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> While I agree that the price is steeper than I would like, I'm surprised at how many folks are directly comparing it to the EF 16-35 f/4. This is not an equivalent lens. Did you really think that extra 2mm at the wide end wouldn't raise the price considerably?


Well, with the shorter flange distance, it should be easier to develop ultra wide lenses, so it's not that weird to think that ultra lenses are cheaper to make for RF than it was for EF.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 30, 2021)

Berowne said:


> Perhaps the 1800€ = double the price of the EF 16-35/4 will prepare us for the 8000€ or more the R3 will cost.


Looking at the price for RF 4.0 70 200 in US compared to Germany:
1600 USD -> 1800 EUR
I see a little bit more for the RF 4.0 14-35:
1700 USD -> 1900 or 1950 EUR

Hopefully you are right  * EDIT: YOU ARE RIGHT: 1819 EUR from a German seller!*


----------



## Kit. (Jun 30, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> Hopefully you are right  * EDIT: YOU ARE RIGHT: 1819 EUR from a German seller!*


Delivery date 26.08.2021 in major German photo stores. A bit late, I'd say.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The two are not necessarily linked, if Canon offer an intangible ‘value’ they can continue to charge what they are. Think Leica, there are other camera manufacturers making similarly styled and capable image capturing devices yet they can’t charge Leica money.


Leica is in practice a "positional good", and their prices reflect that rather than their quality, such is human nature. I like to think that those of us who do buy Canon products on principle do so on a more rational basis of wanting to make sure we have top quality and compatibility rather than just the name or colour of a lens. It's clear from posts on CR that many of us are open minded and do buy Sigma, Tamron etc when their quality and price warrant it.


----------



## addola (Jun 30, 2021)

It's priced higher than the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 ($1699 vs $1099), but it has a smaller filter (77mm vs 82mm).


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 30, 2021)

I think Canon got some confidence after seeing the good sales of the R5/R6 and now thinks it can asks a bit more. Disappointed about the price. Nikon Z looks better and better every day.

I also probably would have preferred to be a 15/16-35mm and without IS for an even smaller/lighter lens.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 30, 2021)

RF 14-35, does one wait for the 24-70/f4 or have Canon abandoned that for 24-105/f4? What's missing right now is the "f/4 L" zoom that goes beyond 200mm. With both the 14-35 and 24-105 being relatively small, I don't want a monster 100-400 in my bag. A shorter, lighter 70-300 would be nice if that were possible.

With no competition from Sigma or Tamron, maybe Canon are deciding to squeeze the market for all they can get out of it while they can. Your credit card balance will be theirs.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 30, 2021)

stefang said:


> Well, with the shorter flange distance, it should be easier to develop ultra wide lenses, so it's not that weird to think that ultra lenses are cheaper to make for RF than it was for EF.



Nobody asked for the extra 2mm or the IS, especially cause R5/R6 has IBIS. Canon adding features just to increase the price. While it's nice to have 14mm, probably more people would have been happy with a 16-35 F4 without IS but very good optically at 450g, and under $1500.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 30, 2021)

The $1700 pricing is indeed an issue. 

To me at least pricing is also a matter of comparisons.

At B&H the EF 16-35 can be had for $1100

The RF 15-35 f2.8 is about 0.5 lb heavier and can be had for $2300. Though the 14-35 gains 1 mm on the side end, it is 2x slower than the 15-35. It makes it difficult to choose the 14-35 to save money rather than go for the faster 15-35 when the price difference is in fact not that big. Not to mention it would be cheaper to go for the EF 16-35 and just glue on an adapter permanently. 

Not sure what canon is thinking. 1500 for example would have been understandable for that 1 extra mm. But 1700... wow. Cause here in the EU, it will cost 1819 euros


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2021)

dilbert said:


> What's missing right now is the "f/4 L" zoom that goes beyond 200mm. With both the 14-35 and 24-105 being relatively small, I don't want a monster 100-400 in my bag. A shorter, lighter 70-300 would be nice if that were possible.


A 70-300/4 won’t be short or light, that’s physics. The EF 70-300 L is f/4-5.6.

The RF 70-200 lenses are short, one trade off is no TCs (else the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x would have given an f/4 zoom beyond 200mm).


----------



## stefang (Jun 30, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Nobody asked for the extra 2mm or the IS, especially cause R5/R6 has IBIS. Canon adding features just to increase the price. While it's nice to have 14mm, probably more people would have been happy with a 16-35 F4 without IS but very good optically at 450g, and under $1500.


I must admit that I didn't ask Canon for it, but I find the RF 14-35 F/4 IS a very attractive lens.
I would never buy an RF 16-35 F/4 non-IS for more than $1000, since there's already an EF 16-35 F/4 IS for that price.


----------



## BBarn (Jun 30, 2021)

I consider IS very beneficial on an ultra-wide lens. From what I've read, IS works far better than IBIS on wide lenses (several stops vs. about 2 stops).


----------



## tron (Jun 30, 2021)

BBarn said:


> I consider IS very beneficial on an ultra-wide lens. From what I've read, IS works far better than IBIS on wide lenses (several stops vs. about 2 stops).


+1 Plus not all people have R5 and R6. I see no reason why R and RP owners to not benefit from IS.


----------



## muentzer (Jun 30, 2021)

BBarn said:


> I consider IS very beneficial on an ultra-wide lens. From what I've read, IS works far better than IBIS on wide lenses (several stops vs. about 2 stops).


Don't know, where you read this, but I don't think that is true. IBIS has its limitations when we speak about long lenses because the sensor has to move a - relatively - long way to compensate for shake which is not the case for wide angle lenses.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 30, 2021)

stefang said:


> I must admit that I didn't ask Canon for it, but I find the RF 14-35 F/4 IS a very attractive lens.
> I would never buy an RF 16-35 F/4 non-IS for more than $1000, since there's already an EF 16-35 F/4 IS for that price.



What people are saying is that a cheaper and less wide lens would be preferable to this - something around the same price as the 24-105/f4L.

Seems like lots of people would rather it be a RF 16-35/f4L for $1299.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 30, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Nobody asked for the extra 2mm or the IS, especially cause R5/R6 has IBIS. Canon adding features just to increase the price. While it's nice to have 14mm, probably more people would have been happy with a 16-35 F4 without IS but very good optically at 450g, and under $1500.


I believe that Canon added features because they understand that if they just offered the exact same lens (16-35mm f/4) in RF, they would sell far fewer of the RF version since; a) most photographers looking for this sort of lens probably already have the EF version and will just keep it and use it with an adapter, and b) if they don't already have a wide angle lens, the EF lens can be purchased used for far less. Yes, many folks on this forum feel the need to replace their EF lenses and have the newest RF lenses, but I doubt very much that the majority of photographers feel the same way. That extra 2mm will be the reason that some folks buy this lens. Without it, the vast majority of 16-35 f/4 owners will have no reason to replace that lens as it is considered one of Canon's best EF lenses. That's why Canbon added features, not to increase the price, in my opinion, anyway.


----------



## BBarn (Jun 30, 2021)

muentzer said:


> Don't know, where you read this, but I don't think that is true. IBIS has its limitations when we speak about long lenses because the sensor has to move a - relatively - long way to compensate for shake which is not the case for wide angle lenses.


Canon's own specs on the RF 14-35 support my statement. 7 stop improvement with both IS and IBIS, 5.5 stop improvement with IS alone.


----------



## muentzer (Jun 30, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Canon's own specs on the RF 14-35 support my statement. 7 stop improvement with both IS and IBIS, 5.5 stop improvement with IS alone.


No it doesn't. Because you still don't know how many stops improvement a hypothetically RF 14-35 without IS would gain with IBIS alone.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 30, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Nobody asked for the extra 2mm


I did.

What is the point of trying to use a 16 mm non-shift lens for the scenes where my TS-E 17 is not wide enough?


----------



## schaudi (Jun 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Given the price of the 'budget' RF f4 L options I think the EF system has a pretty positive future in the secondhand market. You can get an EF 17-40 L for under $500, the superb EF 16-35 f4 IS L for under $800. An RF 14-35 f4 IS L is $1,700 and you can't get one.
> 
> Those are huge price differentials and it will be years before the RF equivalents are available on the secondhand market in any volume.


The second hand market ist quite funny at the moment. In the last couple of months I got a 70-200/4 L for 300€, a 17-40/4 L for 250€ and and 100/2.8 L Macro for 150€. After 15 Years of Rebel DSLRs with non L Primes and Zooms, I now feel pretty well equipped on my RP. 3 Ls (all in awesome conditions) for around the same price in total as an current rebel. The Adapter doesn't bother me - it stays always where it is. In no world I could see any justification for me (or my significant other), to purchase RF Glas. Yes they are better - but the old ones are still pretty good and have not gotten "worse".


----------



## Jemlnlx (Jun 30, 2021)

UpstateNYPhotog said:


> Do you think prices will hold up on used EF lenses? I look at sites like MPB.com and they have what seem to be large inventories of lenses like the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 IS III and the 100 2.8 IS Macro. Prices are still high now, but I wonder 6 months to a year from now with no new EF bodies causing demand and little high end demand from people who could afford to trade in for RF glass already having done so, if MPB and other dealers will have to lower prices to sell to less well off individuals who still own EF bodies and wanted but couldn't afford the top of the line glass?


I'm not sure....used EF prices may drop a little, but I think a lot of people will be sticking with their EF versions.

The RF 24-70 has been out for a little while, yet the used prices for the highly coveted 24-70 ii haven't decreased much on the used market. The new RF is $2300, maybe $2100 used while the EF 24-70 ii is $1900 but you can get it used for $1100-1400. The situation is similar with the RF 70-200 and I expect to see the same pattern with the 14/16-35 f/4.

Those with these highly capable EF lenses may not find it immediately necessary to trade up to their RF counterparts given how expensive it is to upgrade. The price difference are too big at this point. 

The EF versions are excellent and work well with the EF-RF adapter. So I think many people (me included) will hold off on the RF upgrades until there are price drops (maybe Canon rebates?!).


----------



## BBarn (Jun 30, 2021)

muentzer said:


> No it doesn't. Because you still don't know how many stops improvement a hypothetically RF 14-35 without IS would gain with IBIS alone.


Here's another data point for consideration, from dpreview. 

One conclusion from the dpreview post:
1) Unless you only care about motion blur near the center of your images, the ability of IBIS to compensate for motion blur is less than you might expect on both wide angle and normal angle (50mm full frame equivalent lenses).


This link shows about 3 stops of improvement on an R5 with an unstabilized 50mm. Not bad, but not 5+ stops like IS is claimed for the
RF 14-35.

I've attempted to support my claims with some outside evidence. Rather than simply challenge my statements without any evidence, consider providing some of your own evidence that disputes my claim.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 30, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Delivery date 26.08.2021 in major German photo stores. A bit late, I'd say.


Which store is that?


----------



## Kit. (Jun 30, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Which store is that?


https://www.calumetphoto.de/product/Canon-RF-14-35MM-F4-L-IS-USM/CANRF143540LISUSM in particular.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 30, 2021)

Kit. said:


> https://www.calumetphoto.de/product/Canon-RF-14-35MM-F4-L-IS-USM/CANRF143540LISUSM in particular.


Thx


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jun 30, 2021)

At this price I'm definitely going to wait for the reviews to come in and likely will wait for a year or two for the price to come down. I'm still on the fence between this lens and the 12-24 f/4 for Sony and since they are coming in very close to the same price the decision is now much harder. Good thing I have 16-35 F/4 for both systems and can wait to pick a useful wider zoom....although my wife has pretty much adopted the sony as her walk around lens and rarely uses the canon anymore. I thought that was a good excuse to buy a new wide angle


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Leica is in practice a "positional good", and their prices reflect that rather than their quality, such is human nature. I like to think that those of us who do buy Canon products on principle do so on a more rational basis of wanting to make sure we have top quality and compatibility rather than just the name or colour of a lens. It's clear from posts on CR that many of us are open minded and do buy Sigma, Tamron etc when their quality and price warrant it.


I wasn’t suggesting Canon is the new Leica, I was using Leica as an example of a product where the core functionality and price are not strongly related.

This answers the question of why do Canon think they can charge $1,700 for an f4 zoom, because enough people will pay it for the numbers of them they can make. Sure it pisses people off that are used to sub $1,000 f4 zooms but I t is no surprise that Canon have gone ‘up market’. They, and all the other camera manufacturers, have stated for years that to maintain income in a shrinking market they have to charge more for fewer products.


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I wasn’t suggesting Canon is the new Leica, I was using Leica as an example of a product where the core functionality and price are not strongly related.
> 
> This answers the question of why do Canon think they can charge $1,700 for an f4 zoom, because enough people will pay it for the numbers of them they can make. Sure it pisses people off that are used to sub $1,000 f4 zooms but I t is no surprise that Canon have gone ‘up market’. They, and all the other camera manufacturers, have stated for years that to maintain income in a shrinking market they have to charge more for fewer products.


Well said. Sums it up well. 
Once / if third parties start making lenses I bet they will also charge more (than they used to for a comparable EF product) meaning the situation is not likely to improve in the near future.


----------



## tron (Jun 30, 2021)

Which means that our DSLRs will continue to serve us for some time


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 30, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> Well said. Sums it up well.
> Once / if third parties start making lenses I bet they will also charge more (than they used to for a comparable EF product) meaning the situation is not likely to improve in the near future.


Indeed, and don’t forget those third parties are producing for a diminished market too. I’m sure third party lenses will maintain a stable price difference to first party, it’s just that because first party have risen so third party will as well.


----------



## Amoma (Jun 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I wasn’t suggesting Canon is the new Leica, I was using Leica as an example of a product where the core functionality and price are not strongly related.
> 
> This answers the question of why do Canon think they can charge $1,700 for an f4 zoom, because enough people will pay it for the numbers of them they can make. Sure it pisses people off that are used to sub $1,000 f4 zooms but I t is no surprise that Canon have gone ‘up market’. They, and all the other camera manufacturers, have stated for years that to maintain income in a shrinking market they have to charge more for fewer products.



What sub $1000 zooms are you referring to? The 17-40 that has been showing its age for a decade? The closest to this new lens is the 16-35 F4 and that launched at a retail price of $1,199 and is still $1,099. But at the same time, the retail on the 16-35 F2.8 II when it launched was $1,699. The RF ultrawide 2.8 is $2,299. So the RF premium seems to be a consistent $600 or so across the range.

I totally understand the people waiting for reviews or who choose to hang on to the adapted EF longer, but I don't think the price is egregious (at least for the US, European prices are horrendous but that's not unique to this lens or Canon).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 30, 2021)

Amoma said:


> What sub $1000 zooms are you referring to? The 17-40 that has been showing its age for a decade? The closest to this new lens is the 16-35 F4 and that launched at a retail price of $1,199 and is still $1,099. But at the same time, the retail on the 16-35 F2.8 II when it launched was $1,699. The RF ultrawide 2.8 is $2,299. So the RF premium seems to be a consistent $600 or so across the range.
> 
> I totally understand the people waiting for reviews or who choose to hang on to the adapted EF longer, but I don't think the price is egregious (at least for the US, European prices are horrendous but that's not unique to this lens or Canon).


I don’t think the price is egregious or unexpected either, however I also understand the ’sticker shock’ of seemingly a lot of people here to that new system premium.

Don’t forget the EF system has been around a long time and there is a lot of good secondhand stuff out there too. Sure Canon are not necessarily worried about the secondhand market but it does give buyers options they don’t have in any volume in the RF space yet.

As for prices, I paid well under $1,000 for my EF 16-35 f4 new with warranty on a CPW deal shortly after its release, I paid $700 for my EF 100 macro L from the same source. EF bargains were out there, RF deals, not so much.


----------



## Ian K (Jun 30, 2021)

Personally I can't see why anyone would want both the RF 14-35 and the RF 15-35.

With the EF versions there was a clear reason the f/4 had IS and the f/2.8 didn't. That gave you the option of speed vs IS and different situation called for each option.

That reason is gone with the RF versions both have a ~5 stop IS. OK the f/4 is claiming a 1/2 stop better IS, and it's got 14mm rather than 15mm, but personally, I can't really see either as significant enough of a reason to have both. They both claim 7 stop IS when coupled with an IBIS body such as the R5 or R6.


----------



## Ian K (Jun 30, 2021)

So things that this lens has better than the EF equivalent:

Weight : 540g vs 615g (12.2% lighter)
IS : 5.5 stops vs 4 (37.5% better)
Size: 84mm x 100mm vs 82.6mm x 112.8mm (very slightly fatter and 11% shorter) and more if mounted on a R body as you would need an adapter
Focus: Nano USM vs Ring USM (which has proved to be quieter and faster focusing on all other lenses it's been used on)
Closest focus: 20cm vs 28cm (28% less)
Max magnification: 0.38x vs 0.23x (65% more)
Widest focus: 14mm vs 16mm (12.5% wider)

That's not an insignificant list, the RF is better in every category apart from diameter where is it 0.16% wider.

Is it worth the extra money, I don't know, I can't answer that for you.


----------



## allanP (Jun 30, 2021)

The average of your "better, lighter, wider" is 27.7%
16-35 f4 costs € 915 in online photo shops
14-35 f4 will cost € 1819
915€ vs 1819€ (prices in Germany). Also 27,7% ?
*It's fun, of course, but with a bitter aftertaste.*


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 30, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Nobody asked for the extra 2mm or the IS, especially cause R5/R6 has IBIS. *Canon adding features just to increase the price. *While it's nice to have 14mm, probably more people would have been happy with a 16-35 F4 without IS but very good optically at 450g, and under $1500.


While I see where you are coming from, I am actually very excited about this lens' new features. I currently have the RF 15-35mm 2.8, and cannot wait to "downgrade" to this lens. I would not have considered doing so if this lens didn't go to 14mm and didn't have IS.
In addition to the 14mm, I am really excited about this lens' close focusing distance and extra magnification. Those are going to be really fun for me to use, and I am very excited about a lens that is half a pound lighter than what I currently own.

Now, where I completely agree about Canon adding features to increase the price is on the upcoming RF 100mm macro, where we have new options to make the subject and background out-of-focus through the SA control. Since I don't ever deliberately take soft photos of my macro subjects, this feature is completely useless to me and can only serve to make the lens larger/heavier/more expensive with no benefit _to me_.

While I wish the 14-35mm was being offered at a more competitive price, I still plan on adding it to my kit.


----------



## Ian K (Jun 30, 2021)

allanP said:


> The average of your "better, lighter, wider" is 27.7%
> 16-35 f4 costs € 915 in online photo shops
> 14-35 f4 will cost € 1819
> 915€ vs 1819€ (prices in Germany). Also 27,7% ?
> *It's fun, of course, but with a bitter aftertaste.*


Except, obviously, you are comparing an old lens that has been in the discount zone for quite a while, with a brand new lens at full suggested retail price.

List is actually £1099


----------



## another_mikey (Jun 30, 2021)

I have an excellently performing EF 16-35 F/4 L IS. However, I pre-ordered the RF 14-35 F/4 L IS as soon as it was announced. The only way I won't keep it is if it underperforms at similar settings with my EF lens. I am ready to do away with the adapter, and I want to have a full RF kit (this would give me 14mm to 500mm inclusive, with this lens and the RF 24-105 L and RF 100-500 L I already own). After that the only lenses to add for me would be a dedicated nightscape lens (first RF mount 14mm at F/2 or faster from any reasonable manufacturer will get my money) and maybe the new RF 100mm L macro, since I never sprang for the EF version. Since I shoot primarily scenic, with a little nightscape and wildlife thrown in I think that will give me a very nice kit paired up with the R5 for a long time, and should outperform my 5DsR setup I used for years (EF 16-35 L, EF 24-105 L, EF 70-300 L) in about every way. I am very glad for the extra 2mm and the IS - would not have considered the lens without the IS and appreciate the extra 2mm on the wide end. All that is left is to see how it performs, but I expect it to at least match the existing excellent 16-35. 

ML


----------



## jeanluc (Jun 30, 2021)

another_mikey said:


> I have an excellently performing EF 16-35 F/4 L IS. However, I pre-ordered the RF 14-35 F/4 L IS as soon as it was announced. The only way I won't keep it is if it underperforms at similar settings with my EF lens. I am ready to do away with the adapter, and I want to have a full RF kit (this would give me 14mm to 500mm inclusive, with this lens and the RF 24-105 L and RF 100-500 L I already own). After that the only lenses to add for me would be a dedicated nightscape lens (first RF mount 14mm at F/2 or faster from any reasonable manufacturer will get my money) and maybe the new RF 100mm L macro, since I never sprang for the EF version. Since I shoot primarily scenic, with a little nightscape and wildlife thrown in I think that will give me a very nice kit paired up with the R5 for a long time, and should outperform my 5DsR setup I used for years (EF 16-35 L, EF 24-105 L, EF 70-300 L) in about every way. I am very glad for the extra 2mm and the IS - would not have considered the lens without the IS and appreciate the extra 2mm on the wide end. All that is left is to see how it performs, but I expect it to at least match the existing excellent 16-35.
> 
> ML


I had that 70-300L also….sold it to go all RF, but it was hard to do. A very sharp, portable and well made lens. Hope an RF version is released sometime.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 1, 2021)

another_mikey said:


> I have an excellently performing EF 16-35 F/4 L IS. However, I pre-ordered the RF 14-35 F/4 L IS as soon as it was announced. The only way I won't keep it is if it underperforms at similar settings with my EF lens. I am ready to do away with the adapter, and I want to have a full RF kit (this would give me 14mm to 500mm inclusive, with this lens and the RF 24-105 L and RF 100-500 L I already own). After that the only lenses to add for me would be a dedicated nightscape lens (first RF mount 14mm at F/2 or faster from any reasonable manufacturer will get my money) and maybe the new RF 100mm L macro, since I never sprang for the EF version. Since I shoot primarily scenic, with a little nightscape and wildlife thrown in I think that will give me a very nice kit paired up with the R5 for a long time, and should outperform my 5DsR setup I used for years (EF 16-35 L, EF 24-105 L, EF 70-300 L) in about every way. I am very glad for the extra 2mm and the IS - would not have considered the lens without the IS and appreciate the extra 2mm on the wide end. All that is left is to see how it performs, but I expect it to at least match the existing excellent 16-35.
> 
> ML



You must really, really hate dealing with that adapter!

What about just leaving it on the lens?

I ended up "parking" an adapter on my 100-400 II (which will not go natively onto any camera I own other than my bolted-to-the-copy-stand Rebel, and it'd certainly be of no use there!) but I do end up having to remove it when I want to put that lens on my M6-II.

I do have the 24-105 f/4.0 and the 15-35 f/2.8 in RF, but my remaining full frame lenses are still EF and will probably remain so (cheapass primes plus one really cheap 75-300 kit lens that I was shocked to discover was full frame) save for my 100mm macro, which IS on my bolted-to-the-copy-stand Rebel).


----------



## HenryL (Jul 1, 2021)

Amoma said:


> the retail on the 16-35 F2.8 II when it launched was $1,699. The RF ultrawide 2.8 is $2,299. So the RF premium seems to be a consistent $600 or so across the range.


No. Just no. Below are the lenses for which I've purchased an RF equivalent (had most of the EF lenses at one point, all but the 50 & 85mm primes actually). There is one huge anomaly, the 50 f/1.2. All these lenses are more costly they the EF lens counterpart, but not nearly "consistently $600 or so). Just these 7 samples average to a roughly $300 bump. The RF premium may be real, but in most cases it's minimal, and on average still reasonable. To be clear, the number in parenthesis is the "RF Tax".

EF 16-35 f/2.8 III launched in 2016 @ $2199 ($100)
EF 24-70 f/2.8 II launched in 2012 @ $2099 ($200)
EF 70-200 f/2.8 III launched in 2018 @ $2099 ($200)

EF 50 f/1.2 launched in 2007 @ $1599 (700)
EF 85 f/1.2 II launched in 2006 @ $2199 (100)
EF 100 f/2.8 Macro IS launched in 2009 @ $1049 ($350)

EF 100-400 II launched in 2014 @ $2199 ($500)


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 1, 2021)

tron said:


> +1 Plus not all people have R5 and R6. I see no reason why R and RP owners to not benefit from IS.


I have that "underdog" EOS RP and I am grateful for IS lenses - C70 owners would profit too from IS and 2mm less focal length.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 1, 2021)

another_mikey said:


> I have an excellently performing EF 16-35 F/4 L IS. However, I pre-ordered the RF 14-35 F/4 L IS as soon as it was announced. The only way I won't keep it is if it underperforms at similar settings with my EF lens. I am ready to do away with the adapter, and I want to have a full RF kit (this would give me 14mm to 500mm inclusive, with this lens and the RF 24-105 L and RF 100-500 L I already own). After that the only lenses to add for me would be a dedicated nightscape lens (first RF mount 14mm at F/2 or faster from any reasonable manufacturer will get my money) and maybe the new RF 100mm L macro, since I never sprang for the EF version. Since I shoot primarily scenic, with a little nightscape and wildlife thrown in I think that will give me a very nice kit paired up with the R5 for a long time, and should outperform my 5DsR setup I used for years (EF 16-35 L, EF 24-105 L, EF 70-300 L) in about every way. I am very glad for the extra 2mm and the IS - would not have considered the lens without the IS and appreciate the extra 2mm on the wide end. All that is left is to see how it performs, but I expect it to at least match the existing excellent 16-35.
> 
> ML


I´m going for the exact same kit  14-500mm with three lenses is just awesome. Add another astro lense and Ive got all I want/ need


----------



## quilatoo (Jul 1, 2021)

Oof. The sooner Tamron and Sigma get some lenses released for the RF mount the better.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 1, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I´m going for the exact same kit  14-500mm with three lenses is just awesome. Add another astro lense and Ive got all I want/ need


add in the 1.4x TC and you go gapless from 14 to 700


----------



## sanj (Jul 1, 2021)

One great advantage of this lens that I see is gimbal use.


----------



## Kiton (Jul 1, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The pricing surprised me a bit. I guess going 2mm wider than its EF counterpart really does drive the cost up.


2 weeks ago I told my shop to order one for me as soon as they are announced.

I cancelled the order.

I want the smaller lighter f4, but jesus, this is over priced!


----------



## AJ (Jul 1, 2021)

In Calgary, Canada, the Camera Store is taking preorders at 2249 CAD








Canon RF 14-35mm f4L IS USM


Providing the ultimate combination of ultra wide-angle, L-series optics and compact construction, the RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM USM lens is an incredible complement to an EOS R series camera. This lens offers up to 5.5 stops* of shake correction for sharp images (up to 7 stops of correction when...




thecamerastore.com


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 1, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Nobody asked for the extra 2mm or the IS, especially cause R5/R6 has IBIS. Canon adding features just to increase the price. While it's nice to have 14mm, probably more people would have been happy with a 16-35 F4 without IS but very good optically at 450g, and under $1500.


Just because you don't think the extra width is necessary, doesn't mean "nobody" else does. Asked for it? Obviously, Canon sees it differently. How in the world would you know? Adding features to increase the price... that's surprising? That's generally how things work in the world. If I want Shelby or Saleen... I pay more.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Jul 1, 2021)

Jemlnlx said:


> I'm not sure....used EF prices may drop a little, but I think a lot of people will be sticking with their EF versions.
> 
> The RF 24-70 has been out for a little while, yet the used prices for the highly coveted 24-70 ii haven't decreased much on the used market. The new RF is $2300, maybe $2100 used while the EF 24-70 ii is $1900 but you can get it used for $1100-1400. The situation is similar with the RF 70-200 and I expect to see the same pattern with the 14/16-35 f/4.
> 
> ...


Agree the EF versions are excellent and using them with the adapter on a mirrorless really brings out how good they are as it gets rid of any focus accuracy issues.


----------



## tron (Jul 1, 2021)

The latest use of Canon mirrorless with an EF lens was my R5 with the EF500mm f/4L IS II and EF2XIII.
The result was awesome constrained only a few times by the time of day and place used (due to heat waves).
So I see no reason to spend thousands upon thousands of Euros for a future upgrade of that lens for example.

P.S I had used that combo with my 5DsR in the past (with equally good results) but R5 was the new "toy" I had to play with


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 1, 2021)

yeahright said:


> add in the 1.4x TC and you go gapless from 14 to 700


Or the 2x TC and one goes (nearly) gapless to 1.000mm


----------



## tron (Jul 1, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Or the 2x TC and one goes (nearly) gapless to 1.000mm


It is not gapless no matter which of the 2 RF teleconverters are used. If you put a teleconverter to 100-500 the minimum focal length that you have to set the lens in order to physically accept the teleconverter is 300mm.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 1, 2021)

HenryL said:


> No. Just no. Below are the lenses for which I've purchased an RF equivalent (had most of the EF lenses at one point, all but the 50 & 85mm primes actually). There is one huge anomaly, the 50 f/1.2. All these lenses are more costly they the EF lens counterpart, but not nearly "consistently $600 or so). Just these 7 samples average to a roughly $300 bump. The RF premium may be real, but in most cases it's minimal, and on average still reasonable. To be clear, the number in parenthesis is the "RF Tax".
> 
> EF 16-35 f/2.8 III launched in 2016 @ $2199 ($100)
> EF 24-70 f/2.8 II launched in 2012 @ $2099 ($200)
> ...


Still not sure why people can't understand that this lens (as well as the RF 100-500, for example) are not a direct equivalent replacement. You are going from 16 to 14 on the wide end. The 100-500 gained 100mm on the long end. Notice that it also has a large price differential compared to the 100-400.

In other words, it is a new, different lens. Yes, certainly expensive in the eyes of most (personally not considering it) but it is not an equivalent replacement for any Canon EF lens.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 1, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Still not sure why people can't understand that this lens (as well as the RF 100-500, for example) are not a direct equivalent replacement. You are going from 16 to 14 on the wide end. The 100-500 gained 100mm on the long end. Notice that it also has a large price differential compared to the 100-400.
> 
> In other words, it is a new, different lens. Yes, certainly expensive in the eyes of most (personally not considering it) but it is not an equivalent replacement for any Canon EF lens.


Yes, the 14-35 is a little different from the 16-35, but I think most people would consider them essentially interchangeable in their kits, which is why people talk about the 14-35 as a replacement for the 16-35. I can't imagine too many people keeping both in their kits. I certainly see the 14-35 as just the 16-35 evolving to its next version, not something fundamentally different, and therefore as an update of and replacement for the 16-35.

I feel the same about the EF 100-400L II and the RF 100-500L.

Progress inevitably has a price, but Canon is certainly putting a very high price on it if you ask me.


----------



## BBarn (Jul 1, 2021)

Perhaps Canon set the price point about right. Enough people hesitant to buy such that they can match demand.


----------



## dilbert (Jul 2, 2021)

Does the EF 16-35/f4L with the EF-RF adapter that holds filters present a better option than the RF 14-35 with filters screwed on the front?

Due to the wide lens there are going to be some manner of limitations with stacking filters on the front before you get vignetting, which may mean the EF lens gives you more options.


----------



## OneSnark (Jul 2, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Yes, the 14-35 is a little different from the 16-35, but I think most people would consider them essentially interchangeable in their kits, which is why people talk about the 14-35 as a replacement for the 16-35. I can't imagine too many people keeping both in their kits. I certainly see the 14-35 as just the 16-35 evolving to its next version, not something fundamentally different, and therefore as an update of and replacement for the 16-35.
> 
> I feel the same about the EF 100-400L II and the RF 100-500L.
> 
> Progress inevitably has a price, but Canon is certainly putting a very high price on it if you ask me.




High price indeed.

TL;DR: BOTTOM LINE: This glass is expensive. Why do I want to replace already great EF glass with more expensive RF glass?

The longer post:


So I am a gentleman of a certain age. 
I *can* spend the money if I *wanted* to spend the money.
I have found that it is NOT a coincidence that those who have money are those who are not inclined to spend it.

I have found that RF has been an effective and immediate cure for GAS (gear acquisition syndrome). . . . looking from the perspective of a _gear junkie. _I am in no way a paid photographer. . . . . I have been tossing out $1-$2K every year or so on camera toys. A small vice; one that (over a decade or three) has resulted in a nice collection of EF glass and EOS bodies. However. . . now in one year I find that *simultaneously* both my dSLR body and *all* the lenses are "obsolete".

With a liberal application of cash* I could resolve this and get a full RF kit. OCD and GAS issues resolved. . . 
I might grimace when the visa bill shows up. . . but it is doable with a smile on my face. 

But two simple facts gnaw at me

* at the core; RF is an *incremental* improvement over a dSLR. Sure. . .electronic viewfinders are nice. . .sensors are improved. . . . . but fundamentally, dSLR's are quite capable of taking nice pictures. Explain again why I need to refresh the entire system?

* Essentially, the "ask" is "Please rebuy all your glass". Now. . .if the glass was _smaller_ or _cheaper_. . .then I might be convinced to spring. But that is NOT the case. Sure - - you can get by with adapters. But honestly. . . if you could make do with adapters. . are the bodies that much better you can't simply use the old dSLR body with the old quality EF glass?


Honestly. . . the "ask" is to basically repurchase the system. Hmmm. . . If I am repurchasing the entire system. . . .Sony makes camera systems as well, right?



Meh. . . .my GAS is like my drinking. I really can stop anytime I want to. I can keep my credit card in the wallet; as I have for the last 18 months Honestly. . .considering my *life* right now; what I really want is the EOS M system. Small bodies. . .. not hideously expensive. . . .but CRUDDY GLASS SELECTION . . .give me a set of decent F4 glass (don't give me F6.3 balderdash) . . and I would buy a complete system TOMORROW.




* Covid. . . . . I could spring and buy a system with a liberal application of _cash . . ._but the simple reality of 2020 and 2021 is that . . _the product is not there_. A $7K impulse buy _from a reputable dealer _is NOT an option. As far as I am concerned. . .the entire RF system is vaporware as I can't get my hands on key pieces of glass. That makes it real easy to NOT COMMIT to the RF system. 

A strange world. . . .I also had both a car and a house on my 2021 agenda . . . Covid is preventing both of those (Car dealers have no inventory) (and I don't need to buy a house during an obvious housing bubble).


----------



## danfaz (Jul 2, 2021)

Many posters are saying "that's too expensive to replace my EF 16-35" (actually a common theme for many RF lens releases).
Well, so be it, keep your EF and be happy. Canon isn't forcing anybody to buy RF glass, hence the nifty EF adapters that even offer some cool features not found on RF glass. 
I, and many other people I'm sure, don't have an EF 16-35. So, I'm gonna buy this RF 14-35 and most likely enjoy it, and not be worried that it's too expensive to replace some other lens.


----------



## dilbert (Jul 2, 2021)

danfaz said:


> I, and many other people I'm sure, don't have an EF 16-35. So, I'm gonna buy this RF 14-35 and most likely enjoy it, and not be worried that it's too expensive to replace some other lens.



This and as time goes by, younger people coming to Canon and RF without any EF history will just be forced to pay the advertised price if they want to play. The people buying new RF lenses in 3-5 years time won't be burdened by the thought of how much EF lenses are (or were.)


----------



## Kit. (Jul 2, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Does the EF 16-35/f4L with the EF-RF adapter that holds filters present a better option than the RF 14-35 with filters screwed on the front?


Not if you need 14mm, 200mm MFD, or both.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2021)

dilbert said:


> The people buying new RF lenses in 3-5 years time won't be burdened by the thought of how much EF lenses are (or were.)


In fact, those people may benefit from the reality of how much EF lenses will cost at that point. The present case is an example, if one needs an UWA zoom and 16mm is wide enough, then the EF option with the adapter is cheaper than the RF version, and may be more so in a few years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2021)

OneSnark said:


> High price indeed.
> 
> TL;DR: BOTTOM LINE: This glass is expensive. Why do I want to replace already great EF glass with more expensive RF glass?
> 
> ...


Likewise, I am fortunate to have the wherewithal to purchase what I want. For lenses that I use a lot, I would prefer lenses that are native _if_ they offer benefits for me over the EF 'equivalents' – and in some cases, they do. I'm not really concerned about cheaper, smaller is nice but not needed. I mean optical or functional advantages.

The RF 24-70/2.8 has IS, or I could opt for a 28-70/2. The RF 100-500 gives a lot more reach than my 70-300L (I used to have the 100-400, but sold it after getting the 600/4 II). 

I'm fine keeping my 85/1.4L IS, not fussed over that 1/2-stop. Likewise, I'll adapt my 100L for macro, the 1.4x of the RF version is nice, but if I need more than 1x magnification I also have the MP-E 65 1-5x lens. There aren't any R-mount TS-E lenses to replace my 17 and 24 II, but particularly for the TS-E 17 adapting the EF mount has the big advantage of the drop-in filter adapter (I have the Wonderpana front filters, but it's a pain to carry those salad plates around). 

As for the subject of this thread, the RF 14-35, it's a good size and takes 77mm filters, and the extra 2mm on the wide end can be a big advantage over the EF 16-35/4L IS. However, personally I am going to stay with an adapter 16-35/4. I mainly use it locally, not for travel. For the latter, I typically take the TS-E 17 and the 11-24/4, and looking at my shots with the latter most of them are in the 11-13mm range meaning the 14-35 cannot substitute. The drop-in adapter is an even bigger advantage for using the 11-24 on an R body, since front filters are not a very viable option.


----------



## tron (Jul 2, 2021)

Well, in addition to the adapter there is the option of native use that is keeping some good old DSLRs like 5DMkIV, 5DsR, etc.
For example when I go out have the 5DMkIV permanently with the 16-35 4L IS in the bag. I am not going to change frantically my R5 between 100-500, 500II/2XIII and 16-35! I do not intend to bye 2 more R5 cameras! So the best use for me is R5 for tele use and 5DMkIV for UWA. I also have a G7XII in my pocket... More than enough!

Even when I shoot with my D850/500PF I have the 5MkIV with 16-35 4L IS for landscapes. R5 with RF 15-35 is not smaller!


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 5, 2021)

dilbert said:


> This and as time goes by, younger people coming to Canon and RF without any EF history will just be forced to pay the advertised price if they want to play. The people buying new RF lenses in 3-5 years time won't be burdened by the thought of how much EF lenses are (or were.)


Nobody will be forced to "play". Smart photographers will buy used EF lenses for cheaper and use the adapter if they don't need the extra 2mm on the wide end. Just like today.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 5, 2021)

OneSnark said:


> High price indeed.
> 
> TL;DR: BOTTOM LINE: This glass is expensive. Why do I want to replace already great EF glass with more expensive RF glass?
> 
> ...


Sounds like your situation is a little different from mine, but I agree about the RF gear having been a cure for GAS. I've shot Canon for about 20 years and this is the first time since I started that I have felt this way. As you suggest, there are other options if you have to re-buy lenses to get all the benefits of mirrorless (as well as EF lenses may work wtih an adapter). I'm jealous of the lens options for Sony.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Delivery date 26.08.2021 in major German photo stores. A bit late, I'd say.


Just got the notification from my store that the lens is ready to be picked up.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 25, 2021)

Got the lens (only two arrived to the shop, and I was the first to get one). Had no time to meaningfully test it, so just a random snapshot on my way from the store to my workplace (EOS R5, 14 f/8, same image with and without DLO, resolution cut in half due to forum limitations):


----------



## canonmike (Aug 25, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Got the lens (only two arrived to the shop, and I was the first to get one). Had no time to meaningfully test it, so just a random snapshot on my way from the store to my workplace (EOS R5, 14 f/8, same image with and without DLO, resolution cut in half due to forum limitations):
> 
> View attachment 199770
> 
> View attachment 199769


Congratulations Kit.....just happy to see someone got one. Perhaps they'll now start trickling in.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 25, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I´m going for the exact same kit  14-500mm with three lenses is just awesome. Add another astro lense and Ive got all I want/ need


Me too. Own, RF24-105L, RF100-500L +RF100L macro and pre-ordered the RF14-35L, which should come in shortly, hopefully....like you, this covers most of the bases for me, although I'll take a close look at the RF10-24L, if it ever materializes.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 25, 2021)

Didn’t TDP say 2.5 stops of vignetting? The bottom shot has some seriously dark corners?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 25, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Didn’t TDP say 2.5 stops of vignetting? The bottom shot has some seriously dark corners?


The dark corners are cropped out during the barrel distortion correction.

Besides, I have a protection filter on it, which _may_ add extra vignetting to the _uncorrected_ image at 14mm. I can make a test with and without the filter, but as it doesn't affect the distortion-corrected image (in the viewfinder and in the DPP), I don't see it as a problem.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 26, 2021)

UPDATE on RF14-35 availability......just rec'd notification from B&H that my June 29th pre-order has shipped, with ETA of Fri Aug 27th. So, after having rec'd my Jun 1 pre-ordered RF100mm F2.8L is macro lens last week and soon to be rec'd RF14-35 pre-order in just two days, is this a sign of Canon's supply chain finally catching up?? Let's hope so, as R3 announcement lingers soon, we hope, even as we wonder if there will be some new lens announcements that day as well........It's worth noting, whether you are interested in the 14-35 or not, that while I pre-ordered the RF14-35 a month after the RF100, it will arrive just one week later. That sounds encouraging.


----------

