# Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM to be one of the next lenses announced



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 20, 2021)

> Canon will be adding another wide-angle zoom to the RF lineup sometime over the next month or two. Expect to see a Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM  as a little brother to the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM.
> The Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM uses the product code 4857C005.
> Our Canon RF lens roadmap has had the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM on it for quite some time.
> I don’t know the price at this time, but if I had to give a prediction, I’d say $1199-$1299 USD.



Continue reading...


----------



## JustAnotherCanonShooter (Jun 20, 2021)

oh man, I really hoped it was 14mm at the wide end.

edit: well, glad it was just a typo. Can't wait to see how much lighter the 14-35mm will be when compared to the 15-35mm


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 20, 2021)

Disappointing that they're not matching Nikon with 14-30 here, especially because in my view, if I'm out to 35 with a lens like this, I have the wrong lens on my camera. Makes my decision to stay with my 15-35 less challenging though... 1. Already have 2. 15mm 3. f/2.8. The size/weight benefit will not be enough for me to give up #'s 2 and 3.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 20, 2021)

Wait now it says 14mm...was there a typo?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 20, 2021)

Now is it 14-35 or 16-35? According to Nokishita it will be 14-35.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 20, 2021)

I messed that up. It's 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. I don't know why I didn't read that properly.... I think my roadmap is quite solid.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 20, 2021)

Ha, I just wrote out a whole comment to refresh and see 14-35. 

This sounds like an excellent lens that will make my life more difficult, since now I could swap my EF lens to get even wider. It's really a question between the 15-35 or the 14-35, of whether I want the wider aperture or wider lens. 

Had it been another 16-35, I would have had no real incentive to swap my EF version which has always worked great for me.


----------



## LensFungus (Jun 20, 2021)

The EF 16-35mm f4 IS was one of my favorite travel lenses.


----------



## Berowne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wonderful, if it is 1300€, Canon can have my money! Wait, i have my hands on the new RF 100mm Macro ....


----------



## another_mikey (Jun 20, 2021)

YES! Been longing for this lens since I tried the RF 15-35 (2 copies, a rented one and a friends actually) and found that neither could match the sharpness of my existing EF 16-35 F/4 L IS, even at f/4. I am ready to replace that lens with an RF counterpart though and this one would be perfect if it is up to the task optically.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2021)

LensFungus said:


> The EF 16-35mm f4 IS was one of my favorite travel lenses.


For travel I bring the TS-E 17 and the 11-24/4L for wide lenses. 

But I use the 16-35/4L IS around the house and for local outings, in fact it’s mounted on my EOS R (via adapter) right now. I would not have replaced it with an RF 15-35/4, but am tempted by the 14-35.


----------



## t.linn (Jun 20, 2021)

The is the final RF lens I've been waiting for. Okay, maybe the RF 20 F1.8 if it's as good for astro as the Nikon version.


----------



## Daner (Jun 20, 2021)

With an extra degree on the wide end, and likely smaller size and lower weight and price than the 15-35, this one is definitely on my list!


----------



## Rule556 (Jun 20, 2021)

This will be my next lens more than likely.


----------



## adventureous (Jun 20, 2021)

All I can say is Canon is on a roll right now with these lens offerings.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 20, 2021)

The weight would be good to know.
It should be more lightweight than the 15-35 2.8, but it has one mm more and IS. I hope for 600g... Then I will consider as a good travel lens. If not, I stay with the 17 TSE. (yes I know its more than 1kg with adapter)


----------



## Jemlnlx (Jun 20, 2021)

Really excited about lens… my 16-35mm f4 is on my camera most of the when walking around the city. I use it for most of my landscape shots… and RF version with 14mm on the wide end within a reasonable price range ($1200ish) would be awesome!

Though the $2200 15-35 2.8 is highly regarded… it isn’t worth the $1000 difference for my purposes.


----------



## Tom W (Jun 20, 2021)

This could be a winner lens for me. I made extensive use of my EF 16-35 f4L when I visited Badlands a couple of weeks ago. Swapping lenses (and adapters) quite a bit there.

It'll be interesting to see how 14 mm compares to 16. Wider, of course, but it will be interesting to see how much wider.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 20, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> Disappointing that they're not matching Nikon with 14-30 here, especially because in my view


I don't get it... You're seriously disappointed that Canon has 5mm extra reach on a UWA 14-xx F4 zoom? Don't really get the reason your thought of train.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 20, 2021)

Please, please release this lense asap and make it available at a reasonable waiting period I've been waiting for this lense ever since I got my R (March 2019). I used the 16-35mm F4 which I loved! Now it's going to be even wider (yay ). I'd love to see it's weight reduced, but I think the RF 15-35mm F2.8 is actually heavier than the EF Version, so I don't have high hopes.


----------



## JoeDavid (Jun 20, 2021)

I guess I’m the only one getting tired of announcements, development announcements, etc…. with no new products actually shipping. I would buy the 100mm RF macro if it was available as my next lens.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 20, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I don't get it... You're seriously disappointed that Canon has 5mm extra reach on a UWA 14-xx F4 zoom? Don't really get the reason your thought of train.


Yes, because I'd rather some other optimization be made...either IQ, or overall size/weight, or filter thread size, or some combination thereof. Just like how people buy 24-85 or even 24-70 over 24-105 for a variety of reasons. If I'm shooting the 35mm focal length, I'm either shooting a prime or a zoom that starts at 24mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I don't get it... You're seriously disappointed that Canon has 5mm extra reach on a UWA 14-xx F4 zoom? Don't really get the reason your thought of train.


He posted that when the thread was erroneously about a 16-35, before CRguy fixed his typo.


----------



## JohnC (Jun 20, 2021)

While I have the 15-35 I would be tempted the pick this lens up as well if the size and weight are attractive. I think it would be great for long hikes/backing or travel where you are size and weight restricted. The 15-35 is great, but it is big and heavy.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> He posted that when the thread was erroneously about a 16-35, before CRguy fixed his typo.


He was questioning why I wanted the lens to stop at 30 instead of going to 35, which I have now answered above.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> He was questioning why I wanted the lens to stop at 30 instead of going to 35, which I have now answered above.


Your explanation makes no sense to me. I can see preferring a 14-30 over a 16-35, I can’t see choosing a 14-30 over a 14-35 with the same max aperture.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your explanation makes no sense to me. I can see preferring a 14-30 over a 16-35, I can’t see choosing a 14-30 over a 14-35 with the same max aperture.


Again, for the same reasons people often prefer 24-85 over 24-105. More range isn't superior if it adds size, weight, makes the filter thread larger, and/or lowers the IQ. Even at 30mm there's crossover with a 24 - 105, in a range where that type of lens is almost always very good. I'd even rather have a 11 - 24 or 12 - 24, if it took filters in the front.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> Again, for the same reasons people often prefer 24-85 over 24-105. More range isn't superior if it adds size, weight, makes the filter thread larger, and/or lowers the IQ. Even at 30mm there's crossover with a 24 - 105, in a range where that type of lens is almost always very good. I'd even rather have a 11 - 24 or 12 - 24, if it took filters in the front.


Given the optical design of UWA zooms, the extra 5mm on the long end is unlikely to do any of those to a meaningful degree.


----------



## Treyarnon (Jun 20, 2021)

I'm not sure about this lens. The 16-35 F4 is my go to lens for about 90% of my photography. 
The extra 2mm on the wide end is sort of nice - but I'm really concerned about the ability to mount filters over the front. It that is not possible, then I'll stick with the 16-35 EF


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2021)

Treyarnon said:


> I'm not sure about this lens. The 16-35 F4 is my go to lens for about 90% of my photography.
> The extra 2mm on the wide end is sort of nice - but I'm really concerned about the ability to mount filters over the front. It that is not possible, then I'll stick with the 16-35 EF


At f/4, it will take front filters.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 20, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> Yes, because I'd rather some other optimization be made...either IQ, or overall size/weight, or filter thread size, or some combination thereof.


If they keep the filter thread size at 77mm, that's perfect imho. We - me too - always wish for smaller size/ weight, but as far as I know/ learned, leaving out 5mm of range doesn't necessarily mean it would be smaller from an engineering point of view.



> Just like how people buy 24-85 or even 24-70 over 24-105 for a variety of reasons.


I do get what you mean now, but I still doubt there'd be a noticeable difference with the 14-35mm in any way.




> I'd even rather have a 11 - 24 or 12 - 24, if it took filters in the front.


That would be a dream! But I don't know of any UWA zoom wider than 14mm that takes regular filters. I doubt that the upcoming RF 10-24mm F4 will have a filter thread.


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 20, 2021)

This will be unpopular on this thread... But I'm probably just going to stick with the Tamron 17-35 28-4.0. It's most likely still going to be lighter, and that 2.8 on the wide end has gotten more use from me than the extra 3mm (I probably wouldn't say this if I didn't also have the older EF 11-24 4.0 that I can use when 17 really isn't enough.) I still think this Tamron is underrated by purists


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Given the optical design of UWA zooms, the extra 5mm on the long end is unlikely to do any of those to a meaningful degree.


I guess we'll see. Nikon's Z 14 - 30 f/4 is about the same length as Canon's EF 16 - 35 f/4, and most of Canon's RF lenses has been more complex designs that end up bigger than the EF counterparts, not smaller.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 20, 2021)

This was the lens I was hoping for. If it’s 77 mm filter thread and is lighter/smaller than EF 16-35 then I’m buying it for sure. And of course if the price isn’t anything crazy


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I guess we'll see. Nikon's Z 14 - 30 f/4 is about the same length as Canon's EF 16 - 35 f/4, and most of Canon's RF lenses has been more complex designs that end up bigger than the EF counterparts, not smaller.


Yes, we’ll see. But the degree to which Canon has chosen to correct the aberrations at the wide end will be what mainly determines the relative size and weight, rather than the addition of 5mm at the long end.


----------



## entoman (Jun 20, 2021)

Well I had the misfortune to have my 16-35mm F4 stolen a couple of months back. I'm glad I waited a while before replacing it, because this 14-35mm F4 will not only be a bit wider, but will also probably be even sharper. And if it sells for around £1200, I'll be reaching for my wallet. Canon are producing some really interesting lenses for RF - I'm also quite tempted by the 800mm F11, but what I'd really like is an RF version of the 180mm macro, with OIS.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your explanation makes no sense to me. I can see preferring a 14-30 over a 16-35, I can’t see choosing a 14-30 over a 14-35 with the same max aperture.


I use the longer end for underwater shooting at times... 14mm underwater would be used as often for me unless I was shooting whales and I would probably use my 8-15mm in that case. Tonga would be a very special tip for me - sigh.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 21, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Ha, I just wrote out a whole comment to refresh and see 14-35.
> 
> This sounds like an excellent lens that will make my life more difficult, since now I could swap my EF lens to get even wider. It's really a question between the 15-35 or the 14-35, of whether I want the wider aperture or wider lens.
> 
> Had it been another 16-35, I would have had no real incentive to swap my EF version which has always worked great for me.


My EF16-35mm/4 is my most used lens overall for landscape/seascape/underwater. Filter thread for landscape/seascape would be an issue for me if not 77mm though. To get a replacement filter setup (6/10 stop ND, 3 stop grad ND, CPL) to handle multiple thread sizes would cost about USD900. I may do this in the future but not in my current budget plans


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 21, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I guess we'll see. Nikon's Z 14 - 30 f/4 is about the same length as Canon's EF 16 - 35 f/4, and most of Canon's RF lenses has been more complex designs that end up bigger than the EF counterparts, not smaller.


I wouldn't migrate from EF->RF if it was still 16-35mm. 

The Z14-30/4 has a 82mm filter thread. I can't see Canon being able to go to 14mm without increasing the thread to 82mm as well.
The replacement would be very interesting for me. I would need to replace my filter set and the standard replacement filters would be heavily vignetted at 14mm. 150mm filters would probably be needed at a big price increase over 100mm sets.

Canon seems to be differentiating their RF lenses by bringing something extra to the table each time to tempt buyers to migrate besides AF speed and stabilisation.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 21, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> To get a replacement filter setup (6/10 stop ND, 3 stop grad ND, CPL) to handle multiple thread sizes would cost about USD900. I may do this in the future but not in my current budget plans



I know we each have our own preferences, but this was definitely one of my favorite reasons for investing in the Lee 100mm filter system, it costs maybe $50 to adapt my filters to a different filter thread. That said, I know this also doesn't apply to all filter types.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 21, 2021)

This will be a day one purchase for me. I’ve been tempted to just suck it up and buy the RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS USM and sell my EF version…but I also think that buying the f/2.8L was one of my biggest regrets in my camera bag. I very VERY seldomly use or need an ultra-wide lens to shoot at f/2.8…and there is some crazy vignetting on the EF and even worse on the RF.

I hope this is the lens I’ve been waiting for. If it comes in at under $1200 I might even keep my EF version just for some work in low light.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 21, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I know we each have our own preferences, but this was definitely one of my favorite reasons for investing in the Lee 100mm filter system, it costs maybe $50 to adapt my filters to a different filter thread. That said, I know this also doesn't apply to all filter types.


sure... I use round 6/10 stop ND and CPL Hoya filters and a cokin filter mount for my 3 stop grad NDs (soft and hard). Cheap and cheerful and built up over many years and has served me well. It is getting to the end of its useful life so will be replaced by an integrated system at some point in the near future. The new system will use step up rings for 77mm/82mm etc. Hard to decide between Nisi V6 starter kit plus and Haida M10 professional kit with pros and cons for each. Both 100mm systems have vignetting wider than 16mm.
Note that I would only use a CPL @16mm for waterfalls as wide angle sky shots with CPL is always tricky


----------



## JohnC (Jun 21, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I know we each have our own preferences, but this was definitely one of my favorite reasons for investing in the Lee 100mm filter system, it costs maybe $50 to adapt my filters to a different filter thread. That said, I know this also doesn't apply to all filter types.


Likewise. For gnd or nd use it they great. Although, I ultimately switched over to breakthrough filters and love them. The point remains the same.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jun 21, 2021)

This is the first RF lens that I might buy, while the lenses that Canon has put out so far are likely great none of them give me anything I don't already have with the EF versions. I don't really need larger aperture since I mostly use these wide angle lenses for landscapes. The extra 2 mm will likely mean I won't get one of the more expensive ultra wide zooms. Currently the 16-35 F/4 L is nearly always on one camera while the telephotos live on the other. Really looking forward to a 14-35. Now the wait for it to actually come out....


----------



## noms78 (Jun 21, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> Yes, because I'd rather some other optimization be made...either IQ, or overall size/weight, or filter thread size, or some combination thereof. Just like how people buy 24-85 or even 24-70 over 24-105 for a variety of reasons. If I'm shooting the 35mm focal length, I'm either shooting a prime or a zoom that starts at 24mm.


i really hope the image quality of this 14-35 f4 is at least as good as the ef 16-35 f4.

a longer FL range usually means worse image quality (at the long end?). also, zooms are less sharp at the long end and for critical shots i prefer to use my 24-70 f4 @35 instead of the 16-35 @35.

I'm still waiting for the rf 24-70 f4. was never excited about that rf 24-105.


----------



## shire_guy (Jun 21, 2021)

A RF14-35mm f4 could be my first RF lens and as a very tempting replacement for my EF16-35mm f4, provided the weight and size were at least equivalent or less. Hopefully the price will be reasonable in Australia, I don't see any harm in wishful thinking


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 21, 2021)

noms78 said:


> i really hope the image quality of this 14-35 f4 is at least as good as the ef 16-35 f4.
> 
> a longer FL range usually means worse image quality (at the long end?). also, zooms are less sharp at the long end and for critical shots i prefer to use my 24-70 f4 @35 instead of the 16-35 @35.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the rf 24-70 f4. was never excited about that rf 24-105.


There is indeed a reasonably good chance that the 14-35 f4 would have equal or better IQ than the EF 16-35 f4. Based on what I have read/seen and the two RF lenses that I actually owned, the IQ of the RF lenses matches or betters the EF counterparts. In some cases, the IQ improvements alone do not justify spending the money on the RF lens if one already owns the EF version. In others, such as the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4, the IQ difference probably justifies replacing the EF versions. Other factors, such as weight, length, would be considerations as well. Given that I mostly shoot outdoors during the day, and that I don't have the 16-35 f4, the 14-35 f4 would be a clear 'buy' once the supply settles and, hopefully, the price drops.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 21, 2021)

Screw on 82mm filters would be nice. I'm guessing easily as much as Sony's 12-24 f/4 G, but $1200 would be nice surprise. Still using my 16-35 f/4L IS on my A7RIII, very nice lens. It would take something special to make me swap it and that certainly isn't the 15-35 f/2.8.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 21, 2021)

Come to papa!


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 21, 2021)

And I recently bought the Samyang 14mm RF AF.
I'll see how many pennies I have left after I get the RF 100mm macro.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 21, 2021)

Bennymiata said:


> And I recently bought the Samyang 14mm RF AF.
> I'll see how many pennies I have left after I get the RF 100mm macro.


I hope we'll get word on availability on the RF100L soon, if it is delayed after the main macro season here (late september) I'd rather get the Laowa probe lens or the RF2x extender this summer and save up to get the 100L next spring.


----------



## sulla (Jun 21, 2021)

What a nice lens. Up to now I have 2.8 zooms and a couple of 1.4 primes, but I guess in future I'll rather go with the smaller and lighter f/4 zooms and a few 1.2 primes, rather. The newer bodies handle high ISO-noise even better, and with IBIS the f/4 zooms should be no issue.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jun 21, 2021)

I would also be interested in this lens, the old EF version weighs in at 615g vs 790g for the EF 2.8 version III and 840g for the RF 2.8 I guess the IS of the EF f4 and RF 2.8 adds grams.

It would be nice is Canon could keep the weight to around 500g for the new RF f4 whilst maintaining its durability, but as always this might be asking a little too much of Canon especially as the lens is slightly wider and will have IS

A few grams don’t seem much but when you’re holding the body and lens combo all day they are soon felt as is the case with the excellent RF 24-70 2.8


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 21, 2021)

My favourite wide angle lens is the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC. It is very big and heavy, has IS and is a stop wider than f/4. I am not sure if 1mm more wide angle is better than one stop of more light, because the corners already get streched a lot at 15mm. Even 17mm is critical indoors.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 21, 2021)

The ultra ultrawide is a niche specialty lens. What I'd like is a compact 18-28 f/2.8 IS (or f/4).
This could be made quite small and light and covers the basic wide to ultrawide range.
Combined with a smallish RF 50mm f/1.4 IS and the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS would make the perfect do everything kit in a reasonable sized package.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 21, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> I would also be interested in this lens, the old EF version weighs in at 615g vs 790g for the EF 2.8 version III and 840g for the RF 2.8 I guess the IS of the EF f4 and RF 2.8 adds grams.
> 
> It would be nice is Canon could keep the weight to around 500g for the new RF f4 whilst maintaining its durability, but as always this might be asking a little too much of Canon especially as the lens is slightly wider and will have IS
> 
> A few grams don’t seem much but when you’re holding the body and lens combo all day they are soon felt as is the case with the excellent RF 24-70 2.8


Don't forget that the EF-RF adapter adds 110grams to those EF lenses when used on an RF body.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 21, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Don't forget that the EF-RF adapter adds 110grams to those EF lenses when used on an RF body.


This must be a other vendor.
The original Canon weights 149g. Or is mine "broken" ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> This must be a other vendor.
> The original Canon weights 149g. Or is mine "broken" ?


The original Canon specs are 110 g for the basic adapter, 130 g for the control ring adapter, and 121 g for the drop-in filter version. So perhaps yours has a rock inside it or something.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 21, 2021)

Quirkz said:


> This will be unpopular on this thread... But I'm probably just going to stick with the Tamron 17-35 28-4.0. It's most likely still going to be lighter, and that 2.8 on the wide end has gotten more use from me than the extra 3mm (I probably wouldn't say this if I didn't also have the older EF 11-24 4.0 that I can use when 17 really isn't enough.) I still think this Tamron is underrated by purists


The only problem with the Tamron lens is the build quality. The filter thread is really brittle. That said, I love mine and the image quality is phenomenal for what it costs. And the weight? Feels like carrying extra air in the camera bag.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 21, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I wouldn't migrate from EF->RF if it was still 16-35mm.
> 
> The Z14-30/4 has a 82mm filter thread. I can't see Canon being able to go to 14mm without increasing the thread to 82mm as well.
> The replacement would be very interesting for me. I would need to replace my filter set and the standard replacement filters would be heavily vignetted at 14mm. 150mm filters would probably be needed at a big price increase over 100mm sets.
> ...


Nikon's Z 14-24 f/2.8 has a 112 mm filter thread whereas the Canon's RF 15-35 f/2.8 one is 82 mm. I know there's 1 mm difference but... there is still some hope. Canon got 1 mm wider from EF to RF but still kept the filter thread size.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 21, 2021)

I'm gonna be hated but I'd like to see an equivalent to the EF-S 10-22 for APSC. I don't mind f/7.1 or anything like that as long as is compact and has reasonable optical quality (yes, the EF-S one was garbage in terms of IQ).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

Traveler said:


> Nikon's Z 14-24 f/2.8 has a 112 mm filter thread whereas the Canon's RF 15-35 f/2.8 one is 82 mm. I know there's 1 mm difference but... there is still some hope. Canon got 1 mm wider from EF to RF but still kept the filter thread size.


The 28-70/2 takes 95mm filters, perhaps they’ll match that.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 21, 2021)

Traveler said:


> I'm gonna be hated but I'd like to see an equivalent to the EF-S 10-22 for APSC. I don't mind f/7.1 or anything like that as long as is compact and has reasonable optical quality (yes, the EF-S one was garbage in terms of IQ).


If Canon comes up with an APS-C RF Camera (not in an R7 style) I think a RF-S 10-22mm should be a given. 
My first wide angle lense was the EF-S 10-18mm, I think for many beginners that's where you start.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The original Canon specs are 110 g for the basic adapter, 130 g for the control ring adapter, and 121 g for the drop-in filter version. So perhaps yours has a rock inside it or something.


Specs are one thing (lens weight is always without caps or tripod collar), but I checked it with my kitchen scale, which is precise.
The Meike adapter weights 111g - yes...


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 21, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> Specs are one thing (lens weight is always without caps or tripod collar), but I checked it with my kitchen scale, which is precise.
> The Meike adapter weights 111g - yes...


The canon ones weight 109.91g according to my kitchen scale


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> Specs are one thing (lens weight is always without caps or tripod collar), but I checked it with my kitchen scale, which is precise.
> The Meike adapter weights 111g - yes...


Your kitchen scale may be precise, but evidently it's not accurate. You know the difference between precision and accuracy – yes...?


----------



## Kit. (Jun 21, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The Z14-30/4 has a 82mm filter thread. I can't see Canon being able to go to 14mm without increasing the thread to 82mm as well.


Assuming Canon's usual naming scheme, the mount diameter of the 14-35 lens hood will be 83mm. It's highly unlikely that Canon would be able or willing to fit a 82mm threaded filter inside it (especially as they could just increase the lens hood diameter instead).


----------



## bseitz234 (Jun 21, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Assuming Canon's usual naming scheme, the mount diameter of the 14-35 lens hood will be 83mm. It's highly unlikely that Canon would be able or willing to fit a 82mm threaded filter inside it (especially as they could just increase the lens hood diameter instead).


Where did you find the name of the lens hood of an unreleased lens?


----------



## Kit. (Jun 21, 2021)

bseitz234 said:


> Where did you find the name of the lens hood of an unreleased lens?


Here.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your kitchen scale may be precise, but evidently it's not accurate. You know the difference between precision and accuracy – yes...?


And you know the difference between cap and no cap? ;-)

The Meike adapter weights 77g without caps, 112g with.
The Canon 111g without, 149g with.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Here.


You're right, an EW-83 hood means the lens won't take 82mm filters, it actually suggests rather strongly that the RF 14-35/4 will take 77mm filters. That's great in one way (convenience), but makes be a bit concerned about the optical compromises necessary to make that happen (e.g. wicked vignetting wide open at 14mm).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> And you know the difference between cap and no cap? ;-)
> 
> The Canon 111g without, 149g with.





koenkooi said:


> Don't forget that the EF-RF adapter adds 110grams to those EF lenses when used on an RF body.


The original statement was, "...the EF-RF adapter adds 110grams to those EF lenses *when used on an RF body.*"

You do understand that adapters, *when used on an RF body*, are used without the caps, right? Kinda hard to mount the lens to the adapter or the adapter to the body with the caps on the adapter. 

So you do understand that when one is considering the extra weight added by using the adapter to mount an EF lens to an RF body, it's the weight of the adapter, _without the caps_, that is the relevant measurement? 

Geez, I really didn't think anyone could be that daft. I was wrong about that.


----------



## renlok (Jun 21, 2021)

YES PLEASE, with this lens and a 100L. My kit will be finish!!


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The original statement was, "...the EF-RF adapter adds 110grams to those EF lenses *when used on an RF body.*"
> 
> You do understand that adapters, *when used on an RF body*, are used without the caps, right? Kinda hard to mount the lens to the adapter or the adapter to the body with the caps on the adapter.
> 
> ...


So you must be the one, who carry only one lens and the body alone. The bag industry is a whole scam, nobody need them really.

If you have to switch - even with all other RF native lens and only one EF lens, you carry the caps, I am sure about that.
And arrogance is never a good feature.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> So you must be the one, who carry only one lens and the body alone. The bag industry is a whole scam, nobody need them really.
> 
> If you have to switch - even with all other RF native lens and only one EF lens, you carry the caps, I am sure about that.
> And arrogance is never a good feature.


Nice job doubling down on your ridiculous line of reasoning. The statement to which you responded was about _using_ the adapter, not about carrying it around. In use, the weight of the adapter is 110g. Like many people on this forum, you apparently lack the ability to admit you are wrong. I find that to be pathetic.

Personally, I'm not concerned about an extra 39g or even an extra 149g in my camera bag where the weight is on my shoulders or waist. An extra 110g on the camera+lens in my hands is a different matter, although in fact it would be less about the weight of the adapter itself and more about the adapter putting the center of mass for the camera+lens further distal, which has ergonomic consequences (that's why I prefer 1-series bodies, or the new EOS R3 – yes they are heavier but most of my lenses are pretty heavy and the heavy body balances the load and actually makes them easier to handle for long shooting sessions).

Regardless, including the caps for the in-use weight of a lens or adapter is asinine, because they are not on the lens or adapter when it is being used to take pictures. Including the lens hood (and tripod collar, if available) in the in-use weight makes sense. But the EF-EOS R adapter has neither.

But I suppose it's possible you use your caps in a way that their weight is relevant to an in-use measurement. Maybe you really like things that dangle?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 21, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Assuming Canon's usual naming scheme, the mount diameter of the 14-35 lens hood will be 83mm. It's highly unlikely that Canon would be able or willing to fit a 82mm threaded filter inside it (especially as they could just increase the lens hood diameter instead).


The name of the lense hood is directly linked to the size of the filter thread. The RF 24-105mm F4 L lense hoods name is EW-83N (at least in Germany) at the filter size is still 77mm. 

There is noooo way Canon will introduce a new 83mm thread. Almost all filter systems rely on either 77mm or 82mm filter sizes and Canon would loose many customers to other camera manufacturers because most people would not be willing to buy a lense with RF markup and having afford a new filter system... needless to say, many landscape photographers use filters regularly. 

Having a 14mm UWA zoom and being able to use regular filters will be one of the most attractive selling points!!! No way, their giving that away. 

I can imagine Canon using a 82mm thread, but I believe it will be a 77mm. Usually, 82mm is for F2.8 lenses, 77mm for F4 lenses. Furthermore, I think Canon would rather have limited the lense to 15mm or 16mm than to change the filter thread. 

Last but not least: Canon managed to "stretch" the already amazing EF 100-400mm into a RF 100-500mm with nearly the same size and same filter thread. They'll work their "magic" again by widening the F4 UWA by 2mm and keeping the filter thread at 77mm


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I'm not concerned about an extra 39g or even an extra 149g i


So much text for so much about careless and about rightness.
And again flame war. Do you really need that to prove yourself?
Pathetic, indeed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> So much text for so much about careless and about rightness.
> And again flame war. Do you really need that to prove yourself?
> Pathetic, indeed.


Obviously just admitting you were wrong and moving on is something of which you are incapable. Sad.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> The name of the lense hood is directly linked to the size of the filter thread. The RF 24-105mm F4 L lense hoods name is EW-83N (at least in Germany) at the filter size is still 77mm.


The number in the lens hood designation refers to the diameter of the attachment mount of the hood itself. Only in a few select cases is that the same diameter as the filter thread (mainly the 'pancake' lenses where the hood is threaded instead of a bayonet mount, and the hood replicates the filter threads at the front). 

For bayonet mount hoods, it's the norm for the diameter to be several millimeters larger than the filter threads. Sometimes, it's not enough larger for convenience – for example, the ET-83C on the original 100-400L really didn't leave enough room to get a hand in and turn a CPL, which is why Canon's ET-83D hood for the 100-400 II has a 'window' to adjust a CPL.

Agree that based on the hood designation the RF 14-35/4 will use 77mm filters.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The number in the lens hood designation refers to the diameter of the attachment mount of the hood itself. Only in a few select cases is that the same diameter as the filter thread (mainly the 'pancake' lenses where the hood is threaded instead of a bayonet mount, and the hood replicates the filter threads at the front).
> 
> For bayonet mount hoods, it's the norm for the diameter to be several millimeters larger than the filter threads. Sometimes, it's not enough larger for convenience – for example, the ET-83C on the original 100-400L really didn't leave enough room to get a hand in and turn a CPL, which is why Canon's ET-83D hood for the 100-400 II has a 'window' to adjust a CPL.
> 
> Agree that based on the hood designation the RF 14-35/4 will use 77mm filters.


Thx for the explanation, now it's more clear to me what you mean. I think we're on the same page on this topic. . 



> Agree that based on the hood designation the RF 14-35/4 will use 77mm filters.


I agree as well. The 24-105mm. F4 with a "83" lense hood designation has a 77mm filter thread. 

I am hoping for a 77mm filter thread because my lenses - whenever in stock - will all have a 77mm thread except the 35mm F1.8, which I rarely use with filters.


----------



## entoman (Jun 21, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Canon seems to be differentiating their RF lenses by bringing something extra to the table each time to tempt buyers to migrate besides AF speed and stabilisation.


Yes, Canon is bouncing back with fantastic new bodies and exciting new lenses. They've realised that photography has changed - people who bought Powershots and budget DSLRs are now more likely to buy high end smartphones, while advanced users seem willing to pay extra in order to get the best-specified and highest quality gear available.

But they still need to get newcomers into the system, so more budget lenses and budget MILCs will undoubtedly be forthcoming.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

entoman said:


> But they still need to get newcomers into the system, so more budget lenses and budget MILCs will undoubtedly be forthcoming.


The EOS M line continues to sell very, very well.


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 21, 2021)

This lens looks tempting but I'll pass. My reasons? I sold my EF 14 f/2.8 II and my EF 16-35 f/4 then got the RF 15-35 f/2.8. Even though the lens listed in this topic might be lighter than the 15-35, the lens I got replaced two and does not need an adapter so the weight reduction in my bag is significant. Plus, the RF 15-35 f/2.8 can accommodate an circular filter (I have some 82mm filters from other lenses already). I really do not need to go to 14mm for what I shoot. And, at 15mm, lens coma actually seems better than the 14mm I sold. 

I think if I was looking for a wide lens as an initial purchase, I might go with this to complete a triad of f/4 lenses (70-200, 24-105, and 14-35) but, for me, my choice made sense.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously just admitting you were wrong and moving on is something of which you are incapable. Sad.


The bigger problem of the internet is, that you can show a behavior as an absolute dickhead and to think thats acceptable and a must to do to feel better. And to make fun of people. Normal people wouldn't react in normal life as you have shown here. Other readers can decide which is the bigger problem.

Can you read post 64 again? You read it and make this shitshow because there was all was I meant. No need to be a jack, or only if you choose to be it.


----------



## Aaron D (Jun 21, 2021)

Good to see this one coming! No idea if I'll ever have reason to get one, but I hope so. And when that time comes I hope to be able to justify the 2.8 instead--we'll see.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> The bigger problem of the internet is, that you can show a behavior as an absolute dickhead and to think thats acceptable and a must to do to feel better. And to make fun of people. Normal people wouldn't react in normal life as you have shown here. Other readers can decide which is the bigger problem.
> 
> Can you read post 64 again? You read it and make this shitshow because there was all was I meant. No need to be a jack, or only if you choose to be it.


Let me summarize:

koenkooi: "Using the EF-RF adapter adds 110g to an EF lens when _used_ on an RF body."
you: "The Canon adapter weighs 149g."
me: "It weighs 110g."
you: "Well, you have to include the caps in the weight."
me: "The caps aren't on the adapter when it's being used to adapt an EF lens to an RF body."
you: "See post #64, where I say you have to include the caps in the weight, you dickhead."

By the way, I apologize for not answering your earlier question, "And you know the difference between cap and no cap? ;-)" The answer is yes, I do – a cap is something you put on the adapter when you are _not using_ it.

So, you can either be mature and admit you were wrong, or continue being peurile. Your choice.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 21, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> This lens looks tempting but I'll pass. My reasons? I sold my EF 14 f/2.8 II and my EF 16-35 f/4 then got the RF 15-35 f/2.8. Even though the lens listed in this topic might be lighter than the 15-35, the lens I got replaced two and does not need an adapter so the weight reduction in my bag is significant. Plus, the RF 15-35 f/2.8 can accommodate an circular filter (I have some 82mm filters from other lenses already). I really do not need to go to 14mm for what I shoot. And, at 15mm, lens coma actually seems better than the 14mm I sold.
> 
> I think if I was looking for a wide lens as an initial purchase, I might go with this to complete a triad of f/4 lenses (70-200, 24-105, and 14-35) but, for me, my choice made sense.


For you it makes a lot of sense to use the F2.8 and yours reasons sound very plausible. I had actually decided to go with the RF 14-35mm F4, but now after I read your post, I'm torn/ tempted again to get the F2.8 instead. 

*Advantage F2.8: *
- great Astro lense 
- better for city nightscapes

*Disadvantages F2.8: *
- need to carry an adapter ring for filter thread
- possibly heavier
- "upgrade" is very expensive for little use...
- landscapes mostly shot in lower apertures --> F2.8 is overkill... 

*Advantage F4: *
- probably lighter, smaller 
- filter thread 77mm 
- hopefully much cheaper
- 1mm wider 

*Disadvantage F4: *
- low aperture for astro... (a tracker might help...) 
- I might need another lense for astro... more weight when traveling

As mentioned, these are my personal pros and cons. If anybody would like to weigh in, please. Tips are always welcome  especially if you're experienced in astro photography with these two apertures because that might be the decisive point for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> For you it makes a lot of sense to use the F2.8 and yours reasons sound very plausible. I had actually decided to go with the RF 14-35mm F4, but now after I read your post, I'm torn/ tempted again to get the F2.8 instead.


I had the EF 16-35/2.8 II, changed it for the EF 16-35/4 IS and have had no regrets. My need for anything faster than f/4 in an ultrawide is very rare, I don't do much astro (I do have the Samyang 14/2.8 for those rare occasions when I do).

The choice of f/2.8 vs. f/4 depends in part on the camera body – although a faster lens is always better for astro, the lower ISO noise in more recent bodies means using a higher ISO can give good results compared to older sensors. 

The RF 15-35/2.8 is a bit remarkable among Canon lenses in it's relatively low coma and astigmatism, aberrations that are not well controlled in most Canon lenses. Maybe Canon is beginning to optimize for them in their designs now. A couple of the EF-M lenses have really low coma and astigmatism as well.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your kitchen scale may be precise, but evidently it's not accurate. You know the difference between precision and accuracy – yes...?
> 
> View attachment 198479


Needs a N.I.S.T. traceable calibration to maintain forum integrity.


----------



## xlksii (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, you can either be mature and admit you were wrong, or continue being peurile. Your choice.


Or maybe you could pretend to be the mature guy and just drop the topic.


----------



## Dantana (Jun 21, 2021)

This one is going on my list to replace my 17-40, while not a sexy lens, it has been a cost effective option for me and I have many pictures made with it that I am happy with. I’d love something that’s not too far off it’s size with the adapter and an improvement in image quality, at least in the corners. 

I can only speak for my wants and needs, but a 77mm filter would be welcome, an 82 would not be a deal breaker. I would rather have 35 than 30 on the long end, as many times when I am traveling, I choose a lens for the day (or half day) and stick with that. Most of my shooting opportunities happen when I am traveling with my wife rather than on dedicated shooting trips, so I tend to try and not bring a ton of gear to an outing. I’d rather have the extra 5mm, but that’s my preference. 

My only fear with this lens is that it will be quite a bit more expensive than mentioned in previous posts. I hope I’m wrong. I may have to wait until it’s been out long enough for the refurbs to show up though.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 21, 2021)

Traveler said:


> I'm gonna be hated but I'd like to see an equivalent to the EF-S 10-22 for APSC. I don't mind f/7.1 or anything like that as long as is compact and has reasonable optical quality (yes, the EF-S one was garbage in terms of IQ).


I don’t recall any problems with IQ of the pictures I took with mine. I haven’t used it in over 3 years, and I certainly haven’t taken comparison shots between it and my 16-35mm f/4 on full frame, but I don’t recall any dissatisfaction with it.


----------



## BBarn (Jun 21, 2021)

Really looking forward to this lens. Really want an RF ultrawide to replace my EF 17-40. Would have bought the RF 15-35 were it not for price, size and weight. Hoping this new RF 14-35 comes in below the price/size/weight of the RF 15-35 since it's F/4 (I don't need f/2.8).


----------



## jeanluc (Jun 21, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> This will be a day one purchase for me. I’ve been tempted to just suck it up and buy the RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS USM and sell my EF version…but I also think that buying the f/2.8L was one of my biggest regrets in my camera bag. I very VERY seldomly use or need an ultra-wide lens to shoot at f/2.8…and there is some crazy vignetting on the EF and even worse on the RF.
> 
> I hope this is the lens I’ve been waiting for. If it comes in at under $1200 I might even keep my EF version just for some work in low light.


I have the RF 15-35. It is very, very sharp. No real difference between it and the EF 16-35LIII except the IS and obviously it’s wider. I would have no problem recommending it. If you ever do any night/Milky Way etc the 2.8 makes a big did. I plan to get this one also, as it will be smaller and the extra mm on the wide end will be nice.


----------



## JohnC (Jun 21, 2021)

jeanluc said:


> I have the RF 15-35. It is very, very sharp. No real difference between it and the EF 16-35LIII except the IS and obviously it’s wider. I would have no problem recommending it. If you ever do any night/Milky Way etc the 2.8 makes a big did. I plan to get this one also, as it will be smaller and the extra mm on the wide end will be nice.


I agree. It gives my zeiss 15 a run for its money. It isn’t quite there but it is VERY good.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 21, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Assuming Canon's usual naming scheme, the mount diameter of the 14-35 lens hood will be 83mm. It's highly unlikely that Canon would be able or willing to fit a 82mm threaded filter inside it (especially as they could just increase the lens hood diameter instead).


The hood mount diameter for the 14-35mm lens can't be 83mm as the filter thread would have to be at least 82mm.

Both the RF15-35mm and the EF16-35mm/2.8 have a 82mm filter thread. If the front lens is bulbous then the filter systems become custom as the mount is on (generally) fixed hood. I assume that the hood for a 14-35mm lens will mount in a similar way as the EF-88F hood but have wider petals.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Both the RF15-35mm and the EF16-35mm/2.8 have a 82mm filter thread. 82mm is the standard size after 77mm. No filters (to my knowledge) use a 83mm thread. If the front lens is bulbous then the filter systems become custom as the mount is on (generally) fixed hood. I assume that the hood for a 14-35mm lens will mount in a similar way as the EF-88F hood but have wider petals.


The point is Canon won’t use a filter thread that’s 1mm smaller than the hood mount dismeter, which likely means the 14-35/4 will take 77mm filters (like the RF 24-105/4 and RF 70-200/4).

But you have a good point that the lens may not take a front filter. But that’s unlikely (for example, Nikon’s 14-30/4 takes 82mm filters).


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 21, 2021)

Traveler said:


> Nikon's Z 14-24 f/2.8 has a 112 mm filter thread whereas the Canon's RF 15-35 f/2.8 one is 82 mm. I know there's 1 mm difference but... there is still some hope. Canon got 1 mm wider from EF to RF but still kept the filter thread size.


Yes, the Z 14-24mm/2.8 uses a massive 112mm thread into the hood (when used) or rear gels due to the bulbous front lens. Compared to the AFS 14-24mm/2.8 which can't accept filters at all except custom systems that mount to the outside of the hood. It actually comes with 2 hoods for filter or not which is remarkable! The cost of 112mm filters - especially from Nikon is very expensive


----------



## Kit. (Jun 21, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Both the RF15-35mm and the EF16-35mm/2.8 have a 82mm filter thread. 82mm is the standard size after 77mm. No filters (to my knowledge) use a 83mm thread.


Where did you read about "a 83mm thread"?

Canon lenses with 88mm hood bayonets use 82mm filter threads.
Canon lenses with 83mm hood bayonets use 77mm filter threads.



David - Sydney said:


> If the front lens is bulbous then the filter systems become custom as the mount is on (generally) fixed hood. I assume that the hood for a 14-35mm lens will mount in a similar way as the EF-88F hood but have wider petals.


I assume that the EW-83P hood will mount "in a similar way as" the other EW-83* hoods, but have wider petals.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 22, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Where did you read about "a 83mm thread"?
> 
> Canon lenses with 88mm hood bayonets use 82mm filter threads.
> Canon lenses with 83mm hood bayonets use 77mm filter threads.
> ​


Agreed for the 83mm thread comment. I have edited the original post
The filter thread (if one is included with the RF14-35mm lens) will be a minimum of 82mm if the RF15-35mm/2.8 is used as an example.


Kit. said:


> David - Sydney said:
> ​
> If the front lens is bulbous then the filter systems become custom as the mount is on (generally) fixed hood. I assume that the hood for a 14-35mm lens will mount in a similar way as the EF-88F hood but have wider petals.​





Kit. said:


> I assume that the EW-83P hood will mount "in a similar way as" the other EW-83* hoods, but have wider petals.


I didn't mention the EF-83 hood. The EW-88F hood on the RF15-35mm only goes to 15mm so if the RF14-35mm lens has a 82mm filter thread and hence needing a 88mm hood then the petals would need to be wider to suit 14mm.
I think that it is wishful thinking that the RF14-35mm will have a 82mm thread. The next step is 95mm filters which are a lot more expensive than 82mm


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I think that it is wishful thinking that the RF14-35mm will have a 82mm thread. The next step is 95mm filters which are a lot more expensive than 82mm


The leaked hood designation for the 14-35/4 is an EW-83 hood. That means the bayonet mount is 83mm in diameter. The filter must be several millimeters smaller, i.e., a 77mm filter thread.

There no physical possibility of a 95mm front thread with an EW-83 filter, the hood couldn’t fit. Nor is it at all likely that an 83mm hood mount would have a 1mm smaller diameter filter thread. 

If the EW-83 leak is correct, the lens will either take only rear filters (unlikely) or have a 77mm thread (most probable).


----------



## jeanluc (Jun 22, 2021)

I suspect this will take 77mm filters.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The leaked hood designation for the 14-35/4 is an EW-83 hood. That means the bayonet mount is 83mm in diameter. The filter must be several millimeters smaller, i.e., a 77mm filter thread.
> 
> There no physical possibility of a 95mm front thread with an EW-83 filter, the hood couldn’t fit. Nor is it at all likely that an 83mm hood mount would have a 1mm smaller diameter filter thread.
> 
> If the EW-83 leak is correct, the lens will either take only rear filters (unlikely) or have a 77mm thread (most probable).


I didn't realise that the hood size had been leaked. I agree with the comment regarding 95/82mm thread if the leak is correct.
A 83mm hood seems surprising for a 14mm wide lens unless it is bulbous (no threaded filter) and/or has a lot of vignetting with a 77mm filter.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jun 22, 2021)

14-35 f/4L exciting times


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> and/or has a lot of vignetting with a 77mm filter.


That was a concern I expressed earlier – optical compromises to meet that filter size.


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 22, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> For you it makes a lot of sense to use the F2.8 and yours reasons sound very plausible. I had actually decided to go with the RF 14-35mm F4, but now after I read your post, I'm torn/ tempted again to get the F2.8 instead.
> 
> *Advantage F2.8: *
> - great Astro lense
> ...


I am unlikely to say anything new that you have not already thought of, but perhaps having an 'observer' point out some factors could be useful. Here are some of my thoughts.

(a) Price. Assuming that the launch price of the 14-35 F4 follows a similar price ratio, say, between the 70-200 F2.8 & F4, then the 14-35 F4 would come in about $1399. Thus, buying the 14-35 F4 plus, say, a Samyang AF 14 F2.8 RF ($629) would still work out to be about $300 cheaper than buying the 15-35F F2.8 ($2299). All estimates based on launch prices so it could obviously be different with discounts etc. Overall, I would say there is not a whole lot of difference between getting the 15-35 F2.8 vs F4 plus a wide prime.

(b) Weight (only considering the lenses, without caps ). Assuming that the weight of the 14-35 F4 comes in at about 700g, then the overall weight difference would be about 600g between F4+prime an F2.8. This could be significant. However, it depends very much on use case, ie. whether there is a need to have both lenses at the same time. My sense is that if I am doing 80% landscape vs 20% astro, then I would get 2 lenses. For the 20% of the time where I need to carry two lenses, it makes sense to be able to have a lighter weight in carrying only the F4 for the other 80%. If is it anything from 50% to below, then the F2.8 makes sense. Between 20-80 and 45-55 would then be debatable. One scenario is that if a car is involved in getting to places, then having 2 lenses would still work, so this is somewhat an area when one would have to decide what works best.

(c) IQ: this is highly debatable. I would probably prefer a fast prime for astro, assuming that coma etc are well controlled (the samyang seems very good, but I would probably wait for an RF wide angle lens. Perhaps the 16mm would work). Also, with the good low light performance of the R5/6, perhaps 14-35 F4 might be 'good' enough for me, as the 1 stop difference could be well compensated.

Happy deciding. That's part of the fun .


----------



## Kit. (Jun 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The filter thread (if one is included with the RF14-35mm lens) will be a minimum of 82mm if the RF15-35mm/2.8 is used as an example.


I don't think vignetting with a 77mm filter on an f/4 lens at 14mm is such an unsolvable problem. Laowa 14mm f/4 FF RL uses 52mm filters (lol).

There is no technical need for Canon to stick to the EW-83 hood diameter for a 14mm lens if Canon thinks it cannot control vignetting for a 77mm filter.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 22, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> If Canon comes up with an APS-C RF Camera (not in an R7 style) I think a RF-S 10-22mm should be a given.
> My first wide angle lense was the EF-S 10-18mm, I think for many beginners that's where you start.


I'd prefer if Canon chose FF-only path. Why bother with APSC when they can design same "quality" lenses for FF. It would be much easier for photographers to switch from beginner equipment to higher end. Switching from apsc to FF is a long-term pain for many photographers.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The leaked hood designation for the 14-35/4 is an EW-83 hood. That means the bayonet mount is 83mm in diameter. The filter must be several millimeters smaller, i.e., a 77mm filter thread.
> 
> There no physical possibility of a 95mm front thread with an EW-83 filter, the hood couldn’t fit. Nor is it at all likely that an 83mm hood mount would have a 1mm smaller diameter filter thread.
> 
> If the EW-83 leak is correct, the lens will either take only rear filters (unlikely) or have a 77mm thread (most probable).


The RF70-200 f2.8 is a 77mm filter and 83 hood.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> The RF70-200 f2.8 is a 77mm filter and 83 hood.


As is the RF 24-105/4L IS.


----------



## mccasi (Jun 23, 2021)

this lens will be an essential for many use cases, I'm sure.
But I'm still sad as it seems the fabled 14-24 or 14-21 F2.0L seems much further out.
Night sky photographers have to wait some much longer it seems.


----------



## entoman (Jun 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EOS M line continues to sell very, very well.


Despite that fact, I can't help wondering if they'll phase them out, as an APS-C in RF mount seems to be forthcoming, and would be a more efficient way of getting people into the Canon system and keeping them there. I suspect an awful lot of birders etc would jump at an RF APS-C, as it would save them a lot of cost and weight in lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> Despite that fact, I can't help wondering if they'll phase them out, as an APS-C in RF mount seems to be forthcoming, and would be a more efficient way of getting people into the Canon system and keeping them there.


Not until there’s an APS-C EOS R plus standard zoom lens kit that sells for $600-700. Don’t hold your breath.


----------



## entoman (Jun 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not until there’s an APS-C EOS R plus standard zoom lens kit that sells for $600-700. Don’t hold your breath.


Well I think we can expect Canon to drastically undercut the price of the RP when they bring in a FF model beneath it, so the APS with kit lens could be doable for $800 as a loss leader to get novices into the RF system. But the more highly specified potential "birder's" model I referred to above would of course be double that cost.


----------



## BBarn (Jun 27, 2021)

The large diameter mount of RF lenses doesn't strike me as good platform for crop frame cameras. Most FF zoom lenses are a clumsy on crop frame cameras, and the RF mount is excessively large for crop frame lenses. I guess I simply don't see a good path to incorporate RF lenses into a crop platform with a desirable path into FF later.

When I recently bought into a FF platform, I even switched brands since the crop frame lenses I owned were a poor match for FF even though they were adaptable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> Well I think we can expect Canon to drastically undercut the price of the RP when they bring in a FF model beneath it, so the APS with kit lens could be doable for $800 as a loss leader to get novices into the RF system. But the more highly specified potential "birder's" model I referred to above would of course be double that cost.


But then why not just keep the EOS M line, which is the best-selling MILC in Japan and among the best-sellers globally, if not the best.


----------



## entoman (Jun 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> But then why not just keep the EOS M line, which is the best-selling MILC in Japan and among the best-sellers globally, if not the best.


Because it uses a different mount, and its lenses can't be adapted to use on RF cameras. Far better IMO to slowly phase out the M series, and introduce a couple of RF mount APS bodies - one a cheap starter for novices, the other a sports/wildlife model.


----------



## entoman (Jun 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> Because it uses a different mount, and its lenses can't be adapted to use on RF cameras. M series is basically a dead-end system for people who will probably only buy one extra lens as well as the kit lens. Far better IMO to slowly phase out the M series, and introduce a couple of RF mount APS bodies - one a cheap starter for novices, the other a sports/wildlife model.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> Because it uses a different mount, and its lenses can't be adapted to use on RF cameras. Far better IMO to slowly phase out the M series, and introduce a couple of RF mount APS bodies - one a cheap starter for novices, the other a sports/wildlife model.


Far better for you, maybe. Canon cares about profit, not about you. For the Nth time, Canon has ample data about the APS-C to FF upgrade behaviors of their customers. Recall that EF-S lenses can’t be adapted to work on FF cameras. With all those data, they chose to make EF-M and RF incompatible. Clearly they didn’t think your suggestion was ‘far better’ or they would have implemented it.

Do keep in mind that the vast majority of APS-C buyers never buy another lens than the 1-2 that came with the camera. It seems reasonable that for those relative few upgrading to FF, having to switch out lenses is not a significant barrier (and just means more profit for Canon).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> Well I think we can expect *Canon* to drastically undercut the price of the RP when they bring in a FF model beneath it, so the APS with kit lens could be doable for $800 as a *loss leader* to get novices into the RF system. But the more highly specified potential "birder's" model I referred to above would of course be double that cost.


Hmm, me thinks you don't know Canon. They have never done high volume 'loss leaders' the loss leaders have been super exotic headline lenses like the 50 f1.0 and the 200 f1.8. Don't forget for years the Rebels and entry level kits were the cash cows of the camera industry and very few people who purchase entry level kits buy anything else.


----------



## entoman (Jun 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Hmm, me thinks you don't know Canon. They have never done high volume 'loss leaders' the loss leaders have been super exotic headline lenses like the 50 f1.0 and the 200 f1.8. Don't forget for years the Rebels and entry level kits were the cash cows of the camera industry and very few people who purchase entry level kits buy anything else.


True, and Canon is a conservative company that's renowned for being slow to change. But business models sometimes have to change to reflect new market conditions.

I believe Canon makes most of its money from selling lenses, rather than camera bodies, and in order to sell those lenses they need to get people to commit to the new mount. To do that, they need to attract novices to RF, so they need to release at least one cheap RF body.

Canon needs a full set of RF gear ranging from cheap-as-possible bodies and kit lenses, through the enthusiast middle ground, up to the exotic and expensive pro equipment. It makes a whole lot more sense to base all of these cameras on a single mount, in terms of design, manufacturing and progressing users along the upgrade path.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> To do that, they need to attract novices to RF, so they need to release at least one cheap RF body.


The EOS RP launched at $1300 and today is <$1000. That’s just $150 more than the APS-C M6 II. I’d say they’ve already released a cheap RF body.


----------



## BBarn (Jun 28, 2021)

Yep, the RP is a great small camera. It's unlikely there will be a camera much smaller that utilizes the RF mount. A little cheaper perhaps, but a crop frame won't lower the cost much, or allow for a camera much smaller than the RP due to the size of the RF mount itself. A crop frame RF camera and lens for birders might make sense if the market was large enough. But such a combo wouldn't be low cost or small.


----------



## entoman (Jun 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EOS RP launched at $1300 and today is <$1000. That’s just $150 more than the APS-C M6 II. I’d say they’ve already released a cheap RF body.


I agree, but we began the thread talking about whether Canon will introduce a cheap APS-C in RF, to replace the M series. I think it makes more sense both for the customers and Canon's benefit, to phase out M and consolidate APS and FF in RF mount.

It would reduce Canon's production costs to have all bodies and lenses in the same mount, and it would make the APS novices more inclined to stay with Canon if they upgrade.

If a lightweight and affordable set of FF lenses were produced in suitable focal lengths, there would be little or no necessity for a separate set of APS lenses, so folk upgrading from APS to RF wouldn't need a new set of lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I think it makes more sense both for the customers and Canon's benefit, to phase out M and consolidate APS and FF in RF mount.


I don’t see how larger cameras and lenses would benefit customers. I don’t see how phasing out their best-selling camera line (and likely the world’s best-selling camera line) would benefit Canon.

Since the EOS R launched we have seen only on1 new FF DSLR from Canon – the 1D X III (out of the league for R bodies so far), and three new FF MILCs. In that time there have also been three new EOS M cameras, and three APS-C DSLRs (both lines certainly outsell Canon’s FF MILCs). Does that suggest anything to you about Canon’s strategy?


----------



## entoman (Jun 29, 2021)

Well as you point out, they phased out DSLRs despite them being incredibly popular and selling by the bucket load, so there's no reason why they wouldn't phase out the M series too. You clearly disagree, and that's fine, we'll have to agree to differ. Not worth going to war over 

Had to laugh at the 14-35mm announcement, which describes the R3 as being "under development", despite the official announcement being only hours away if rumours are true. It will be my next lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> Well as you point out, they phased out DSLRs despite them being incredibly popular and selling by the bucket load, so there's no reason why they wouldn't phase out the M series too. You clearly disagree, and that's fine, we'll have to agree to differ. Not worth going to war over
> 
> Had to laugh at the 14-35mm announcement, which describes the R3 as being "under development", despite the official announcement being only hours away if rumours are true. It will be my next lens.


Where did I say they phased out DSLRs? They haven't – in the past three years, they've launched the same number of APS-C DLSRs as APS-C MILCs (three of each), and APS-C cameras sell far better than FF cameras. They _may_ be phasing out full frame DSLRs, or may simply building out the EOS R line with most of their development resources, which they have to do for it to succeed, and mature product lines need less development work. 

I'm going to pass on the 14-35 for now, stick with the EF 16-35/4 IS, and when I need wider than 16mm I also have the EF 11-24/4. Was hoping for the R3 to launch, but that's life...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm going to pass on the 14-35 for now, stick with the EF 16-35/4 IS, and when I need wider than 16mm I also have the EF 11-24/4. Was hoping for the R3 to launch, but that's life...


Of course one huge advantage of using the EF 11-24 on RF is, as we have mentioned before, the ability to use the filter adapter. This is one of the main reasons I am looking to buy into an RF camera, it will also increase the functionality of my TS-E17 and EF15mm fisheye lenses. One compact CPL and one VND for all my ultrawides and TS-E’s and EF300 f2.8 in one hit. Glorious...


----------



## entoman (Jun 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Where did I say they phased out DSLRs? They haven't – in the past three years, they've launched the same number of APS-C DLSRs as APS-C MILCs (three of each), and APS-C cameras sell far better than FF cameras. They _may_ be phasing out full frame DSLRs, or may simply building out the EOS R line with most of their development resources, which they have to do for it to succeed, and mature product lines need less development work.
> 
> I'm going to pass on the 14-35 for now, stick with the EF 16-35/4 IS, and when I need wider than 16mm I also have the EF 11-24/4. Was hoping for the R3 to launch, but that's life...


Apologies, I misread. But they are certainly in the process of phasing out their DSLRs, which in most of the world were until recently their best selling line of cameras (M series are I think still the best selling line in Asia).

EF 16-35mm F4 is a stunning lens, but unfortunately mine was stolen a couple of months ago. I had intended to replace it, but the announcement of the 14-35mm at a very reasonable projected cost has convinced me that I should go for that instead.

I'd really like it if Canon brought out a stabilised 180mm macro in RF mount, as hand-holdability of my EF version is limited, relying only on IBIS without OIS backup. It's currently my most often used optic. No sign of a stabilised version on the roadmap unfortunately...


----------



## hawkjody (Sep 7, 2021)

Got my copy of this lens 10 days a go and got to test it out this weekend in Sequoia NP - Using the full wide angle to capture the big trees - SEVERE vignetting at 14-15 mm - any one elsce seen this or could this happen with a bad copy?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2021)

hawkjody said:


> Got my copy of this lens 10 days a go and got to test it out this weekend in Sequoia NP - Using the full wide angle to capture the big trees - SEVERE vignetting at 14-15 mm - any one elsce seen this or could this happen with a bad copy?


Scroll about halfway down the review or search for 'Capture One'.









Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens Review


Is the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## BBarn (Sep 7, 2021)

hawkjody said:


> Got my copy of this lens 10 days a go and got to test it out this weekend in Sequoia NP - Using the full wide angle to capture the big trees - SEVERE vignetting at 14-15 mm - any one elsce seen this or could this happen with a bad copy?


That lens requires considerable correction (by design). When corrected, the vignetting should be acceptable. The latest version of Canon DPP (4.15) has the corrections.


----------

