# Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM one of the “crazy” lenses coming next year [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 4, 2019)

> Canon has said in various EOS R and RF mount presentations that the RF mount is going to allow them to make some “world’s first” type of lenses. We’ve already seen proof of this in the RF 28-70mm f/2L USM,
> We’re told that an RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM is currently in advanced development and will likely be one of a couple of world’s first lenses coming for the RF mount next year. After speaking with the source, we did confirm that there’s more to this than just a patent published here back in November.
> The same source said that a “crazy” prime lens will be coming for the RF mount next year, but that the focal length and speed were unknown at this time.



Continue reading...


----------



## Equinox (Mar 4, 2019)

If the specs are a RF 14-21mm f1.4 L , it's going to be seriously expensive! My bank account is fearing its arrival already!


----------



## 6degrees (Mar 4, 2019)

Exciting!
But how much it will cost?
If it is 18-28mm F2, already good enough.


----------



## Proscribo (Mar 4, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> My not be too bad. A 14mm f/2.8 aperture is 5mm wide; a 1.4 is 10mm wide. You can think of it as double (which it is) but it's also only another 5mm. For Americans' that's 0.2".


If it just was this simple with super wide angle lenses. The problem isn't directly the aperture size, it's that a single surface of glass can't bend the light enough (damn you, physics!), so you need to do it in multiple steps.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 4, 2019)

Some feelings can only be expressed by emojis. 

Size, weight, cost...sure, I'll want to see each of those, but this will be a lens I will be very happy exists in the Canon portfolio....and it may be even end up in my bag.


----------



## Punio (Mar 4, 2019)

Next year is going to be expensive...


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 4, 2019)

AFAIK, there aren't any primes that fast for any FF camera, which would make such a zoom really amazing.

People would still complain Canon isn't innovative, though.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Mar 4, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> AFAIK, there aren't any primes that fast for any FF camera, which would make such a zoom really amazing.
> 
> People would still complain Canon isn't innovative, though.


Problem is, those people only look at the mistakes.


----------



## bergstrom (Mar 4, 2019)

the dream would be a canon ef 24-105 1.4, but thats not gonna happen.


----------



## maico (Mar 4, 2019)

The patent lists the length as 191mm, almost as long as the EF70-200 f2.8 which is 199mm ! 

F-stop as f1.55 
14.5mm-21mm


----------



## 1Zach1 (Mar 4, 2019)

Well I’m already saving for the 15-35, so I’ll just keep saving because I’d rather have this.


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 4, 2019)

Roy Hunte said:


> Problem is, those people only look at the mistakes.



It’s more about the perceived ”innovation gap” between Canon lens division and the camera body division. But it is definitely a deliberate strategy from Canon’s part, at least partially. One reason Sony has had to go all in with body features is that (besides being a market underdog) their lens selection was (and still is) not there.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Mar 4, 2019)

14-21mm f/1.4L. Hmm... I'm guessing an MSRP of $1,000 per pound.


----------



## fentiger (Mar 4, 2019)

more like $1000 per 1/3rd stop below f2.8


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2019)

Super Wide Zoom at 1.4... WOW! 

(who then proceeds to put it atop a tripod, stop it down to f/8 and use a trigger...hey, at least I didn't have to turn off a mirror from flipping, lol)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 4, 2019)

It sounds like an epic lens in every possible description. It could be the last word in wide angle fast lenses.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Mar 4, 2019)

Sounds like a very interesting lens. Could be great for astrophotography but it will be very challenging to make a zoom that strong across the whole range. Looking forward to seeing if they can do it.


----------



## zonoskar (Mar 4, 2019)

maico said:


> The patent lists the length as 191mm, almost as long as the EF70-200 f2.8 which is 199mm !


Patent measures from the image plane, right? So subtract the flange back. That would make still 170mm: quite large.

I wonder what th einsane rpime would be. Could it be a 35mm f1.0 ? Pretty please....


----------



## tron (Mar 4, 2019)

I am just fine with my Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 
I have enjoyed it the last summer going from 10000 ISO to around 3200 for landscape astrophotography. The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 does not justify the extreme cost. With the difference one can get the 16-35 2.8L III (or a similar RF in the future).


----------



## juststeve (Mar 4, 2019)

The patent also lists a 12-20/2 lens of about the same size. While long at around 190 mm length is not to change during zooming. Key element of the patent is a resin lens element (element OE in the patent) which is placed in a sandwich between two glass elements at the image plane end of the lens. Element OE is described as being of low dispersion and extraordinary dispersion so it might not be the cheapest piece of plastic ever sold.


----------



## csibra (Mar 4, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> If it just was this simple with super wide angle lenses. The problem isn't directly the aperture size, it's that a single surface of glass can't bend the light enough (damn you, physics!), so you need to do it in multiple steps.


If you can make a lens using optically perfect diamond, it'll can bend the light enough 
Also ther're nanostructures which already can bend the light in laboratories.


----------



## edoorn (Mar 4, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> It's like Canon is the girl you want to date and Nikon is the girl you want to marry...
> 
> I love all the insane lenses, Canon, don't get me wrong. But what I REALLY need for my R is some 35/2 or 50/1.4 or 1.8 optimized for portability. I don't need it to be an actual pancake lens, but I'd like it to be smaller than an EF pancake on an EF-to-R adapter (which I recently tried) as well as have an extra stop or two. I don't care if it's not mega-sharp and I could even lose the control ring.
> 
> Until then, to keep my camera in my backpack at all times I'm having to resort to extreme measures...



Well you can instantly get the RF 35 1.8, that's one nice little lens that is small and have good quality


----------



## Roy Hunte (Mar 4, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> the dream would be a canon ef 24-105 1.4, but thats not gonna happen.


You sure? May be another 'world's first', would be gigantic though.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 4, 2019)

tron said:


> I am just fine with my Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8
> I have enjoyed it the last summer going from 10000 ISO to around 3200 for landscape astrophotography. The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 does not justify the extreme cost. With the difference one can get the 16-35 2.8L III (or a similar RF in the future).


Maybe judge the lens when it's actually available and tested? Judging a Rumour or vapourware is just mental. 
At the moment it's a rumour and a patent. Not much else.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Mar 4, 2019)

Just a good body to go with them.. then all of these lenses wouldn't be behind the glass. I know it's coming but the wait..


----------



## hmatthes (Mar 4, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> It's like Canon is the girl you want to date and Nikon is the girl you want to marry...
> 
> I love all the insane lenses, Canon, don't get me wrong. But what I REALLY need for my R is some 35/2 or 50/1.4 or 1.8 optimized for portability. I don't need it to be an actual pancake lens, but I'd like it to be smaller than an EF pancake on an EF-to-R adapter (which I recently tried) as well as have an extra stop or two. I don't care if it's not mega-sharp and I could even lose the control ring.
> 
> ...


35mm Summilux on an adapter... Does this work well?
I love my EF35 f1.4 on an adapter but it is huge! And I love the Summilux 1.7 on my Leica Q -- M glass on EOS R !!!


----------



## bokehmon22 (Mar 4, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> AFAIK, there aren't any primes that fast for any FF camera, which would make such a zoom really amazing.
> 
> People would still complain Canon isn't innovative, though.



When it comes to lenses, they are one of the most innovative company. It isn't likeare others aren't either like Sigma and Nikon making 105 1.4, Sigma/Sony 135 1.8, Sigma 14mm 1.8, Sigma 14-24 2.8.

It's the camera that a lot of photographers are throwing this shade at. Canon still do not IBIS, good eyeAF, dual card slot, recycled 5D IV 2 year old sensor, limited FPS, 4K options while being more expensive than the competitions. They are behind the competition in a lot of areas.

I have only 5 lenses including a trinity lenses and fast telephoto prime lens. I have no problem taking trinity lenses from any manufacturers. Lenses are so good nowadays that it isn't the weakest link. It's the camera area where Canon is not innovating enough.


----------



## padam (Mar 4, 2019)

hmatthes said:


> 35mm Summilux on an adapter... Does this work well?
> I love my EF35 f1.4 on an adapter but it is huge! And I love the Summilux 1.7 on my Leica Q -- M glass on EOS R !!!


Unfortunately from the samples that I've seen, the 35 Lux has a very noticeable color shift towards the edges.


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 4, 2019)

If anyone is curious about the possible price-point of this lens, and potential heft, just look at the 11-24mm f4.0L. Or the Sigma Art 14-24mm f2.8. These are hefty lenses. I do not see this one being smaller. And it would probably be longer. I don't see it being cheaper than the 11-24mm f4.0L, but who knows. If distortion is well controlled this could be an amazing architectural lens and event lens where you can be near the stage/performance area...


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 4, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Exciting!
> But how much it will cost?
> If it is 18-28mm F2, already good enough.



Cost?
Most likely in the $1,500 range.


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 4, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> When it comes to lenses, they are one of the most innovative company. It isn't likeare others aren't either like Sigma and Nikon making 105 1.4, Sigma/Sony 135 1.8, Sigma 14mm 1.8, Sigma 14-24 2.8.



Yes, other companies are innovative as well.



bokehmon22 said:


> It's the camera that a lot of photographers are throwing this shade at. Canon still do not IBIS, good eyeAF, dual card slot, recycled 5D IV 2 year old sensor, limited FPS, 4K options while being more expensive than the competitions. They are behind the competition in a lot of areas.



Is any other company innovating on all fronts, e.g. how many other manufacturers have a 11-24mm FF zoom or 17mm TS lens? It took Nikon 6 years to come up with a 19mm PCE lens.



bokehmon22 said:


> I have only 5 lenses including a trinity lenses and fast telephoto prime lens. I have no problem taking trinity lenses from any manufacturers. Lenses are so good nowadays that it isn't the weakest link.



Yes, all the manufacturers cover the bread & butter lenses. I could switch all photography equipment to Nikon and Sony, and keep going as usual.



bokehmon22 said:


> It's the camera area where Canon is not innovating enough.



True, but the sensor is just a part of the equation.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Mar 4, 2019)

I just want a 14mm prime. I wonder if they can make one at f/1.2 with this mount, or if it will also be f/1.4... I remember one of the post saying they were trying to make the main L primes at 1.2.


----------



## preppyak (Mar 4, 2019)

If the 28-70 is a $2999 lens, gotta imagine this would approach low-level super-tele prices. $3499 or $3999?


----------



## Kit. (Mar 4, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Canon still do not IBIS,


By the way, which company does IBIS that would work with my TS-E 17 when it's shifted?


----------



## knight427 (Mar 4, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> 14-21mm f/1.4L. Hmm... I'm guessing an MSRP of $1,000 per pound.





fentiger said:


> more like $1000 per 1/3rd stop below f2.8



po-TAY-toe
po-TAH-toe


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 4, 2019)

While I would like to see a compact lightweight 4.0 17mm with excellent IQ across the frame at e.g. 600 $/EUR this lens will be a great universal tool for all whose who are interested in "milky way photography". Just lugging around one 1.5 kg lens instead of three 1,2 kg lenses.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Mar 4, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Yes, other companies are innovative as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every manufactures have specialty lenses. If you need 11-24 where a Sigma 12-24 F4 can't do or need TS lens, then go with Canon. Also, with Panasonic and Sony do have adapter to take EF lens so that might be an option. 

We are really spoil by choices nowadays when it come to lens or camera. There is no wrong choice if you prioritize camera body or lenses. It totally depending on your preference and what you shoot.

I'm just responding to previous poster why photographers would say Canon isn't innovating even though they release awesome lenses.

It's a great time to be a photographers. We have so many choices when it come to camera body, lenses, lighting gears, and software. I'm brand agnostic so I just mix and match whatever serve me best at a great value.No one care what you shoot as long you deliver the results.


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 4, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Every manufactures have specialty lenses. If you need 11-24 where a Sigma 12-24 F4 can't do or need TS lens, then go with Canon.
> 
> We are really spoil by choices nowadays when it come to lens or camera. There is no wrong choice if you prioritize camera body or lenses. It totally depending on your preference and what you shoot.
> 
> ...


I give you an Amen - shout-out Sir!!! You are so very correct!


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Every manufactures have specialty lenses. If you need 11-24 where a Sigma 12-24 F4 can't do or need TS lens, then go with Canon.
> 
> We are really spoil by choices nowadays when it come to lens or camera. There is no wrong choice if you prioritize camera body or lenses. It totally depending on your preference and what you shoot.
> 
> ...


Some folks want it all, not realizing their personal desires may not or don't line up with Canon's well thought out and profitable product pipeline. It's a selfish world we live in, hard for some to see the bigger picture or walk in someone else's shoes. We get this tripe here on a daily basis. Make this, make it for me or I will jump ship....blah blah blah.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 4, 2019)

I have the 11-24 F4 and the Sigma 14mm 1.8
A 14-21 1.4 would need to be better than a 14mm 1.8 to justify its existence. There are very few other uses I can think for it (perhaps boxing or other martial arts in a ring where light is poor). For landscapes I can’t see a regular use for 1.4 (as a tripod should be with you). 
The 11-24 is so heavy and wide it’s an awkward lens to travel with and front filters need a complicated and expensive solution. The bulbous glass makes me nervous. While I like the lens I rarely use it.
The Sigma 14mm 1.8 is more specialist but great for Astro and Aurora.
Let’s see if it comes to the market.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 4, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I have the 11-24 F4 and the Sigma 14mm 1.8
> A 14-21 1.4 would need to be better than a 14mm 1.8 to justify its existence. There are very few other uses I can think for it (perhaps boxing or other martial arts in a ring where light is poor). For landscapes I can’t see a regular use for 1.4 (as a tripod should be with you).
> The 11-24 is so heavy and wide it’s an awkward lens to travel with and front filters need a complicated and expensive solution. The bulbous glass makes me nervous. While I like the lens I rarely use it.
> The Sigma 14mm 1.8 is more specialist but great for Astro and Aurora.
> Let’s see if it comes to the market.


Better than 14mm 1.8 at Astro I mean.


----------



## miketcool (Mar 4, 2019)

Fix the wretched coma aberration and this will be my astro setup.


----------



## miketcool (Mar 4, 2019)

FYI this lens is perfect for video work as on the 4K crop it becomes a very fast 24mm-35mm. That’s exactly why this lens is in development.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Mar 4, 2019)

Wow that's a mega lens and 1.4 however I would gladly settle for the RF 12 - 20 F2 and hoping it will be relatively compact with the short zoom range of just 8mm. Fingers crossed we won’t need to wait too long for these lenses to appear.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Mar 4, 2019)

preppyak said:


> If the 28-70 is a $2999 lens, gotta imagine this would approach low-level super-tele prices. $3499 or $3999?



You're probably right. It could be even higher than that given that there's no glass that can compete with it. Canon knows that people who need that specialty lens will cough up the coin for it, or rent it.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 4, 2019)

I’m so not in the market for this, but it just opens up for a lot of crazy lenses, like the 28-70 and IQ of the RF50. I’m loving every minute of it. And a 14-21 f1.4 is shockingly cool


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 4, 2019)

Coma, coma, coma!


----------



## Phoenix 1000 (Mar 4, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> When it comes to lenses, they are one of the most innovative company. It isn't likeare others aren't either like Sigma and Nikon making 105 1.4, Sigma/Sony 135 1.8, Sigma 14mm 1.8, Sigma 14-24 2.8.
> 
> It's the camera that a lot of photographers are throwing this shade at. Canon still do not IBIS, good eyeAF, dual card slot, recycled 5D IV 2 year old sensor, limited FPS, 4K options while being more expensive than the competitions. They are behind the competition in a lot of areas.
> 
> I have only 5 lenses including a trinity lenses and fast telephoto prime lens. I have no problem taking trinity lenses from any manufacturers. Lenses are so good nowadays that it isn't the weakest link. It's the camera area where Canon is not innovating enough.


I love the sensor of my Canon 5D Mark IV. Don't no, what's wrong with it?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 4, 2019)

Kit. said:


> By the way, which company does IBIS that would work with my TS-E 17 when it's shifted?


I don't own a body with IBIS but I've read a number of threads discussing Canon tilt shift lenses on Sony bodies with IBIS and I've never heard that the IBIS doesn't work. Use cases for shifting a 17 and hand-holding might be limited but I can't visualize any reason why it wouldn't work. What do you think the problem would be? Geometric distortion from shifting the sensor?


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2019)

Phoenix 1000 said:


> I love the sensor of my Canon 5D Mark IV. Don't no, what's wrong with it?


Recycled 2 year old, oh that's rich. Hardly in the same category as the 18MP sensor usage era. Just rubbish (not the sensor, it's fantastic)


----------



## dba101 (Mar 4, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Canon still do not IBIS, good eyeAF, dual card slot, recycled 5D IV 2 year old sensor, limited FPS, 4K options while being more expensive than the competitions. They are behind the competition in a lot of areas.


If I had a dollar for everytime you've said that, I would defo buy this lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 4, 2019)

preppyak said:


> If the 28-70 is a $2999 lens, gotta imagine this would approach low-level super-tele prices. $3499 or $3999?


$7,777.77 USD


----------



## amorse (Mar 4, 2019)

Oh boy. This one's going to hurt. A lens like that could convince me to really explore RF cameras. I never thought that patent would see the light of day.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 4, 2019)

dba101 said:


> If I had a dollar for everytime you've said that, I would defo buy this lens.


IBIS: Not the big deal people make it out to be.  Silly people.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 4, 2019)

It's all a lie. Canon doesn't innovate. Canon is *******.  Now I'm going to need a lot more money. In my opinion: 1. Photographer's skill. (Composition,exposure and lighting). 2. Lens choice. 10. Camera body


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 4, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> OK, here's the patent: http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20180314060
> 
> It looks like the front element is 86.215mm across.
> 
> ...



Don't you mean EF 11-24mm f/4 L? Or was there an RF 11-28mm f/4 L announcement I missed?



Architect1776 said:


> Cost?
> Most likely in the $1,500 range.



More like 2.5X that. Look at the EF 11-24mm f/4 at $2,700 ($2,900 - $200 instant rebate) or the RF 28-70mm f/2 L at $3,000.




Kit. said:


> By the way, which company does IBIS that would work with my TS-E 17 when it's shifted?



By the way, who needs IBIS at all when one has enough sense to use a tripod for certain applications?


----------



## tron (Mar 4, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Maybe judge the lens when it's actually available and tested? Judging a Rumour or vapourware is just mental.
> At the moment it's a rumour and a patent. Not much else.


Not judging. It would make a super lens. Just commenting on the practical issues: Price which will be huge and timing: Sigma is very close, exists now and has really good IQ.


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2019)

miketcool said:


> Fix the wretched coma aberration and this will be my astro setup.


How does a CR1 have ANY characteristics?


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> IBIS: Not the big deal people make it out to be.  Silly people.


I sure didn't like it on my Oly. Nothing special. IS blows it out of the water.


----------



## miketcool (Mar 5, 2019)

slclick said:


> How does a CR1 have ANY characteristics?



Canon’s fast and wide lenses all suffer from coma aberration. A few of the engineers I’ve spoken to claim that they will solve this in upcoming lenses. I hope it’s solved for this one.


----------



## juststeve (Mar 5, 2019)

Canon defines IBIS as a 1/4-20 tripod screw. And for many lenses, such as a TSE, so do I.


----------



## slclick (Mar 5, 2019)

miketcool said:


> Canon’s fast and wide lenses all suffer from coma aberration. A few of the engineers I’ve spoken to claim that they will solve this in upcoming lenses. I hope it’s solved for this one.


There's the Zeiss 25 f/2 TE for less than 700 clams at B&H right now for astro. It really doesn't get any better than that.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 5, 2019)

miketcool said:


> Canon’s fast and wide lenses all suffer from coma aberration. A few of the engineers I’ve spoken to claim that they will solve this in upcoming lenses. I hope it’s solved for this one.


You know and talk to Canon engineers working on lens development?


----------



## tron (Mar 5, 2019)

The EF16-35 f/2.8L III has very little coma at the 16mm end.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Mar 5, 2019)

dba101 said:


> If I had a dollar for everytime you've said that, I would defo buy this lens.



Considering I only make 287 posts (damn it, 288), you are way short buddy ;-) 
Even if I mention IBIS 50% of the time, you cover maybe the tax. Exaggerated much??


----------



## bokehmon22 (Mar 5, 2019)

Phoenix 1000 said:


> I love the sensor of my Canon 5D Mark IV. Don't no, what's wrong with it?



There isn't anything wrong with it, but if I was going to upgrade and spend significant amount of money into a new camera and lens, I would expect significant improvements in multiple area otherwise what's the point of incremental upgrade.

I don't upgrade gears just to upgrade. I follow the same logic with CPU, camera, smart phones, etc. I have no problem skipping generations if it doesn't offer significant upgrade over the previous generation.

As a Canon 5D IV user, I'm a little disappointed that Canon used 5D IV sensor in their latest FF mirrorless camera EOS R. Every generation, I expect newer model to have improvements if not alot, a little. I would hate to buy an expensive latest laptop/desktop to use the same CPU 2 years ago where the competitor offer better CPU.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 5, 2019)

Would like to see Coma performance of this monstrosity.


----------



## RGF (Mar 5, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Exciting!
> But how much it will cost?
> If it is 18-28mm F2, already good enough.



If you have to ask, you can not afford it.

Given it size and cost, it could be made of gold


----------



## slclick (Mar 5, 2019)

If you applied that same logic to say, musical instruments or painting, where would you be? Haven't you seen the wise quotes by the sages here? "The best camera is the one in your hands" is one that comes to mind.

Tools for photography are great but I see them as secondary to the artistic eye. You may want both but akin to we say in the cycling world, "Light, strong, cheap....pick two" 

Applying updating computer tech logic to camera gear is flawed in my mind. Maybe it's an age thing, maybe it's the respect for masters who did such amazing work with what most forumites would scoff at...dunno, all I know is there is LOT of harping on the industry, especially Canon for not churning out new devices fast enough for you. 

So, it all boils down to this.. It must be awful to live with the notion that you blame your poor images on the gear.Because that's the message I'm getting. "If I only had *____*"


----------



## Pixel (Mar 5, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> AFAIK, there aren't any primes that fast for any FF camera, which would make such a zoom really amazing.
> 
> People would still complain Canon isn't innovative, though.



Sigma 20mm 1.4 Art


----------



## juststeve (Mar 5, 2019)

And a mighty fine lens that Sigma 20/1.4 Art is. But it does have bit of a problem with coma. I own it. May not be the best lens ever for fans of the night sky.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 5, 2019)

tron said:


> The EF16-35 f/2.8L III has very little coma at the 16mm end.


But it allows almost no light beside in the middle of the frame. In the edges the f4.0 IS is brighter. So, without light there is no coma


----------



## H. Jones (Mar 5, 2019)

Wow, what a lens. Even to just have F/1.4 in a zoom altogether, that's huge. 

So the 14-21 F/1.4L, the 28-70mm F/2L, what's the third in this crazy sorta-trinity then? 50/70-150 F/2? Canon is really out here pulling me over to RF bit by bit..

I'm a few years out of getting a RF camera yet and I'm having trouble deciding what my lens upgrade path will be. Do I want to keep the 24-70 and gain IS, or do I want to go to the 28-70 and get F/2? Do I go for the dope 15-35mm f/2.8 IS and already gain some width or go super wide and get the 14-21 f/1.4? Canon is making it really hard to decide between these options. 

That said, price is probably gonna be a big thing at the end of the day, and I could imagine the F/2.8 zooms + 35mm f/1.4 matching the price of these lenses. But Canon knows what they're doing--I see plenty of photographers that still opt for the 200mm f/2L even though the 70-200 f/2.8 is so much cheaper/lighter/smaller.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 5, 2019)

miketcool said:


> FYI this lens is perfect for video work as on the 4K crop it becomes a very fast 24mm-35mm. That’s exactly why this lens is in development.


If true, then the lens will not need to be as large as predicted.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 5, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I don't own a body with IBIS but I've read a number of threads discussing Canon tilt shift lenses on Sony bodies with IBIS and I've never heard that the IBIS doesn't work. Use cases for shifting a 17 and hand-holding might be limited but I can't visualize any reason why it wouldn't work. What do you think the problem would be? Geometric distortion from shifting the sensor?


I would expect wrong amount of camera rotation compensation, non-uniform across the image.

Shifting handheld is not a problem at all. It's tilting handheld what is hard.


----------



## David (Mar 5, 2019)

A rf 35mm f1.4L would be crazy enough for me.

I know there is the rf 1.8/35mm macro. But this lens is so political correct, I prefer more virility


----------



## tron (Mar 5, 2019)

hendrik-sg said:


> But it allows almost no light beside in the middle of the frame. In the edges the f4.0 IS is brighter. So, without light there is no coma


16-35 2.8 III has indeed vignetting but in practice it does not seem that there is almost no light. I have seen lenses to vignette and have coma at the same time by the way. And FYI the16-35 f 4L IS - which you say that it is brighter at the edges - has low coma too...


----------



## dba101 (Mar 5, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Considering I only make 287 posts (damn it, 288), you are way short buddy ;-)
> Even if I mention IBIS 50% of the time, you cover maybe the tax. Exaggerated much??


Taking into account the other forums you frequent I could afford two.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 5, 2019)

tron said:


> Not judging. It would make a super lens. Just commenting on the practical issues: Price which will be huge and timing: Sigma is very close, exists now and has really good IQ.


Some lenses are "stunt" lenses. They are made to show R&D capability and aren't made to sell to a mass market. Price isn't high in Canon's considerations with this lens. It's a super specialist lens...a bit like the TSe range. They aren't intended for most photographers.
It's quite clear who they are marketing this lens to...the Astro boys and the Architectural boys.
I'm also not Sure Canon are fussed if Sigma make a similar lens. The Canon ef 11-24 f4L has many rivals...and yet it's the best available in it's market. If you want to go cheaper...yes there are a few options but none of them are quite as good as the Canon optic. I think we'll see the same with this 14-21mm f1.4L. It's also the fastest aperture zoom lens available under 24mm. If the lens can take front filters or has filter drop in slot (not yet seen on an ultra wide) then this lens might be very useful to a wide landscape photographer's market. It might also be very useful to photojournalists who want a super fast ultra wide...although size might be a problem.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 5, 2019)

David said:


> A rf 35mm f1.4L would be crazy enough for me.
> 
> I know there is the rf 1.8/35mm macro. But this lens is so political correct, I prefer more virility


I've never understood why Canon haven't pushed the 35L to F1.2. It can't be that hard to do and fills out their unique range of f1.2 glass.


----------



## Metalex (Mar 5, 2019)

miketcool said:


> FYI this lens is perfect for video work as on the 4K crop it becomes a very fast 24mm-35mm. That’s exactly why this lens is in development.


You think they're designing this lens purely to counter the deficiencies of the video mode?


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 5, 2019)

hendrik-sg said:


> But it allows almost no light beside in the middle of the frame. In the edges the f4.0 IS is brighter. So, without light there is no coma



At f/2.8, you're right - the f/2.8L mkIII has >4 stops of vignetting at the corners, which is bad.

Your comparison to the f/4L IS is, IMHO, apples to oranges - looking at the vignetting of *both lenses @ f/4* on the-digital-picture.com shows the difference is about a quarter stop.

[Not shooting astro, I don't know whether f/4 is fast enough, but comparisons should be apples to apples.]


----------



## BillB (Mar 5, 2019)

slclick said:


> If you applied that same logic to say, musical instruments or painting, where would you be? Haven't you seen the wise quotes by the sages here? "The best camera is the one in your hands" is one that comes to mind.
> 
> Tools for photography are great but I see them as secondary to the artistic eye. You may want both but akin to we say in the cycling world, "Light, strong, cheap....pick two"
> 
> ...


For some, it doesn't seem to have to do with better images. It has to do with better numbers. Canon needs to have numbers that are as good as Sony's or Nikon's.


----------



## Tom W (Mar 5, 2019)

That does seem really crazy. Then again, what better way to show off the short flange-sensor distance than with a crazy ultra-wide. Although I'd be more than happy with f/2 or even f/2.8 and a little more zoom range....

Having some zoom, even such a small ratio, gives some framing flexibility.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Mar 5, 2019)

I'm waiting for the RF mount wide zoom (wider than 24) that takes regular 77mm filters in the front. Since the 15 - 35 will take 82mm I guess I'll have to keep waiting and stick with my 16 - 35 f/4... Don't want to buy more filters or use step-up rings on my other gear.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Mar 5, 2019)

dba101 said:


> Taking into account the other forums you frequent I could afford two.



right....Let's stop it. It's getting petty and silly. It just a camera/lenses dude. Use whatever work for you.

Have a nice day


----------



## degos (Mar 5, 2019)

stochasticmotions said:


> Sounds like a very interesting lens. Could be great for astrophotography but it will be very challenging to make a zoom that strong across the whole range. Looking forward to seeing if they can do it.



Have Canon ever made a wide zoom that is recommended for astrophotography? No, and I don't see why they'd start now. Astro is such a tiny proportion of users that they don't see any significant loss in leaving such specialisation to third-parties. Canon want the wedding and landscape markets.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 5, 2019)

Extremely exotic.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 5, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I've never understood why Canon haven't pushed the 35L to F1.2. It can't be that hard to do and fills out their unique range of f1.2 glass.



I suspect the issue is that on a FF DSLR a 35mm F/1.4 is a lens with a wide appeal, a very good general purpose prime at a size that balances well on a lot of bodies. If you shift it up to F/1.2 then your probably increasing the size/price quite a bit and making it a more specialist lens with a smaller market.

That said I could see FF mirrorless being a bit different, not sure a 35mm F/1.4 would have quite the same appeal as your already pushing into a size that's arguably a bit unbalanced for the smaller bodies. To me it looks like Canon and Nikon are aiming more for F/1.8 lenses to fill that market which you could argue potentially frees them up to offer a more specialist F/1.2 lens at 35mm as they have at 50mm and 85mm, indeed didn't Nikon have a patent for one at the same time as their 58mm F/0.95?


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 5, 2019)

degos said:


> Have Canon ever made a wide zoom that is recommended for astrophotography? No, and I don't see why they'd start now. Astro is such a tiny proportion of users that they don't see any significant loss in leaving such specialisation to third-parties. Canon want the wedding and landscape markets.



But then how many wedding and landscape photographers want a heavy 14-21mm f/1.4 lens. The RF 15-35 f/2.8 and the EF 11-24 and TS-E lenses already fill those niches ably. A lens like the 14-21 f/1.4 is a halo lens. The 28-70 is another. The 28-70's draw is a great event lens. What will be 14-21's draw? I'm thinking astro as well because I can't see all that many wedding and landscape photographers choosing it over other options.


----------



## IsaacImage (Mar 5, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> 14-21mm f/1.4L. Hmm... I'm guessing an MSRP of $1,000 per pound.


Hopefully not per "mm"


----------



## flip314 (Mar 5, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> There isn't anything wrong with it, but if I was going to upgrade and spend significant amount of money into a new camera and lens, I would expect significant improvements in multiple area otherwise what's the point of incremental upgrade.
> 
> I don't upgrade gears just to upgrade. I follow the same logic with CPU, camera, smart phones, etc. I have no problem skipping generations if it doesn't offer significant upgrade over the previous generation.
> 
> As a Canon 5D IV user, I'm a little disappointed that Canon used 5D IV sensor in their latest FF mirrorless camera EOS R. Every generation, I expect newer model to have improvements if not alot, a little. I would hate to buy an expensive latest laptop/desktop to use the same CPU 2 years ago where the competitor offer better CPU.



The EOS R is considerably cheaper than the 5D mark IV, and has the same sensor. If the R was more expensive than the 5D IV, then maybe you'd have a point.

If you already have the 5D IV, the R is probably not an upgrade and you should wait for the Pro version of the R.


----------



## Phoenix 1000 (Mar 5, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> There isn't anything wrong with it, but if I was going to upgrade and spend significant amount of money into a new camera and lens, I would expect significant improvements in multiple area otherwise what's the point of incremental upgrade.
> 
> I don't upgrade gears just to upgrade. I follow the same logic with CPU, camera, smart phones, etc. I have no problem skipping generations if it doesn't offer significant upgrade over the previous generation.
> 
> As a Canon 5D IV user, I'm a little disappointed that Canon used 5D IV sensor in their latest FF mirrorless camera EOS R. Every generation, I expect newer model to have improvements if not alot, a little. I would hate to buy an expensive latest laptop/desktop to use the same CPU 2 years ago where the competitor offer better CPU.


When I look at the mirrorless cameras on the market today, I don't consider ANY of them an improvement over my 5D Mark IV, mainly because of the bad image quality of the EVF compared to the excellent view through the "analog" viewfinder of my DSLR. Unless OLED or AMOLED screens don't make significant progress in picture quality and the GPUs will get more computing power, this will not change and I stay with my DSLR. Otherwise, it would be a step backward, not forward. For me it's pretty similar to LPs when listening to music: An LP delivers a far better sound quality compared to lossy MP3 files. But today, (nearly) everybody listens to MP3 because it seems convenient. I don't, I prefer HiRes sound quality. Same with cameras.

There is only one argument for a mirrorless in my opinion, that really counts: The new lenses you can build with the heavily increased speed. I own the 11-24 F/4L lens and I'm impressed by this lens and like it very much. So, for sure I'm curious how this new 14-21 mm f/1.4L would look like. But I guess, even this lens would not compensate the disadvantages of an EVF for me.


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Mar 5, 2019)

Equinox said:


> If the specs are a RF 14-21mm f1.4 L , it's going to be seriously expensive! My bank account is fearing its arrival already!



I expect to be 3,600 USD min and 4500 USD max..


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Mar 5, 2019)

Probably a super fast 70-200 F1.8 is also coming. 
so canon gonna have 2 lines of holy trinity lenses. 
Holy and Virgin


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 5, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Don't you mean EF 11-24mm f/4 L? Or was there an RF 11-28mm f/4 L announcement I missed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just dreaming.
All this is quite esoteric for those of us who work for a living.


----------



## H. Jones (Mar 5, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> Probably a super fast 70-200 F1.8 is also coming.
> so canon gonna have 2 lines of holy trinity lenses.
> Holy and Virgin



I was thinking about that when I wrote my last comment, but since then I've also realized that having the new ultra compact 70-200 f/2.8 makes a bit of a case for a larger, bright aperture internal zoom that could replace the 200mm f/2L and function similar to how sports/news photographers use the 300mm f/2.8L and 200-400mm f/4L IS right now. I know so many people who opt for the much larger 200-400 F/4 vs the 100-400 f/5.6, and that's even more of a magnitude of size difference. Same thing goes for the 120-300mm f/2.8.

Yeah, it'd definitely be up there at like 8K or so maybe, but I think it would still end up making Canon a profit if they don't do too bad on the 200mm F/2. There's a market for it, so why not?


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 5, 2019)

I don't think a 70-200 1.8 is practically possible on FF. It would weigh 8 lbs and cost $20,000. The longer the focal length, it's exponentially (reasonably speaking) to go faster in terms of F stop. That works on the wide end but on the long end things get very big and very expensive VERY fast the longer you go and the faster you try to go. It's not a matter of just attaching an arbitrary # to the end of a lens name


----------



## miketcool (Mar 5, 2019)

Metalex said:


> You think they're designing this lens purely to counter the deficiencies of the video mode?



Not at all, this is to show off the wider mount and their zoom lens engineering. The fact that this works as a 24-35mm in 4K crop is likely the deciding factor for why this will be developed and not just vaporware.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 5, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> But then how many wedding and landscape photographers want a heavy 14-21mm f/1.4 lens. The RF 15-35 f/2.8 and the EF 11-24 and TS-E lenses already fill those niches ably. A lens like the 14-21 f/1.4 is a halo lens. The 28-70 is another. The 28-70's draw is a great event lens. What will be 14-21's draw? I'm thinking astro as well because I can't see all that many wedding and landscape photographers choosing it over other options.


I can't see much of a creative reason for a 14-21mm f1.4. Lenses that wide don't have much depth of field even at f1.4. I certainly wouldn't need to go that fast on an ultra wide due to the shutter speed = focal length rule. So I wouldn't use one at a wedding. In fact my 16-35 f2.8 IIL works in similar light levels as my 35 f1.4L and 85 f1.2 IIL. So I can only imagine that it's for 2 specific users, rich astro guys and rich architectural guys.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Mar 5, 2019)

Phoenix 1000 said:


> When I look at the mirrorless cameras on the market today, I don't consider ANY of them an improvement over my 5D Mark IV, mainly because of the bad image quality of the EVF compared to the excellent view through the "analog" viewfinder of my DSLR. Unless OLED or AMOLED screens don't make significant progress in picture quality and the GPUs will get more computing power, this will not change and I stay with my DSLR. Otherwise, it would be a step backward, not forward. For me it's pretty similar to LPs when listening to music: An LP delivers a far better sound quality compared to lossy MP3 files. But today, (nearly) everybody listens to MP3 because it seems convenient. I don't, I prefer HiRes sound quality. Same with cameras.
> 
> There is only one argument for a mirrorless in my opinion, that really counts: The new lenses you can build with the heavily increased speed. I own the 11-24 F/4L lens and I'm impressed by this lens and like it very much. So, for sure I'm curious how this new 14-21 mm f/1.4L would look like. But I guess, even this lens would not compensate the disadvantages of an EVF for me.



I completely agree with you. I hate EVF until Canon EOS R. It's tolerable than any Sony A7III, A7RIII, A9 I tried. I waited and waited but there just isn't enough for me to spend my money upgrading.

Panasonic S1 $2500 is supposed to have 5.76 million dot EVF (highest in the industry). I'm testing it soon and see if it's a viable option for me to upgrade. It include IBIS, eyeAF, dual card slot, better 4K, and higher ISO performance. Otherwise, I'll hold on to my 5D IV a little bit longer.



flip314 said:


> The EOS R is considerably cheaper than the 5D mark IV, and has the same sensor. If the R was more expensive than the 5D IV, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> If you already have the 5D IV, the R is probably not an upgrade and you should wait for the Pro version of the R.


Yup. I returned it after I find it as a side grade. I thnk you are comparing to Canon line up vs what the competition is offering. $2300 EOS R look cheap but not compare to Sony A7III or now the Panasonic S1. I'll see if EOS R Pro is worth getting it compare to the competitors.

I may or may not wait for it since I'll do a lot of traveling this year so I may mix my Canon lenses with Panasonic or latest Sony.


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 5, 2019)

Mirrorless, particularly EOSR/XT3 was a breath of fresh air compared to DSLR due to lenses being inherently better, sharper, smaller, and faster due to reduced flange distance. You realize how unnecessary the mirror box is once you actually switch. (I'm a long time FF DSLR owner longer than likely most of you on here). Used to be a major snob. Switched and saw the light. (hah hah)

Also no lens adjustments needed as there's no separation between the focus system and what the imaging sensor sees. All lenses are 100% accurate all the time on all modern mirrorless. If there's ever a misfocus it's cause of subject or camera movement. So no more microadjustments. Used to go crazy adjusting all my lenses, some majorly off. Spent HOURS calibrating. With mirrorless, no more. The mirror box is just antiquated and a thing of the past. That gives real limitations and challenges to lens designers and makes lenses unnecessarily large.

Also save time photographing as less need to chimp. The exposure in the viewfinder is what you get.

Now with all that said, I find with my XT3 and now EOSR, I don't even USE the viewfinder. Why use a 1" box with I can use a 4" box (screen) to compose my images? I simply look at the back of the screen and see everything in high res. There's no reason not to shoot like this with how fast and modern new cameras are. The only way I'd use the viewfinder is shooting in bright light with glare on the screen, or to get a bit of stability braced up against my face.

Otherwise holding my eyeball to something and squinting my other eye feels antiquated, pretentious, and unnecessary most of the time.

Just my personal take on it after being a DSLR snob for over a decade. At some point, the system is going to force you to switch to mirrorless. Just a matter of time.

Don't get me wrong I know DSLR has its advantages. And I know all of them. But mirrorless is just the way photography is going.


----------



## amorse (Mar 5, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I can't see much of a creative reason for a 14-21mm f1.4. Lenses that wide don't have much depth of field even at f1.4. I certainly wouldn't need to go that fast on an ultra wide due to the shutter speed = focal length rule. So I wouldn't use one at a wedding. In fact my 16-35 f2.8 IIL works in similar light levels as my 35 f1.4L and 85 f1.2 IIL. So I can only imagine that it's for 2 specific users, rich astro guys and rich architectural guys.


I believe at 14mm and f/1.4, focusing 5m out would see everything from 2.4m to infinity in focus, so I would argue that for astro it would certainly have a place. If it had a filter thread (I really can't see that happening, but if) then I'd likely be looking at jumping into the RF mount and grabbing that, knowing full well that it's most direct comparable lenses are not at all cheap. 

That's the point though, I think Canon is showing these lenses as the advantage of the RF mount - you can create lenses that just aren't possible on some other mounts. No doubt they are low volume specialty lenses, but they do signal that the RF system has a future and a lot of opportunity for users to build a camera kit that isn't going to be available from competitors. I find that much more exciting than some of the other benefits/advantages of other systems. I can't wait to get some eyes on this thing, and I am pretty excited to see what else they have planned.


----------



## Phoenix 1000 (Mar 5, 2019)

mangobutter said:


> Mirrorless, particularly EOSR/XT3 was a breath of fresh air compared to DSLR due to lenses being inherently better, sharper, smaller, and faster due to reduced flange distance. You realize how unnecessary the mirror box is once you actually switch. (I'm a long time FF DSLR owner longer than likely most of you on here). Used to be a major snob. Switched and saw the light. (hah hah)
> 
> Also no lens adjustments needed as there's no separation between the focus system and what the imaging sensor sees. All lenses are 100% accurate all the time on all modern mirrorless. If there's ever a misfocus it's cause of subject or camera movement. So no more microadjustments. Used to go crazy adjusting all my lenses, some majorly off. Spent HOURS calibrating. With mirrorless, no more. The mirror box is just antiquated and a thing of the past. That gives real limitations and challenges to lens designers and makes lenses unnecessarily large.
> 
> ...


Most probably you are right: Mirrorless will be the future. It seems to be the only way for the industry to at least save some of their market share from the smart phone manufactures. A new DSLR is just not enough of a good story to get a significant number of photo enthusiastic people moved to buy a new camera. So mirrorless is the next big thing and the marketing here works fine. Okay with me. I am very interested in the well-being of Canon, Nikon and Sony and don't want them to stop producing great cameras and lenses because everybody just shoots his photos with the smart phone including "computerized image post-processing - what a horror!!! 

But I have so say, that I shoot the vast majority of my pictures with the VF and not in live view. The 5D Mark IV offers this possibility too and thanks to dual pixel AF this works much better than with my 5D Mark III in terms of focusing. To really judge the photo you want to shoot, the view through the VF for me is much better than the screen on the backside of the camera. But maybe I am an old fashioned guy in this point. And I have to admit, I am starting to think about what would it be either buying a Sony A7R III with EF adapter or waiting for a ESO R Pro that really can compete with the 5D Mark IV. Sooner or later ... ;-)


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 5, 2019)

slclick said:


> I sure didn't like it on my Oly. Nothing special. IS blows it out of the water.



Only in the real world. On a spec sheet IBIS wins every time because "it can be used for all of those "cheaper" non-IS lenses."

By the way, _where exactly are those "cheaper" non-IS lenses?_ Most third party lenses offered in various mounts that use IS or don't use IS are pretty much the same, if not the identical, price. Many non-IS lenses from camera makers with IBIS cameras are just as expensive, if not moreso, than lenses with IS form other makers when focal length, maximum aperture, amount of aberration correction, optical performance, etc. are taken into consideration.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 5, 2019)

Phoenix 1000 said:


> Most probably you are right: Mirrorless will be the future. It seems to be the only way for the industry to at least save some of their market share from the smart phone manufactures. A new DSLR is just not enough of a good story to get a significant number of photo enthusiastic people moved to buy a new camera. So mirrorless is the next big thing and the marketing here works fine.



Somehow I don't see a smartphone camera as in the same market as any ILC, mirrorless or not. I certainly do not see ILC enthusiasts ditching their systems for smart phone cameras. While the smartphone might have killed the point and shoot segment... _sigh_. I give up.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 5, 2019)

slclick said:


> There's the Zeiss 25 f/2 TE for less than 700 clams at B&H right now for astro. It really doesn't get any better than that.



That's not the sharpest lens in Zeiss' catalog. Not by a long shot. CA is pretty noticeable as well.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 5, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> If true, then the lens will not need to be as large as predicted.



Nor as corrected on the edges of the image circle.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 5, 2019)

degos said:


> Have Canon ever made a wide zoom that is recommended for astrophotography? No, and I don't see why they'd start now. Astro is such a tiny proportion of users that they don't see any significant loss in leaving such specialisation to third-parties. Canon want the wedding and landscape markets.



As well as the sports/action/wildlife market. And the portrait market. And the architectural market. And the macro market.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2019)

amorse said:


> I believe at 14mm and f/1.4, focusing 5m out would see everything from 2.4m to infinity in focus........



Not at modern reproduction sizes it wouldn’t. Hyperfocal focusing techniques and numbers are very much out of date and doin’t pass muster nowadays.


----------



## flip314 (Mar 6, 2019)

miketcool said:


> Not at all, this is to show off the wider mount and their zoom lens engineering. The fact that this works as a 24-35mm in 4K crop is likely the deciding factor for why this will be developed and not just vaporware.



99% of the people complaining about the crop factor are not going to want to put down the money it will cost to get this lens. I think a 14mm prime would be a much better choice for them.


----------



## PGSanta (Mar 6, 2019)

Phoenix 1000 said:


> When I look at the mirrorless cameras on the market today, I don't consider ANY of them an improvement over my 5D Mark IV, mainly because of the bad image quality of the EVF compared to the excellent view through the "analog" viewfinder of my DSLR. Unless OLED or AMOLED screens don't make significant progress in picture quality and the GPUs will get more computing power, this will not change and I stay with my DSLR. Otherwise, it would be a step backward, not forward. For me it's pretty similar to LPs when listening to music: An LP delivers a far better sound quality compared to lossy MP3 files. But today, (nearly) everybody listens to MP3 because it seems convenient. I don't, I prefer HiRes sound quality. Same with cameras.
> 
> There is only one argument for a mirrorless in my opinion, that really counts: The new lenses you can build with the heavily increased speed. I own the 11-24 F/4L lens and I'm impressed by this lens and like it very much. So, for sure I'm curious how this new 14-21 mm f/1.4L would look like. But I guess, even this lens would not compensate the disadvantages of an EVF for me.



I don’t get why you OVF purists cling so tightly to what is obviously a dying tech. EVF tech is in it’s infancy; it’s advantages are apparent, it’s drawbacks easily overcome for the most part. In 5-7 years your comment is going to look ridiculous.


----------



## amorse (Mar 6, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I don’t get why you OVF purists cling so tightly to what is obviously a dying tech. EVF tech is in it’s infancy; it’s advantages are apparent, it’s drawbacks easily overcome for the most part. In 5-7 years your comment is going to look ridiculous.


I think the "for the most part" is the key part of that comment. Needs are different for everyone, and different people value different features. For me, I like to compose my images with the camera off, then use live view to fine tune my focus and composition, specifically to conserve battery. Sometimes I have to go days without charging batteries, so that OVF has a lot of value for me. Sure, EVFs provides other benefits, but for me I value being able to see through the lens with the camera off. OVFs do that better, and for some that will be enough. 

That's not to say OVFs are superior to EVFs, it just means that they do have some advantages and in some instances those advantages will trump the benefits of an EVF. To each their own: people will choose what they feel best suits their need, and that's ok.


----------



## padam (Mar 6, 2019)

amorse said:


> I believe at 14mm and f/1.4, focusing 5m out would see everything from 2.4m to infinity in focus, so I would argue that for astro it would certainly have a place. If it had a filter thread (I really can't see that happening, but if) then I'd likely be looking at jumping into the RF mount and grabbing that, knowing full well that it's most direct comparable lenses are not at all cheap.


Well, there is always the option of seeing how the Sigma 14mm 1.8 will pair with the ND/CP filter adapter, it will still cost peanuts compared to this lens (if they actually going to make it, CR1 is CR1).


----------



## amorse (Mar 6, 2019)

padam said:


> Well, there is always the option of seeing how the Sigma 14mm 1.8 will pair with the ND/CP filter adapter, it will still cost peanuts compared to this lens (if they actually going to make it, CR1 is CR1).


I've considered the Sigma (and it is tempting with the adapter), but having a fast aperture at a wide focal length is only part of what I'm after. What I want to do is replace my 16-35 f/4L and Rokinon 14mm 2.8 with one fast wide lens with a filter thread so that I can combine filters for landscapes (i.e. an ND grad with a CPL and a strong ND filter) and still do some wide astro stuff without carrying two lenses (camping - weight and amount of stuff is a consideration). The 16-35 f/2.8L III would work for me right now and the RF 15-35 2.8L looks like it could work better if I did move into RF. However, if this rumoured lens has a filter thread, and if it is as sharp as some of the other RF lenses have been, and if it ever actually comes into existence (a whole lot of ifs), I could see it at the front of my list. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath (especially for the filter thread). A boy can dream can't he? 

On second thought, I'd probably bet it will get a tripod collar before a filter thread.


----------



## degos (Mar 6, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> It's a great time to be a photographers.



It's probably a great time to be a rich photographer. Otherwise, most enthusiasts are still stuck with hoping that Yongnuo can improve its quality or saving for a third-hand Sigma Art with a scratch on the front element, if they're really spendy.

This one new show-off lens from Canon will cost more than most enthusiasts have spent on kit, in total.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 6, 2019)

mangobutter said:


> Mirrorless, particularly EOSR/XT3 was a breath of fresh air compared to DSLR due to lenses being inherently better, sharper, smaller, and faster due to reduced flange distance. You realize how unnecessary the mirror box is once you actually switch. (I'm a long time FF DSLR owner longer than likely most of you on here). Used to be a major snob. Switched and saw the light. (hah hah)
> 
> Also no lens adjustments needed as there's no separation between the focus system and what the imaging sensor sees. All lenses are 100% accurate all the time on all modern mirrorless. If there's ever a misfocus it's cause of subject or camera movement. So no more microadjustments. Used to go crazy adjusting all my lenses, some majorly off. Spent HOURS calibrating. With mirrorless, no more. The mirror box is just antiquated and a thing of the past. That gives real limitations and challenges to lens designers and makes lenses unnecessarily large.
> 
> ...


For YOUR photography this is probably true. But for mine which includes wildlife...then no...the RF mount's Af system is pretty much useless for fast moving birds and other animals. 
An optical view finder has a truth about it that isn't there in EVF's. I think it's the slight delay, or the slight flicker...maybe the artificial look from the overly high contrast EVF. An optical view finder is easier on the eye and easier to see a composition in real time. I think the EVF kind of reminds me of using an VR head set...not quite real. 
I also dislike the focus off the back LCD approach. But the major issue with the Rf system for me is that lack of high frame rate continuous tracking AF. Sure for static and low speed objects the software focus in the Rf system is excellent and in some respects more accurate than the system employed in the 1DX and 5D series. But once the object starts to need continuous tracking...all bets are off. 
When I tried the Eos R I was a little over whelmed by the changes to the User Interface, to the point it felt so unfamiliar and almost like picking up a camera from a completely different brand. It's a disconnected feeling that I get if I pick up a Sony or a Nikon. 
I really liked the lenses that I tried at Wex in Norwich. I didn't like the third control ring much...it felt like a needless gimmic. I also don't like the idea of using my 400 2.8 LIS with a 1.xTC and an EF to Rf adapter. 
I think that once Canon have a more credible AF option for sports and wildlife shooters (both Rf Body and native lenses) but at the moment it's quite clear that the technology isn't there and may well never be. We may see both system having distinct advantages, EF for the more agile subjects and Rf for the slower more accurately focusing subjects.


----------



## padam (Mar 6, 2019)

degos said:


> It's probably a great time to be a rich photographer. Otherwise, most enthusiasts are still stuck with hoping that Yongnuo can improve its quality or saving for a third-hand Sigma Art with a scratch on the front element, if they're really spendy.
> 
> This one new show-off lens from Canon will cost more than most enthusiasts have spent on kit, in total.


It is greater for everyone, because older (but not 'outdated') stuff gets even more accessible than before (and in Canon's case, it stills works perfectly, that is its biggest advantage), and the difference between good and high-end for the average viewer becomes smaller and smaller.
With enough effort put in, one can take incredible photographs with stuff that costs almost no money at all.
Classic case in point is the 5D Mk1, which despite its cult following has no value at all, I am struggling to sell a close to fully mint one for 260 Euros and while it is somewhat more difficult to use than more modern cameras with LiveView, it honestly takes great images (better than a crop sensor) and there are dozens of deals on used EF lenses to go with it.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 6, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I don’t get why you OVF purists cling so tightly to what is obviously a dying tech. EVF tech is in it’s infancy; it’s advantages are apparent, it’s drawbacks easily overcome for the most part. In 5-7 years your comment is going to look ridiculous.


It's only a dying tech in your mind....there is room in the market for both DSLR and mirrorless formats, both with their pros and cons. For wildlife and sports, mirrorless isn't a viable option and probably isn't going to be as suitable in the future either. Software based AF just isn't able to continuously track at high frame rates. If it could then there would be a 14fps 1DxR available. Instead we have consumer and sub-sumer bodies and lenses for photojournalists and portrait / general shooters. Great gear...but hardly a system wide top down revolution that the mirror-less junkies are claiming. 
The Rf mount has some clear advantages, but it's also got some colossal issues too...and they may not be so easy to overcome. It's easy to predict that in the future rounded photographers will probably need a fast DSLR and a Rf camera systems to cover different requirements, leveraging the best of both systems. A little like the crop sensor vs full frame sensor debate from a few years back.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I don’t get why you OVF purists cling so tightly to what is obviously a dying tech. EVF tech is in it’s infancy; it’s advantages are apparent, it’s drawbacks easily overcome for the most part. In 5-7 years your comment is going to look ridiculous.


Actually, your comment looks ridiculous right now. Just glad we didn't have to wait 5-7 years for it. How in the world anyone could possibly consider the optics of an EVF to be better than the optics of the human eye is beyond me. Until an EVF can give a "picture" as clean, pure, and instantaneous as that of OVF, then EVF will always be inferior. Purists clinging? Excuse me, but you say yourself that EVF is in it's infancy. Pardon the rest of us who prefer what works best (for us) and isn't still in the infancy of development. You love EVF? That's fine. However, you are far less important in our eyes than you obviously are in your own eyes. It is ridiculous of you to somehow think what you prefer as being the last word for everyone else. Get over yourself. BTW: New tech doesn't always mean "better" tech.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 6, 2019)

degos said:


> Have Canon ever made a wide zoom that is recommended for astrophotography? No, and I don't see why they'd start now. Astro is such a tiny proportion of users that they don't see any significant loss in leaving such specialisation to third-parties. Canon want the wedding and landscape markets.



Wide angle astro is basically a sub-genre of landscapes. Actual sky-only astro is done with a camera mounted on a telescope, it's a totally different niche.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 6, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I don’t get why you OVF purists cling so tightly to what is obviously a dying tech.


There is no such thing as "OVF purists". For a purist, OVF is vastly inferior to a 4x loupe on a ground glass.



PGSanta said:


> EVF tech is in it’s infancy; it’s advantages are apparent, it’s drawbacks easily overcome for the most part. In 5-7 years your comment is going to look ridiculous.


Hopefully, in 5-7 years we will see that EVF tech _was_ in infancy back now. Then it will be the time to get rid of OVF.


----------



## Trey T (Mar 6, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> AFAIK, there aren't any primes that fast for any FF camera, which would make such a zoom really amazing.
> 
> People would still complain Canon isn't innovative, though.


Fast lenses are more critical for smaller sensor than FF. Most ppl don’t know the meaning or values of different designs other than it’s specs


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 6, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


That would be an amazing lens! I'm glad I embraced the "RF revolution" since last October. Looking forward to reselling my "old" EF lenses and get the new RFs as soon as Canon releases them.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Mar 6, 2019)

degos said:


> It's probably a great time to be a rich photographer. Otherwise, most enthusiasts are still stuck with hoping that Yongnuo can improve its quality or saving for a third-hand Sigma Art with a scratch on the front element, if they're really spendy.
> 
> This one new show-off lens from Canon will cost more than most enthusiasts have spent on kit, in total.



I disagree. The barrier to entry for professional quality camera equipment are SIGNIFICANTLY reduce. Since there are so many options, you can get have a lot of options from lens, camera, lighting, accessories (batteries, tripod, gimbal), and refurb/used market. With so many people upgrading more often now (GAS), a slightly older but still very capable camera are discounted much further due to fierce competitions.

A couple years ago, you should need to spend $3500 and up for a "professional" dual card slot capable camera. We now have Sony A7III, Panasonic S1, with better 4K, IBIS, eyeAF, newer sensor around $2000-2500. Nikon D850 can be had under $3000. Canon RP $1300 with adapter.

We have so many lighting option that's significantly cheaper than first party lighting solution. I sold all my Canon lighting equipments and bought all Godox. Godox lighting provide solution from on camera lighting to portable strobe, and powerful strobe - v860II, AD200, AD600, AD400Pro, AD600pro, and the new Profoto A1 clone. Even Yongnuo has lithium battery flash. I spent a lot of money on lightings gears. I would never thought I can afford all my lighting gears including modifiers under $2000. It would be 2-3x more expensive if I bought Profoto or Canon.

Tamron and Sigma both provide affordable and high quality lenses. Scratch front element? I bought plenty of lenses used and new and never has a problem with it nor do plenty of people on Fredmiranda forums. $900 used for Sigma 135 1.8 or Sigma 14-24 2.8 new is a great deal if you don't mind the weight. They are great lenses.

Even Canon has a lot of great price for Canon 24-70II 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 II that I see regularly go for cheaper when I bought mine. I see alot of peope selling Canon gears on forums since people are switching to mirrorless.

In term of accessories, we have so many high quality affordable options from batteries, tripod, to softboxes. Sirui, Cheetahstand, Adorama softboxes, SMDV, etc.

It's actually a great time to be a photographers and enthusiast when it come to buying high quality and affordable gears. It's also a bad time for FT photographers trying to earn a living due to increase competitions and availability of photography education from lighting, post processing, branding and marketing. The barrier to having great photography equipments are much lower when I started doing photography as a hobby 10 years ago.

As much as I complained about Canon trailing behind the competitions when it come to features and value, if I can't make great photo with any of the camera equipments both first parties and third parties in the last couple years, the equipments is not the weakest link. It's ME. I might as well find a new hobby then.


----------



## Phoenix 1000 (Mar 6, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I don’t get why you OVF purists cling so tightly to what is obviously a dying tech. EVF tech is in it’s infancy; it’s advantages are apparent, it’s drawbacks easily overcome for the most part. In 5-7 years your comment is going to look ridiculous.


Exactly what I am saying: In 5-7 years, if OLED technology and GPU speed si good enough, but not yet. That's my point of view.


----------



## Phoenix 1000 (Mar 6, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Somehow I don't see a smartphone camera as in the same market as any ILC, mirrorless or not. I certainly do not see ILC enthusiasts ditching their systems for smart phone cameras. While the smartphone might have killed the point and shoot segment... _sigh_. I give up.



I personally agree with you, but look at the sales numbers of digital cameras in total, ILC and mirrorless - a steady decline while at the same time the numbers of digital photos shot go through the ceiling. Obviously there is a major crowd of people who prefer to take the smart phone for photo shooting. Unbelievable for me too. So every manufacturer needs to do something to at least stop this trend on the low level they have currently reached. And this big thing is the mirrorless with the new lenses. And yes, the lenses really look great!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2019)

Phoenix 1000 said:


> I personally agree with you, but look at the sales numbers of digital cameras in total, ILC and mirrorless - a steady decline while at the same time the numbers of digital photos shot go through the ceiling. Obviously there is a major crowd of people who prefer to take the smart phone for photo shooting. Unbelievable for me too. So every manufacturer needs to do something to at least stop this trend on the low level they have currently reached. And this big thing is the mirrorless with the new lenses. And yes, the lenses really look great!


I think virtually every single phone made takes photos. The camera is included with the phone. It makes perfect sense to me that tens of millions of photos are taken with these phones. Not the same market as the crowd that buys ILC cameras (who already own these smart phones anyway)... especially since you mention the "enthusiast" crowd. "The next big thing" was the advent of digital photography to begin with. DSLR to mirrorless is not the same as film to digital. What you are seeing is the maturity of the market. Mirrorless is NOT revolutionary in any way. It has been around for a very very long time. Most every point and shoot digital camera made was "mirrorless". Mirrorless also existed in the film age. It is not new tech in the least. It's a little like saying somebody has invented a rounder wheel.


----------



## PGSanta (Mar 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's only a dying tech in your mind....there is room in the market for both DSLR and mirrorless formats, both with their pros and cons. For wildlife and sports, mirrorless isn't a viable option and probably isn't going to be as suitable in the future either. Software based AF just isn't able to continuously track at high frame rates. If it could then there would be a 14fps 1DxR available. Instead we have consumer and sub-sumer bodies and lenses for photojournalists and portrait / general shooters. Great gear...but hardly a system wide top down revolution that the mirror-less junkies are claiming.
> The Rf mount has some clear advantages, but it's also got some colossal issues too...and they may not be so easy to overcome. It's easy to predict that in the future rounded photographers will probably need a fast DSLR and a Rf camera systems to cover different requirements, leveraging the best of both systems. A little like the crop sensor vs full frame sensor debate from a few years back.



It's really not just in my mind. You guys getting all upset sound exactly like the guys clinging to film back in the day. As the market for ILCs collapses further, there really isn't room for DSLRs and mirrorless, and while yes the EVF is not as good as a OVF for a few uses right now, the drawbacks can be mitigated with even today's tech. The advantages of the EVF can not be duplicated on an OVF. Using the EOS R as your base for what an EVF can do is also super silly, as the R is simply incredibly clunky and flawed (yes, I own one). The A9 and its interface show what we are capable of RIGHT NOW; once Canon gets the lenses out, and the ball rolling, they'll eventually target the A9 with a competitor, and even if it's slightly slower, it'll still be a vastly superior experience vs. an OVF for the vast majority of shooters. Historically Canon has not been into making niche market Cameras, and that's exactly what the OVF will become very, very soon.

I feel like the majority of you doing the clinging are heavily invested in DSLRs and the EF mount. You're letting the dollars you've got sunk into the formats dictate your outlook (which is understandable); emotions don't alter market trends though. Just take a look at what's being sold today, DSLR vs. Mirrorless. The death of the DSLR is already here.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> It's really not just in my mind. You guys getting all upset sound exactly like the guys clinging to film back in the day. As the market for ILCs collapses further, there really isn't room for DSLRs and mirrorless, and while yes the EVF is not as good as a OVF for a few uses right now, the drawbacks can be mitigated with even today's tech. The advantages of the EVF can not be duplicated on an OVF. Using the EOS R as your base for what an EVF can do is also super silly, as the R is simply incredibly clunky and flawed (yes, I own one). The A9 and its interface show what we are capable of RIGHT NOW; once Canon gets the lenses out, and the ball rolling, they'll eventually target the A9 with a competitor, and even if it's slightly slower, it'll still be a vastly superior experience vs. an OVF for the vast majority of shooters. Historically Canon has not been into making niche market Cameras, and that's exactly what the OVF will become very, very soon.
> 
> I feel like the majority of you doing the clinging are heavily invested in DSLRs and the EF mount. You're letting the dollars you've got sunk into the formats dictate your outlook (which is understandable); emotions don't alter market trends though. Just take a look at what's being sold today, DSLR vs. Mirrorless. The death of the DSLR is already here.


Hmmm... First of all, comparing (DSLR to Mirrorless) with (Film to DSLR) is silly as heck. No comparison whatsoever. Second: You keep saying how revolutionary and advantageous an EVF is above an OVF. Why not list these advantages instead of just making vague claims? Then list how you get past the shortcomings. I have a DSLR and a mirrorless Olympus. EVF sucks, at this point. Mirrorless is NOT revolutionary tech. Neither is EVF. Film to digital was absolutely revolutionary. If I ever get an R series camera body it will be because of the available lenses and not because an EVF is there. Good God, man... get a hold of yourself. BTW: My "investment" in EF glass has zero bearing on my side of this discussion. Adaptation is seamless with no hit to IQ.


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> It's really not just in my mind. You guys getting all upset sound exactly like the guys clinging to film back in the day. As the market for ILCs collapses further, there really isn't room for DSLRs and mirrorless, and while yes the EVF is not as good as a OVF for a few uses right now, the drawbacks can be mitigated with even today's tech. The advantages of the EVF can not be duplicated on an OVF. Using the EOS R as your base for what an EVF can do is also super silly, as the R is simply incredibly clunky and flawed (yes, I own one). The A9 and its interface show what we are capable of RIGHT NOW; once Canon gets the lenses out, and the ball rolling, they'll eventually target the A9 with a competitor, and even if it's slightly slower, it'll still be a vastly superior experience vs. an OVF for the vast majority of shooters. Historically Canon has not been into making niche market Cameras, and that's exactly what the OVF will become very, very soon.
> 
> I feel like the majority of you doing the clinging are heavily invested in DSLRs and the EF mount. You're letting the dollars you've got sunk into the formats dictate your outlook (which is understandable); emotions don't alter market trends though. Just take a look at what's being sold today, DSLR vs. Mirrorless. The death of the DSLR is already here.


You need to have been around for 'back in the day statements' such as film clinging, I'm not so sure you were since if you had been your arguments would be more logical, patient and inclusive of all types of photographic expression. One thing so many younger shooters miss out on is knowing their artistic roots. Photo history, what was acheivable with so little is not something to dismiss. It's a great legacy to build upon, especially when you have understanding and the patience of that era. Patience, like common sense, in short supply these days.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 6, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> It's really not just in my mind. You guys getting all upset sound exactly like the guys clinging to film back in the day.


No, it's just not everyone is obsessed by a camera as a fashion statement, and "it is modern, so it must be better" is not working for people who use cameras as tools.

The same about "clinging to film", actually. Before Canon 1Ds ($7999 at introduction), full format film actually gave better IQ than digital, and it took some time before 1Ds-class IQ became affordable. Still, some people were buying cameras like 1Mpixel 1/2.3" Sony DSC-S30 P&S, which costed 3 times more than a full format film P&S with an equivalent lens, claiming that it was "the future".


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 7, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> By the way, who needs IBIS at all when one has enough sense to use a tripod for certain applications?



People who shoot in low light situations where tripods are prohibited or impractical, with lenses lacking optical stabilization (like the new RF lenses).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 7, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> It's really not just in my mind.
> I feel like the majority of you doing the clinging are heavily invested in DSLRs and the EF mount.....The death of the DSLR is already here.


Hello...ef lenses work fine on the Rf mount due to the bundled adapter...so yes...your hyperbole really is just in YOUR mind. People buy emotionally and justify after...so the market IS and always will be an emotional dictate. The death of the DSLR? Only on your camera bag. This will not be the case for a lot of photographers. We live in the days of choice and options...not one camera / format to rule them all. It's egocentric to think that your photo needs are the only needs that matter to everyone else.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 7, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> People who shoot in low light situations where tripods are prohibited or impractical, with lenses lacking optical stabilization (like the new RF lenses).



Yes, but this thread is for a 14-21 f/1.4. The focal length rule will give something like 1/15s. Even when I had my 16-35 f/4 IS, anything longer than 1/6s was iffy and not tack sharp. You're not going to get 4 stops. IS is not that effective for long durations, and again if people are the subject, then you're going to need faster shutter speeds anyway. Yes, there are some times when IS can be useful, but then you also have to wait for IS to settle before taking the shot, which also takes time (it's always a bit of transition when I start using the IS telezooms after using fast primes without IS).


----------



## amorse (Mar 7, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> ....The advantages of the EVF can not be duplicated on an OVF....


I'm not sure that's true. Canon had a patent back in 2016 which was seeking to create a hybrid OVF and EVF. So maybe we can indeed have it all: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-auto-switching-hybrid-ovf-and-evf/


----------



## Phoenix 1000 (Mar 7, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I think virtually every single phone made takes photos. The camera is included with the phone. It makes perfect sense to me that tens of millions of photos are taken with these phones. Not the same market as the crowd that buys ILC cameras (who already own these smart phones anyway)... especially since you mention the "enthusiast" crowd. "The next big thing" was the advent of digital photography to begin with. DSLR to mirrorless is not the same as film to digital. What you are seeing is the maturity of the market. Mirrorless is NOT revolutionary in any way. It has been around for a very very long time. Most every point and shoot digital camera made was "mirrorless". Mirrorless also existed in the film age. It is not new tech in the least. It's a little like saying somebody has invented a rounder wheel.


You are right, mirrorless camera technology is around for a long time, but only since a few years, they begin to compete with DSLRs. Before that, the technology was too immature for that (I still remember my Minolta DiMage A1 which was quite a good bridge camera at her time, but not more). Since the digital camera sales drop and the camera manufactures need a good story to stop this, they need to convince people to buy new cameras. So they make everybody think, if you don't buy a mirrorless now, you're hung up, you're old fashioned. Ha ha, I stick to my opinion: Besides the new very interesting lenses as the only real advantage there is no progress in mirrorless, at least not at the high-end. And the image quality of an EVF compared to that of an OFV is a backward step. 

And yes, I personally also don't view a DSLM as a "next big thing" ...


----------



## michi (Mar 7, 2019)

I'm excited to see all these amazing lenses pop up. At the same time I am sad because I know I will not be able to afford any of them. In the last 25 years I have invested in some pretty decent EF lenses, and bought a 5DIV when it was released. Don't get me wrong, I love my equipment and will be happy with it for years to come. But I also know that investing in further EF lenses would not be smart, so now I'm kind of stuck at a point where I won't be buying any further equipment for the EF line, and won't or don't want to afford the future R line. We shall see what the future brings.


----------



## flip314 (Mar 7, 2019)

Does Canon have any current zooms that are much less than 2x range? All I can think of is the EF-S 10-18mm and the 8-15mm fisheye, which are pretty close. Most of the zooms are close to 3x or higher.

I wonder what this is really much good for than a 14mm prime. I'm sure somebody will have a use for this, I just don't know who.


----------



## flip314 (Mar 7, 2019)

michi said:


> I'm excited to see all these amazing lenses pop up. At the same time I am sad because I know I will not be able to afford any of them. In the last 25 years I have invested in some pretty decent EF lenses, and bought a 5DIV when it was released. Don't get me wrong, I love my equipment and will be happy with it for years to come. But I also know that investing in further EF lenses would not be smart, so now I'm kind of stuck at a point where I won't be buying any further equipment for the EF line, and won't or don't want to afford the future R line. We shall see what the future brings.



I expect Canon should have some cheaper lenses out soon, but then again I really thought the RP would have had a native kit lens. Seems like Canon is heavily leaning on adapted EF lenses for their low-end R system customers (even if most people would rather have a native solution).


----------



## bhf3737 (Mar 8, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> People who shoot in low light situations where tripods are prohibited or impractical, with lenses lacking optical stabilization (like the new RF lenses).


Do you have any sample picture to show effectiveness of IBIS in low light situation? I do a lot of low light and I haven't yet found a single situation where I would have done better if I had IBIS, even in case of nothing I shoot moves. Obviously IBIS can't help in low light with moving subjects either. But in-lens IS is a totally different story. In-lens stabilization is more effective in low light because the received image on the sensor is already stabilized and metering/AF is more accurate.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Mar 8, 2019)

Common misunderstanding.
For astrophotography it is much better to use a slightly longer lens and use tracking.
The resulting star resolution depends on the absolute size of the pupil.
A 35mm f/2 (its good enough for the milky way center bulge) has 17,5mm size, this lens here with 14mm f/1.4 "only" 10mm.
You will see better details with 35mm...

__
https://flic.kr/p/2c3iJYn

And a tracking engine for 35mm isnt sooo complex/heavy/expensive to use.... even without you can use 35mm with about 8sec exposure and stacking will get better results than 14mm with f/2.8 and 20sec...
So my pursuit to very fast prime lenses is gone....

I did a lot of milky way center photography with the 135 f/2 at last (absolute pupil 67mm!), the resolution of the stars are incredible:

__
https://flic.kr/p/2c3iJYn

For aurora photography a 24mm 1.4 might be a good idea to lower the exposure time, if it is a heavy moving aurora, but for this lens here I have no purpose...


----------



## davidcl0nel (Mar 8, 2019)

The URL shortener is broken with a second link... I can only post one link and the other will be the same?!
For 35mm i mean this picture:

__
https://flic.kr/p/Q8zpgA


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2019)

davidcl0nel said:


> Common misunderstanding.
> For astrophotography it is much better to use a slightly longer lens and use tracking.
> The resulting star resolution depends on the absolute size of the pupil.
> A 35mm f/2 (its good enough for the milky way center bulge) has 17,5mm size, this lens here with 14mm f/1.4 "only" 10mm.
> ...


If your astrophotography includes only the sky what you say is true. But there is also landscape astrophotography which at least for me is much more interesting. In these cases you need a very fast ultra wide lens (assuming you want to get everything in a single photo...)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 8, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Do you have any sample picture to show effectiveness of IBIS in low light situation? I do a lot of low light and I haven't yet found a single situation where I would have done better if I had IBIS, even in case of nothing I shoot moves. Obviously IBIS can't help in low light with moving subjects either. But in-lens IS is a totally different story. In-lens stabilization is more effective in low light because the received image on the sensor is already stabilized and metering/AF is more accurate.


I’ve never done a comparison and don’t current have any stabilized bodies.

I must admit I’m struggling to imagine how extremely small sensor movement appreciably affects metering and even AF; I’m not convinced that pre-stabilizing hold that advantage.

I do however expect that optical stabilization is likely more effective on average since the amount a sensor can move is fixed regardless of lens attached, where the lens is purposely built.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 9, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Does Canon have any current zooms that are much less than 2x range? All I can think of is the EF-S 10-18mm and the 8-15mm fisheye, which are pretty close. Most of the zooms are close to 3x or higher.
> 
> I wonder what this is really much good for than a 14mm prime. I'm sure somebody will have a use for this, I just don't know who.


I don’t see it that way, I use wide zoom lenses to change perspective and then move my feet to frame. And the difference in perspective between 14 and 21 is massive! And the reason for using a prime is often the max aperture, but when you can have f1.4 at both 14 and 21, what’s not to love?


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 9, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I do however expect that optical stabilization is likely more effective on average since the amount a sensor can move is fixed regardless of lens attached, where the lens is purposely built.



That's why IBIS' effectiveness drops as focal length increases, which has the effect of being most effective where it is least needed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I don’t see it that way, I use wide zoom lenses to change perspective and then move my feet to frame. And the difference in perspective between 14 and 21 is massive!



This ^


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> That's why IBIS' effectiveness drops as focal length increases, which has the effect of being most effective where it is least needed.


You must be joking. IBIS is the solution to everything.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You must be joking. IBIS is the solution to everything.


Don't be ridiculous, Sony sensors, 4k and scrapping anything and everything with a mirror in it are the solutions to everything. 

Funny because I thought that answer was 42


----------



## stevelee (Mar 9, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I can't see much of a creative reason for a 14-21mm f1.4. Lenses that wide don't have much depth of field even at f1.4


Other way around. Very wide angle lenses have a much greater depth of field than longer lenses. With an 85mm lens you can get a much better separation between subject and background in portraits, for example. With a 14-21mm lens, the background is going to be relatively much more in focus.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 9, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I don’t see it that way, I use wide zoom lenses to change perspective and then move my feet to frame. And the difference in perspective between 14 and 21 is massive! And the reason for using a prime is often the max aperture, but when you can have f1.4 at both 14 and 21, what’s not to love?


I do understand what you are saying, and I agree with your point. Unless I'm mistaken though, technically it's when you move your feet that you are changing perspective (because that is when you change the camera's position relative to the subject), and when you zoom (ie change focal length) you are changing angle of view (and hence framing, in that sense).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 10, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Other way around. Very wide angle lenses have a much greater depth of field than longer lenses. With an 85mm lens you can get a much better separation between subject and background in portraits, for example. With a 14-21mm lens, the background is going to be relatively much more in focus.


Sorry, I meant to type "Much control over depth of field"...
Yes I'm a professional 85L shooter...along with a 400mm f2.8...photos in the gallery here.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 11, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> People who shoot in low light situations where tripods are prohibited or impractical, with lenses lacking optical stabilization (like the new RF lenses).



So in other words, someone who doesn't really have authorization to be there taking photos for anything other than personal use (if even that), and certainly not being paid to be there taking photos. Yet the complaint is, "How can they possibly think they are getting away with offering 'professional' cameras without IBIS?"


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 11, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> It's really not just in my mind. You guys getting all upset sound exactly like the guys clinging to film back in the day. As the market for ILCs collapses further, there really isn't room for DSLRs and mirrorless, and while yes the EVF is not as good as a OVF for a few uses right now, the drawbacks can be mitigated with even today's tech. The advantages of the EVF can not be duplicated on an OVF. Using the EOS R as your base for what an EVF can do is also super silly, as the R is simply incredibly clunky and flawed (yes, I own one). The A9 and its interface show what we are capable of RIGHT NOW; once Canon gets the lenses out, and the ball rolling, they'll eventually target the A9 with a competitor, and even if it's slightly slower, it'll still be a vastly superior experience vs. an OVF for the vast majority of shooters. Historically Canon has not been into making niche market Cameras, and that's exactly what the OVF will become very, very soon.
> 
> I feel like the majority of you doing the clinging are heavily invested in DSLRs and the EF mount. You're letting the dollars you've got sunk into the formats dictate your outlook (which is understandable); emotions don't alter market trends though. Just take a look at what's being sold today, DSLR vs. Mirrorless. The death of the DSLR is already here.



This is the same old tired thing everyone was saying in 2012, which was the first and last year that mirrorless cameras gained market share compared to DSLRs.

"The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated." - The DSLR (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019)


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 11, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't be ridiculous, Sony sensors, 4k and scrapping anything and everything with a mirror in it are the solutions to everything.
> 
> Funny because I thought that answer was 42



Don't forget Eye-focus, too. It really helps with those Milky Way shots!


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 11, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Does Canon have any current zooms that are much less than 2x range? All I can think of is the EF-S 10-18mm and the 8-15mm fisheye, which are pretty close. Most of the zooms are close to 3x or higher.



Wider zooms are <3x, e.g. the EF 16-35mm, EF 11-24mm, and EF-S 10-22mm are ~2.2x, and the EF 17-40mm is ~2.35x.


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 11, 2019)

Viggo said:


> And the reason for using a prime is often the max aperture, but when you can have f1.4 at both 14 and 21, what’s not to love?



The price. Primes like 14mm f/2.8L, 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2 aren't just faster than zooms that cover those focal lengths, they're also cheaper.

One of the things that bother me is those cheap primes look (to me?) like a dying breed, e.g. due to lack of upgrades.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 11, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> So in other words, someone who doesn't really have authorization to be there taking photos for anything other than personal use (if even that), and certainly not being paid to be there taking photos. Yet the complaint is, "How can they possibly think they are getting away with offering 'professional' cameras without IBIS?"



I didn’t see anything about “for professional use” in the post I replied to. Maybe it was above, but now that the forum software cuts out earlier quotes it’s tedious to go look.

The complaint I see somewhat regularly is that the new RF lenses aren’t stabilized, and neither are the R bodies. Maybe it’s not a complaint but rather an observation. Personally, I’m not in the market and don’t really care one way or the other.


----------



## flip314 (Mar 11, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Don't forget Eye-focus, too. It really helps with those Milky Way shots!



Hey man, I take photos of _Jupiter_. I need eye-AF.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 11, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> The price. Primes like 14mm f/2.8L, 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2 aren't just faster than zooms that cover those focal lengths, they're also cheaper.
> 
> One of the things that bother me is those cheap primes look (to me?) like a dying breed, e.g. due to lack of upgrades.


The 14 f2.8 L was cheap? .. and no, it was not faster than the zooms at the time...

And no doubt there will be cheaper primes for the RF mount, the 35 f1.8 is proof of that, but what does that have to do with a worlds first insane f1.4 UWA zoom?


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 12, 2019)

Viggo said:


> The 14 f2.8 L was cheap? .. and no, it was not faster than the zooms at the time...



What zoom that *wide* was there at the time?

None, until the EF 11-24mm f/4L was released in 2015, and the EF 14mm is a full stop wider and $600 cheaper.



Viggo said:


> And no doubt there will be cheaper primes for the RF mount, the 35 f1.8 is proof of that



The EF-S mount has two primes, and the EF-M has three. The EF mount hasn't seen any new cheap primes in >5 years. Those three put together make me expect the RF mount would see a handful of cheap primes.

I'm sure Canon will make more than a handful of expensive primes to compete with the L primes for the EF mount, such as the rumored 135mm f/1.4 and replacements / parallels for the 35mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4, 14mm f/2.8. It's the cheap ones I doubt we'll see a lot of.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> What zoom that *wide* was there at the time?
> 
> None, until the EF 11-24mm f/4L was released in 2015, and the EF 14mm is a full stop wider and $600 cheaper.
> 
> ...


No zoom was that wide, but the widest at 16 was also f2.8.

I don’t think for ONE second the 50 f1.2 is the only fast 50 for RF, same as the 85 f1.2 won’t be the only 85zzz


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 12, 2019)

Viggo said:


> No zoom was that wide, but the widest at 16 was also f2.8.



I see no point in comparison to a zoom that doesn't cover the same focal length.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> I see no point in comparison to a zoom that doesn't cover the same focal length.


Oh, I know, there was also no point in mentioning it as one of the cheap primes you missed with the R system.


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 12, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Oh, I know, there was also no point in mentioning it as one of the cheap primes you missed with the R system.



1. The six other primes I've mentioned make that point.

2. My point was that primes can be cheaper than zooms. The EF 14mm f/2.8 is cheaper than the EF 11-24mm f/4. Point made.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> 1. The six other primes I've mentioned make that point.
> 
> 2. My point was that primes can be cheaper than zooms. The EF 14mm f/2.8 is cheaper than the EF 11-24mm f/4. Point made.


And my point was that the 35 f1.8 is cheap and 100% won’t be the only RF f1.8 prime.

Btw, the 14 f2.8 L II was ridiculously expensive in 2007, and a 11mm wide end zoom is a way different beast altogether...

Closest thing is the Nikon 14-24 and that is actually cheaper than the 14 L II...


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 13, 2019)

Viggo said:


> And my point was that the 35 f1.8 is cheap and 100% won’t be the only RF f1.8 prime.



Not the only RF prime? I would be surprised if it wasn't. Will Canon make a whole line of cheap RF primes? I doubt it, but time will tell.



Viggo said:


> Btw, the 14 f2.8 L II was ridiculously expensive in 2007, and a 11mm wide end zoom is a way different beast altogether...



If someone wants an EF lens that covers 14mm, one has two options - the EF 14mm f/2.8L or the EF 11-24mm f/4L. The first is cheaper.

[OK, there are alternatives from Sigma. I think they would follow the same pattern - there are two 14mm primes, one is f/1.8 faster than the 14-24mm f/2.8, the 14mm f/2.8 is cheaper than the zoom.]



Viggo said:


> Closest thing is the Nikon 14-24 and that is actually cheaper than the 14 L II...



1. I don't think it's closer than the EF 11-24mm.

2. The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 for Canon is as close. Closer, if you take into account you don't need to replace cameras.

3. I doubt the Nikon would be cheaper once you take the price one would pay to replace a Canon camera with a Nikon.

4. The Nikon 14mm f/2.8 ED is more expensive than the Nikon 14-28mm f/2.8. This zoom's price is the exception, which makes it look like you're arguing for argument's sake. I hope you enjoy arguing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2019)

I find it interesting how well lenses have progressed in recent years, most notably the ultra wide zooms and primes even moreso than the vastly bigger heavier and more ‘clinical’ Look from the gargantuan 50’s.

For so long the Nikon 14-28 f2.8 was held up as the gold standard of ultra wide zooms and there are many shooters who used Nikon just because of that lens as Canon never had anything to compare to it in focal length or image quality even with their primes. Compare that lens now to the 11-24 and it looks like a bad joke, or the bottom of a bottle!


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 14, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> For so long the Nikon 14-28 f2.8 was held up as the gold standard of ultra wide zooms and there are many shooters who used Nikon just because of that lens as Canon never had anything to compare to it in focal length or image quality even with their primes.



A pro photographer I trust told me many Nikon camera owners bought it, were disappointed, and quickly sold it. There were a couple of those on the used equipment shelves of my favorite photo shop at the time, so I took his word at face value.


----------



## DarkPhalanx (Jun 27, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> AFAIK, there aren't any primes that fast for any FF camera, which would make such a zoom really amazing.
> 
> People would still complain Canon isn't innovative, though.




Well, there is the *Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Lens.*


----------



## Eclipsed (May 14, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> It's like Canon is the girl you want to date and Nikon is the girl you want to marry...
> 
> I love all the insane lenses, Canon, don't get me wrong. But what I REALLY need for my R is some 35/2 or 50/1.4 or 1.8 optimized for portability. I don't need it to be an actual pancake lens, but I'd like it to be smaller than an EF pancake on an EF-to-R adapter (which I recently tried) as well as have an extra stop or two. I don't care if it's not mega-sharp and I could even lose the control ring.
> 
> ...


Nikon is my ex wife.


----------



## tpatana (May 14, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Nikon is my ex wife.



Black, bitter but with lot of good memories?


----------



## flip314 (May 14, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Nikon is my ex wife.



She screws the wrong way?


----------



## Del Paso (May 14, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> If it just was this simple with super wide angle lenses. The problem isn't directly the aperture size, it's that a single surface of glass can't bend the light enough (damn you, physics!), so you need to do it in multiple steps.


And glass can be horribly expensive too !
Plus: extremely narrow (and expensive) machining and assembly tolerances, so, I guess, it will be a very costly lens...


----------



## Del Paso (May 14, 2020)

DarkPhalanx said:


> Well, there is the *Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Lens.*


But, wide open, it's a very disappointing lens...


----------



## BillB (May 14, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> A pro photographer I trust told me many Nikon camera owners bought it, were disappointed, and quickly sold it. There were a couple of those on the used equipment shelves of my favorite photo shop at the time, so I took his word at face value.


Disappointed with the lens is one thing. Realizing that one doesn’t have as much use for the focal length range as they thought they would is something else. South of 28mm is a strange new world for a lot of people, a world they find they don’t spend that much time in.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 16, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> But, wide open, it's a very disappointing lens...



As is pretty much every 24mm f/1.4 from anyone. Just ask Uncle Roger. In this blog entry he says, "We specifically chose 24mm f/1.4 lenses for this example because they are _complicated _and are very difficult to assemble consistently." He echos that sentiment in this more recent blog entry: "At first glance, you may be a little underwhelmed by the MTF, but let me point out that 24mm f/1.4 lenses are almost always the most difficult primes to design and make and don’t generally have great MTF curves."


----------



## SecureGSM (May 16, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> As is pretty much every 24mm f/1.4 from anyone. Just ask Uncle Roger. In this blog entry he says, "We specifically chose 24mm f/1.4 lenses for this example because they are _complicated _and are very difficult to assemble consistently." He echos that sentiment in this more recent blog entry: "At first glance, you may be a little underwhelmed by the MTF, but let me point out that 24mm f/1.4 lenses are almost always the most difficult primes to design and make and don’t generally have great MTF curves."


yup, there is a "workaround" though: Sigma 28mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art 









Sigma 28mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## Michael Clark (May 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> yup, there is a "workaround" though: Sigma 28mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
> 
> http://[URL]https://www.the-digital...LensComp=985&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0[/URL]



Uncle Roger also says it's hard to find one of those well aligned.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Uncle Roger also says it's hard to find one of those well aligned.


Interesting. Do you recall where Uncle Roger mentioned this? modern Sigma Art glass is quite consistent from a QA perspective. The earlier models prior to the 24-35/2 Art were hit and miss for sure. The 28/1.4 is a relatively recent model








MTF Results for Recent Sigma Art Lenses


And you may find yourself in a shotgun shack. And you may find yourself in another part of the world. And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile. And you may find yourself in a beautiful house. And you may ask yourself, well, what should I shoot with? A number of people [...]



www.lensrentals.com




not a word on poor copy to copy variation. They test 10 copies to produce their MTF charts. Sigma 28/1.4 kills Otus 28 in the MTF department.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Interesting. Do you recall where Uncle Roger mentioned this? modern Sigma Art glass is quite consistent from a QA perspective. The earlier models prior to the 24-35/2 Art were hit and miss for sure. The 28/1.4 is a relatively recent model
> http://[URL]https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/mtf-results-for-recent-sigma-art-lenses/[/URL]
> not a word on poor copy to copy variation. They test 10 copies to produce their MTF charts. Sigma 28/1.4 kills Otus 28 in the MTF department.



Sorry, I was still stuck on Sony. With Sigma the only issues I'm aware of are with AF consistency. YMMV.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 18, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Sorry, I was still stuck on Sony. With Sigma the only issues I'm aware of are with AF consistency. YMMV.


There is one serious issue with the Sigma otherwise excellent Art lenses namely: 40/1.4, 14-24/2.8, 12-24/4 - a massive focus shift.

Wide open focus is right on the money. However stopped down by two stops, focus would shift behind the subject and by a lot.
Not a problem with Sony cameras focusing stopped down. Still a problem with Canon DSLRs and mirrorless


----------

