# Canon RF 14-35 f/4L just reviewed by TDP



## Kit. (Aug 16, 2021)

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


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




www.the-digital-picture.com





Well, the lens is not as ideal as I hoped for (barrel distortion at the wide end, less than ideal sharpness at the long end, color fringing, focus breathing, not parfocal), but I'm buying it anyway.


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 16, 2021)

Thank you for sharing! Overall quite positive, minus the lateral CA.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2021)

Was on the fence regarding using an adapted EF 16-35/4L vs. swapping that for the RF 14-35. Seems that Bryan finds that there's no significant IQ advantages to the RF lens, although there are trade-offs as expected (personally, I'd choose the additional vignetting of the EF over the additional geometric distortion of the RF lens). 

If I had typically brought the 16-35 for travel, I would be more tempted to swap it for the RF. But I generally travel with a standard zoom (the RF 24-105/4L is ideal for that), 1-2 TS-E lenses (17/24) and the 11-24/4L.

Given that, I'm going to stick with the EF 16-35/4, at least for the foreseeable future.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Was on the fence regarding using an adapted EF 16-35/4L vs. swapping that for the RF 14-35. Seems that Bryan finds that there's no significant IQ advantages to the RF lens, although there are trade-offs as expected (personally, I'd choose the additional vignetting of the EF over the additional geometric distortion of the RF lens).
> 
> If I had typically brought the 16-35 for travel, I would be more tempted to swap it for the RF. But I generally travel with a standard zoom (the RF 24-105/4L is ideal for that), 1-2 TS-E lenses (17/24) and the 11-24/4L.
> 
> Given that, I'm going to stick with the EF 16-35/4, at least for the foreseeable future.


You will need room for the RF 100-500mm from now on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You will need room for the RF 100-500mm from now on.


Actually, most of my travel is to urban locations for scientific meetings where I mainly shoot architecture (in the late evenings, which is the best time for it and also falls after the day's sessions), so I generally don't bring anything longer than a standard zoom.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, most of my travel is to urban locations for scientific meetings where I mainly shoot architecture (in the late evenings, which is the best time for it and also falls after the day's sessions), so I generally don't bring anything longer than a standard zoom.


I know, but I am trying to convert you.


----------



## Flamingtree (Aug 17, 2021)

My wallet is very happy that this lens isn’t spectacular. My ef 16-35 f4 will stay with me for the foreseeable future.

Plus it allows me to focus my desires on the 100-500.


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 17, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You will need room for the RF 100-500mm from now on.


I really like EF 16-35 f/4 for travel shots, but now it just stays home. The RF24-105, RF100-500 and a TC are the only lenses I take with me.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 17, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Was on the fence regarding using an adapted EF 16-35/4L vs. swapping that for the RF 14-35. Seems that Bryan finds that there's no significant IQ advantages to the RF lens, although there are trade-offs as expected (personally, I'd choose the additional vignetting of the EF over the additional geometric distortion of the RF lens).
> 
> If I had typically brought the 16-35 for travel, I would be more tempted to swap it for the RF. But I generally travel with a standard zoom (the RF 24-105/4L is ideal for that), 1-2 TS-E lenses (17/24) and the 11-24/4L.
> 
> Given that, I'm going to stick with the EF 16-35/4, at least for the foreseeable future.



I'm surprised by the paragraph saying the barrel distortion is bad enough for Canon to correct it in both camera & DPP, regardless of settings to leave it uncorrected. Its one thing to rely on corrections for a superzoom, and another for an L lens.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 17, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm surprised by the paragraph saying the barrel distortion is bad enough for Canon to correct it in both camera & DPP, regardless of settings to leave it uncorrected. Its one thing to rely on corrections for a superzoom, and another for an L lens.


If the alternative is the same kind of correction made with glass (which naturally leads to light falloff and reduced resolution in the corners, but also to increased weight and cost), then digital correction may be preferable.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 17, 2021)

Kit. said:


> If the alternative is the same kind of correction made with glass (which naturally leads to light falloff and reduced resolution in the corners, but also to increased weight and cost), then digital correction may be preferable.


Quite true. It's one of the slower developments in the transition from film to digital.


----------



## gruhl28 (Aug 17, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm surprised by the paragraph saying the barrel distortion is bad enough for Canon to correct it in both camera & DPP, regardless of settings to leave it uncorrected. Its one thing to rely on corrections for a superzoom, and another for an L lens.


Surprising perhaps, but if the end result is outstanding corner performance, what difference does it make if that was achieved just with glass or with distortion correction?


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 17, 2021)

Kit. said:


> If the alternative is the same kind of correction made with glass (which naturally leads to light falloff and reduced resolution in the corners, but also to increased weight and cost), then digital correction may be preferable.


Digital correction reduces resolution as well, Roger Cicala's example being ~10%


----------



## Kit. (Aug 17, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Digital correction reduces resolution as well, Roger Cicala's example being ~10%


Of course, as well as the SNR in the corners. My point is that correcting the distortion by adding more glass to the lens hardware does not necessarily bring better results than correcting the distortion in software.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm surprised by the paragraph saying the barrel distortion is bad enough for Canon to correct it in both camera & DPP, regardless of settings to leave it uncorrected. Its one thing to rely on corrections for a superzoom, and another for an L lens.


I missed that in the review, but if I were using this (or any lens where Canon applies a default geometric correction that cannot be disabled), I would certainly not use DPP (not that I do anyway, except when a camera is too new to be supported by DxO PhotoLab).

There are occasions when the standard geometric distortion corrections give undesirable results (usually when there are people close to the edge of the frame of a barrel-distorted image – correcting the geometric distortion actually accentuates the volume anamorphosis), and for those I apply less geometric distortion correction and use DxO's volumetric distortion correction tools to 'correct' the subjects in the image.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 17, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Of course, as well as the SNR in the corners. My point is that correcting the distortion by adding more glass to the lens hardware does not necessarily bring better results than correcting the distortion in software.


In the sense that it is possible to take an optical formula and change it so it would, say, have more distortion? Sounds about right.

The RF 14-35mm f/4L is $600, or >50%, more expensive than the EF 16-35mm f/4L. Making it slightly smaller & lighter (78 grams, like three packs of cigarettes) doesn't sound like good news for Canon's bottom line.


----------



## gruhl28 (Aug 17, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I missed that in the review, but if I were using this (or any lens where Canon applies a default geometric correction that cannot be disabled), I would certainly not use DPP (not that I do anyway, except when a camera is too new to be supported by DxO PhotoLab).
> 
> There are occasions when the standard geometric distortion corrections give undesirable results (usually when there are people close to the edge of the frame of a barrel-distorted image – correcting the geometric distortion actually accentuates the volume anamorphosis), and for those I apply less geometric distortion correction and use DxO's volumetric distortion correction tools to 'correct' the subjects in the image.


Interesting point


----------



## stevelee (Aug 17, 2021)

bhf3737 said:


> I really like EF 16-35 f/4 for travel shots, but now it just stays home. The RF24-105, RF100-500 and a TC are the only lenses I take with me.


Traveling, I don’t feel the need for long lenses. Maybe if I were doing safaris or hoping to catch exotic birds in flight that would be different. I take my G5X II, which has equivalent 24-120mm zoom. If I miss anything, it is having something wide enough for scenic vistas or cramped interiors. Then I will shoot to do stitching back home. If I took my DSLR along, I would definitely have the EF 16-35mm f/4, too. Zoomed out, the G can open to f/1.8, and even zoomed in is f/2.8, so the little camera still has advantages in dark interiors.


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 18, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Traveling, I don’t feel the need for long lenses. Maybe if I were doing safaris or hoping to catch exotic birds in flight that would be different. I take my G5X II, which has equivalent 24-120mm zoom. If I miss anything, it is having something wide enough for scenic vistas or cramped interiors. Then I will shoot to do stitching back home. If I took my DSLR along, I would definitely have the EF 16-35mm f/4, too. Zoomed out, the G can open to f/1.8, and even zoomed in is f/2.8, so the little camera still has advantages in dark interiors.


Thanks for the insight. I think travel to me means taking pict of family, urban landscapes, and usually a brief refuge to where birds, insects and other local wild life could be found. RF100-500 can help with the latter cases. In the past I used to take EF70-300 for that.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 18, 2021)

bhf3737 said:


> Thanks for the insight. I think travel to me means taking pict of family, urban landscapes, and usually a brief refuge to where birds, insects and other local wild life could be found. RF100-500 can help with the latter cases. In the past I used to take EF70-300 for that.


The RF100-500 has a much, much better magnification ratio than the EF70-300II. I used the 70-300 for flowers and insect and it was always a bit underwhelming, either needing a heavy crop or being not as sharp as I wanted. The 100-500 doesn't disappoint.

On vacation last week I brought the M6II +11-22,22 and 32m as well as the R5+100-500mm. That worked out very well, except for the first day when I didn't bring the R5 and a buzzard sat 4 meters away from us. On the upside, I now have a BIF picture taken with the EF-M 32mm


----------



## Kit. (Aug 18, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> In the sense that it is possible to take an optical formula and change it so it would, say, have more distortion?


Less distortion.

For the cost of weight, price, corner resolution and vignetting.

Basically, the manufacturer does "analog" correction inside the lens instead of "digital" correction in camera or computer.



Antono Refa said:


> The RF 14-35mm f/4L is $600, or >50%, more expensive than the EF 16-35mm f/4L. Making it slightly smaller & lighter (78 grams, like three packs of cigarettes) doesn't sound like good news for Canon's bottom line.


First of all, it's the RF 14-, not RF 16-. Second, it has the MFD of 20 cm. Third, it has fast video-friendly autofocus...


----------



## canonmike (Aug 18, 2021)

bhf3737 said:


> I really like EF 16-35 f/4 for travel shots, but now it just stays home. The RF24-105, RF100-500 and a TC are the only lenses I take with me.


When traveling light when going to an unknown photo shoot where all I know is I will be photographing people, I have been pleasantly surprised at how capable the Rf 24-105 L is, as well as the quality of the photos it produces. I consider it my biggest RF bargain to date.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 18, 2021)

canonmike said:


> When traveling light when going to an unknown photo shoot where all I know is I will be photographing people, I have been pleasantly surprised at how capable the Rf 24-105 is, as well as the quality of the photos it produces. I consider it my biggest RF bargain to date.


RF24-105L or non-L? The people using the non-L and post to forums like this seem to like it.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 18, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Less distortion.
> 
> For the cost of weight, price, corner resolution and vignetting.
> 
> ...


I pre-ordered the Rf 14-35, in spite of more than a few neg comments about the lens, including its price. I like to form my own opinions about any given lens. Once I receive it, I'll put it through its paces and draw my own conclusions. While I'm hoping I like it, if I see it doesn't work for me, I'll sell it and move on to something else. While I use to wait for early adopter reviews before purchasing new gear, at 76 I don't have the luxury of watching those hands on reviews for a yr or more, reluctant to make a decision while waiting for overwhelmingly positive reports on same. Now, I'll just be my own early adopter.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 18, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> RF24-105L or non-L? The people using the non-L and post to forums like this seem to like it.


Sorry, I was referring to the L version of this lens. So far, the only non L RF lens I have purchased is the 800 F11.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 18, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> RF24-105L or non-L? The people using the non-L and post to forums like this seem to like it.


I have the non-L version of the EF lens and have been pleasantly surprised. It is my all-around general purpose lens.


----------

