# Here is the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 23, 2021)

> A poor-quality image of the upcoming Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM has leaked ahead of the official announcement.
> It sounds like we’re going to get an official announcement next week, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Canon EOS R3 get an official announcement alongside it.
> Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM Specifications:
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## anden (Jun 23, 2021)

That's going to sell well.


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 23, 2021)

Looks like it is practically the same size as the RF 24-105L assuming a 77mm filter thread.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 23, 2021)

With the RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS and the 14-35 f/4 IS, I wonder how Canon will slot in a 14mm prime. I hope Canon goes like sigma with a 14mm f/1.8 rather than like its overpriced EF 14mm f/2.8. And hopefully, it'll be designed for minimal coma.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 23, 2021)

anden said:


> That's going to sell well.


Usually, when I say this phrase, I don't expect myself to be buying it.

This time is different.


----------



## JustAnotherCanonShooter (Jun 23, 2021)

Look tiny and cute. Anyone wants to buy my 15-35mm f2.8? I need to lighten my pack!


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 23, 2021)

Could make a fairly useful kit lens for an APS-C R body.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 23, 2021)

Curious to know max mag ratio of this lens.


----------



## BroderLund (Jun 23, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> With the RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS and the 14-35 f/4 IS, I wonder how Canon will slot in a 14mm prime. I hope Canon goes like sigma with a 14mm f/1.8 rather than like its overpriced EF 14mm f/2.8. And hopefully, it'll be designed for minimal coma.


Sony also has an excellent 14mm f/1.8. Lighter than the sigma too. I would expect Canon to match the brightness on their 14mm, given their current RF lineup


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 23, 2021)

Canon has many options. A 14 prime can be 2.8 and very small and affordable. Or it can have a bright aperture.


Random Orbits said:


> With the RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS and the 14-35 f/4 IS, I wonder how Canon will slot in a 14mm prime. I hope Canon goes like sigma with a 14mm f/1.8 rather than like its overpriced EF 14mm f/2.8. And hopefully, it'll be designed for minimal coma.


----------



## stefang (Jun 23, 2021)

It indeed looks the same size as the 24-105 f/4. Here's a comparison of that lens with the 15-35 from camerasize.com


This looks about the same difference as between the 24-105 and 14-35 in the OP.


----------



## anden (Jun 23, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Looks like it is practically the same size as the RF 24-105L assuming a 77mm filter thread.


Yes, perhaps even slightly smaller, difficult to tell.


----------



## anden (Jun 23, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Usually, when I say this phrase, I don't expect myself to be buying it.
> 
> This time is different.


Indeed.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 23, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> I wonder how Canon will slot in a 14mm prime. I hope Canon goes like sigma with a 14mm f/1.8


I believe Canon has three options: 
1. go wider just like with the UWA zooms. I imagine an RF 12mm 
2. keep 14mm, but give it more light like F2 at least 
3. Design a completely new and super light 14mm F2.8. 

With the zooms getting wider and the RF 16mm F2.8. about to come, I think option No 1 makes a lot of sense. Give it F2 and it would be a killer astro lense


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 23, 2021)

anden said:


> Yes, perhaps even slightly smaller, difficult to tell.
> View attachment 198522


Woow, that's impressive. Now I wonder if they were able to shove off some weight. If they make less than the 615 g of the EF version, that'd be fantastic. 

Anyway, it's a sure buy for me!


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 23, 2021)

The RF 24-105 is 700g, the RF15-35 is 840g, so I don't expect much less (as 615g or lower)...


----------



## john1970 (Jun 23, 2021)

I hope that your prediction of the official R3 announcement at the same time is correct. I am looking forward to knowing a few more specifications: 1) Sensor resolution? 2) Can electronic shutter (ES) be used at speeds other than 30 fps? 3) Flash sync speed with ES? 4) Details on the focusing system? 5) Is spot metering linked to AF point?


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 23, 2021)

That size is... really compelling. If it's $1200-1300, it may not be the worst idea for me to sell my EF 16-35 F/4 and pick this up for the $500 price difference. I really don't use my ultra ultrawide enough to really warrant the $1500 extra over selling my EF F/4.

Honestly may just depend on the price of the R3. If the R3 is cheaper than expected, that's extra money towards a new lens.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 23, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> The RF 24-105 is 700g, the RF15-35 is 840g, so I don't expect much less (as 615g or lower)...


Gotta remember the 24-105 has to handle 105mm F/4, which is a bigger piece of glass and means it's hiding a whole zooming barrel inside. I'm sure if this lens is smaller than the 24-105 and has less mechanisms / smaller glass to it, Canon can probably confidently make this lighter than the 24-105.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jun 23, 2021)

The RF 24-105 is shorter than the EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM. If this RF 14-35 is shorter than RF 24-105 it will feel really a compact size UWA zoom lens. That will be nice. I don't think I will be getting one of this anytime soon.


----------



## Marximusprime (Jun 23, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Could make a fairly useful kit lens for an APS-C R body.



Probably going to be very expensive for a kit lens, but the focal length range (in APS-C) would be nearly identical to the Panasonic 20-60, which is something I'd like to have for a walkaround. And I guess I would have it in crop mode, haha. But I recently bought the Sigma 14-24 because I want to do astro, not just landscapes.


----------



## Rivermist (Jun 23, 2021)

Wow, compact indeed. I love my 16-35 f:4L, but with adapter it is a large lens combination. Just like the RF 70-200 lenses, compactness becomes an additional motivation to upgrade. The cost will be the (hopefully reasonable) price for the new lens minus the revenue from selling the EF 16-35 and the adapter (about $700 for both)


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 23, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> That size is... really compelling. If it's $1200-1300, it may not be the worst idea for me to sell my EF 16-35 F/4 and pick this up for the $500 price difference.


That size is... really compelling. If it's $1200-1300, it may not be the worst idea for me to sell my RF 15-35 F/2.8 and pick this up for the $700 price savings difference.

But I'll trade "down" for compactness only if I'm convinced it's not a compromise in image quality.


----------



## xwxw (Jun 23, 2021)

One design attribute, as you could see from this picture, is that the lens is at its shortest when zoomed to 22mm. This is different from the 16-35/4 which is more conventional and at its shortest at the wide end. This must be the reason why it’s possible to make the RF shorter than the EF version.


----------



## xwxw (Jun 23, 2021)

It’s a smart choice and make it a natural fit for APS (if that ever comes to market as rumored). Really smart.


----------



## xwxw (Jun 23, 2021)

I was seriously tempted by the Nikon 14-30 for a long time due to its size advantage and superb image quality but now I know where my purchase will be made.

Only concern I have with this lens is the level of distortion at its wide end without camera correction, which seems to have been the price paid to achieve size savings in some of the recent offerings of Nikon and Canon. Hope it will not be like that.


----------



## tigers media (Jun 23, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


looks great hopefully they price it in my ball park !


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 23, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Looks like it is practically the same size as the RF 24-105L assuming a 77mm filter thread.


Thanks for that comparison. seems to be really compact (for an L lens).
 if so.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 23, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I believe Canon has three options:
> 1. go wider just like with the UWA zooms. I imagine an RF 12mm
> 2. keep 14mm, but give it more light like F2 at least
> 3. Design a completely new and super light 14mm F2.8.
> ...


I like options 1 and 2. I don't think Canon will do number 3 just because Canon doesn't do "cheap" for the most part. Canon has an EF 14mm f/2.8 that sells for a lot of money even though it has been surpassed by 3rd party offerings for much less. When the EF 14 f/2.8 II came out, it was the widest rectilinear EF option. Now there is a 11-24, and I think the 15-35 and 14-35 will be good enough for people looking for an AOV similar to a 14mm prime. If Canon does a RF 10-24, then I think there should be a prime at 10mm or wider.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jun 23, 2021)

oh, look....there's my next lens


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 23, 2021)

BroderLund said:


> Sony also has an excellent 14mm f/1.8. Lighter than the sigma too. I would expect Canon to match the brightness on their 14mm, given their current RF lineup


Match or possibly surpass it. Sony got into mirrorless full frame at the right time, and their lenses targeted EF and Nikon's F-mount DSLR lenses. Canon fired back by highlighting the advantages of a wider mount and by releasing the 28-70 f/2 and the 50 and 85mm f/1.2 primes. Sony now releases a 50 f/1.2. Now, I'd like to see lenses that only Canon can make because of the mount diameter. I suspect the relative advantages will be greater the wider the design goes.


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 23, 2021)

So, the million dollar question: Do you think the image circle will fully cover the sensor at 14mm or will there be mandatory distortion correction shenanigans involved?


----------



## Joules (Jun 23, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> So, the million dollar question: Do you think it will fully cover the image circle at 14mm or will there be mandatory distortion correction shenanigans involved?


My bet is on shenanigans being involved.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 23, 2021)

I’ll be damned. They did it. I am very happy I held off buying the f/2.8 version. A small, light f/4 ultra wide. Now I have to prepare my body, mind, and soul for the purchase of the R3 at the same time.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 23, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> So, the million dollar question: Do you think the image circle will fully cover the sensor at 14mm or will there be mandatory distortion correction shenanigans involved?


No way they slap a red ring on a lens that has mandatory distortion correction! God I hope I’m right! Haha


----------



## mangobutter (Jun 23, 2021)

This could make me come back to R. 14-35 F4, RF 35 Macro, 70-200 F4 (RF) would be the ultimate setup. case closed, done, never buy another lens in my lifetime type setup. Need bokeh? 200mm @ F4. Done. Landscape and low light--done. I'm guessing this lens will be $1399 as the Nikon version (Nikon Z 14-30 F4) is $1099.. but started at $1299.


----------



## xwxw (Jun 23, 2021)

Canon only did it for their very budget friendly 24-105 non L so there is a glimmer of hope. But...


----------



## Cmam (Jun 23, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Could make a fairly useful kit lens for an APS-C R body.


I do not think so. The focal range of 22-56mm (full-frame eq.) would be indeed useful, but not for the expected prise and bulk of this lens.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 23, 2021)

Nice! This, the 24-105 and 70-200 f4s...all small and easy to carry.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 23, 2021)

Even today I would still prefer buying EF lenses, as they work on both the RF and the EF mount. Even if I buy a mirrorless camera at some point in future, I might still also take my DSLR on my journeys. So I really need lenses that work on both of them.


----------



## benpisati (Jun 23, 2021)

stefang said:


> It indeed looks the same size as the 24-105 f/4. Here's a comparison of that lens with the 15-35 from camerasize.com
> View attachment 198521
> 
> This looks about the same difference as between the 24-105 and 14-35 in the OP.





stefang said:


> It indeed looks the same size as the 24-105 f/4. Here's a comparison of that lens with the 15-35 from camerasize.com
> View attachment 198521
> 
> This looks about the same difference as between the 24-105 and 14-35 in the OP.


The problem is the zoom ring is too small and too close to the other rings. The more compact they are, the more problematic it is to use the rings (for me)


----------



## benpisati (Jun 23, 2021)

stefang said:


> It indeed looks the same size as the 24-105 f/4. Here's a comparison of that lens with the 15-35 from camerasize.com
> View attachment 198521
> 
> This looks about the same difference as between the 24-105 and 14-35 in the OP.


The problem is the zoom ring is too small and too close to the other rings. The more compact they are, the more problematic it is to use the rings


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 23, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> Wow, compact indeed. I love my 16-35 f:4L, but with adapter it is a large lens combination.


That's exactly why I sold my EF 16-35mm F4. I love the compact RF lenses


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 23, 2021)

benpisati said:


> The problem is the zoom ring is too small and too close to the other rings. The more compact they are, the more problematic it is to use the rings (for me)


This is also important to me. I picked the RF 24-70 f2.8 after side-by side evaluation with the 24-105 f4 (CPS loan) in part because the adjacent rings meant I often bumped the wrong one. In fact, as I now recall, the f4 was the lens I got with the original Canon R I bought when I first contemplated a switch from Nikon Z6. Too many ergonimic challenges. I got over them and am much happier with Canon and its lens selection, but am wary of adajacent rings. But... the RF 15-35 f2.8 has adjacent focus ring and zoom ring, so this isn't a real issue.


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 23, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> No way they slap a red ring on a lens that has mandatory distortion correction! God I hope I’m right! Haha



Oops, true. I forgot that this is actually an L lens. I wonder if Canon is ever going to release a non-L FF ultrawide…


----------



## BBarn (Jun 23, 2021)

Was looking forward to this lens. But it's a bit of a disappointment, being larger and heavier than I hoped. I really like the size of the RP, but most of the RF lenses are overly cumbersome on that handy camera. I would have preferred 16 on the low end in the size and weight of the 24-105 IS STM or 85 f/2, which is the limit of true convenience on the RP. In terms of size and weight, this lens doesn't improve much on the adapted 17-40. 

On the flip side, I do like the benefits and performance of the 24-240 on the RP, even though it is cumbersome. And that lens appears to be a bit larger than this 14-35. But the size and weight of the 24-240 often lead me to carry something else on the RP. 

For the time being, I guess I'll stick with the adapted 17-40 and wait and see what the RF 16 looks like.


----------



## Fischer (Jun 23, 2021)

Looks nice. Probably not a buyer, but used the EF 16-35 f/4 on a backup camera and was very happy with the results. Expect no less quality from this lens.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 23, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> Oops, true. I forgot that this is actually an L lens. I wonder if Canon is ever going to release a non-L FF ultrawide…



I saw an interesting observation on another forum. This is Canon’s first truly digital from the ground up platform. EF glass is designed to work on film where distortion corrections aren’t possible. 

I think with RF, some degree of distortion correction will be present with every lens. And they’ll be designed with not only glass in mind, but size, weight, AF, speed, etc. 

It won’t be 10x zoom type corrections. But it wouldn’t surprise me if some barrel distortion or pincushioning will be corrected for even in L glass.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 23, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> I saw an interesting observation on another forum. This is Canon’s first truly digital from the ground up platform. EF glass is designed to work on film where distortion corrections aren’t possible.
> 
> I think with RF, some degree of distortion correction will be present with every lens. And they’ll be designed with not only glass in mind, but size, weight, AF, speed, etc.
> 
> It won’t be 10x zoom type corrections. But it wouldn’t surprise me if some barrel distortion or pincushioning will be corrected for even in L glass.


Or massive vignetting being corrected.


----------



## AJ (Jun 23, 2021)

It doesn't look like this lens has a bulbous front element. That's good! I was a bit worried about that.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 23, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Or massive vignetting being corrected.



If you’re referring to the RF 24 -240, that’s just the challenge of a full frame 10x zoom that size. Make the lens bigger, or compromise elsewhere. 

Look at Sony’s 24-240 raw files at 24 without corrections applied.


----------



## another_mikey (Jun 23, 2021)

First lens I will likely preorder before seeing any feedback - mostly so I can have at least a slim chance of not waiting 3+ months to get one...


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 23, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> Oops, true. I forgot that this is actually an L lens. I wonder if Canon is ever going to release a non-L FF ultrawide…


Definitely will be interesting to see what Canon does with the rumored non-L 16mm F/2.8. I would love to see that end up somewhere in the ballpark of $600-800.

It is F/2.8 in an ultrawide, after all, so I doubt it will be $400, but definitely would be excellent at a pricepoint to compete somewhat with the third-party 16mm options. At $600, I might very well pick one up to use as a cheap astro / remote camera lens, even if the IQ isn't fantastic and it uses extensive distortion correction.

All in all it would be a massive missed opportunity if Canon makes such a lens "RF-S" only, since the third-party lenses pull off full frame coverage at that pricepoint.


----------



## GMAX (Jun 23, 2021)

Wow, this in combination with the RF4.0/70-200 (and the hopefully sometimes coming RF4.0/24-70) will be a desirable "travel light" L-trinity, in case the picture quality is on par or above the beloved EF4.0/16-35L. And there is no doubt about it ;-)

Maybe the RF 1.8/50 as a small, light and cheap lens in the middle will help to bridge the waiting time for the 4.0/24-70.....


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 23, 2021)

Nice size on that lens. I was expecting to see a big bulbous front end.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 23, 2021)

wsmith96 said:


> Nice size on that lens. I was expecting to see a big bulbous front end.



Why? Nether the 15-35 or the Nikon 14-30 have bulbous front elements.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 23, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Even today I would still prefer buying EF lenses, as they work on both the RF and the EF mount.


It's not reasonable to expect a compact 14mm full-frame zoom for the EF mount. It might be worth to just buy an EOS RP and attach it to this lens. The lens focal range definitely shouldn't need an R6-grade autofocus system.


----------



## deleteme (Jun 23, 2021)

A number of people have noted that this would make a good match with an APS-C body. However it still has all the bulky goodness of a FF lens. The M series lenses are nice and small and would be the better choice for APS fans IMO. 
A large R series body with a small sensor seems to sacrifice the entire proposition of APS. One could just crop an R5 frame with superb results.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 23, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> A number of people have noted that this would make a good match with an APS-C body. However it still has all the bulky goodness of a FF lens. The M series lenses are nice and small and would be the better choice for APS fans IMO.
> A large R series body with a small sensor seems to sacrifice the entire proposition of APS. One could just crop an R5 frame with superb results.



While I agree with you and love my R5's crop mode far more than I would a crop-only R7, I do think there is definitely a big market for a cheaper, crop-sensor camera for sports/wildlife shooters that have no interest in full frame. The 7D and 7D Mark II are two of the cameras I see most often working in a smaller market, between prosumer sports shooters, small market pros, and wildlife photographers in the woods. I personally wouldn't own one even if it was given to me for free, but those users definitely have their uses for it and there is a large market for it if it was $1500-2000 dollars cheaper than the R5 with sorta-1D-level specs like the 7D/7D2 had.

Those sports/wildlife users are also the same who stick large full-frame glass on such a camera, so they don't particularly need crop glass or smaller bodies.

That said, the other big market for APS-C is travel and vlogging, both of which need tiny ergonomics like you mention. I hope Canon has a serious plan for that, and I do think we'll see something tiny out of the rumored 18-45 f/4-5.6 IS STM which sounds from the range/aperture like it should hypothetically be absolutely tiny.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 23, 2021)

anden said:


> That's going to sell well.


Very tasty Canon - hope it is affordable, e.g., £999.99 at the most.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 23, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I've shot an f/2.8 trinity since 1995 or so. I think I had the 20-35/2.8 just before the 17-35 came out? (Where was Canon rumors, THEN? You could have saved me a few hundred!)
> 
> Anyway I'm thinking the f/4 trinity is where it's at these days. I don't think f/2.8 really gives noticeable bokeh in this day of 35/1.2's and 135/1.4's, and with today's low noise at high ISOs and IBIS/IS, you can shoot moving subjects in poor light and non-moving subjects in candlelight with f/4 at these focal lengths. And the tele can be variable aperture again for the same reasons; the old 70-200/2.8 is in effect variable anyway as you use it a lot with 1.4x and 2.0x so are up to 400mm f/5.6, which I think the 100-500/4-7.1 either does, or is within a 1/3 stop of doing.
> 
> ...


One consideration in favor of f/2.8s is decreased working distance. It also helps with flashes. Some flashes only support zoom settings of 105 or 200mm.

I love having overlap in the 24-35mm range. It really does reduce a lot of lens changes. 35mm is one of my favored focal lengths, so it's great having it on both the normal and ultrawide zooms.

I suspect an RF version of the EF 11-24 to come eventually, but it is not a direct competitor to the 15-35 f/2.8 or 14-35 f/4 zooms. The RF zooms are filterable while the 11-24 is not. The 11-24 is also a lot heavier and larger. I'd love to know what Canon has planned. Will they go the Sony route with a 12-24 f/2.8 or will they stay at f/4 but extend the range to 9-24 or 10-24mm? I'm guessing that Canon would do a f/4 9-24 or 10-24, and maybe release a prime at f/2.8.


----------



## Skux (Jun 23, 2021)

This looks pretty slick. I'll take 14mm over f2.8 on a wide angle any day.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 23, 2021)

Kit. said:


> It's not reasonable to expect a compact 14mm full-frame zoom for the EF mount. It might be worth to just buy an EOS RP and attach it to this lens. The lens focal range definitely shouldn't need an R6-grade autofocus system.


Depends on if you really need 14mm with IS. Otherwise I would buy the Sigma 14-24 F/2.8 Art for 1449 Euros. It is very sharp and should work very well on a DLSR and even on a high resolution mirrorless camera, as it was designed for cameras with 50 megapixels and above.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 23, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Depends on if you really need 14mm with IS. Otherwise I would buy the Sigma 14-24 F/2.8 Art for 1449 Euros. It is very sharp and should work very well on a DLSR and even on a high resolution mirrorless camera, as it was designed for cameras with 50 megapixels and above.


It likely weights twice as much, is 1.5 times longer, and only accepts rear filters. Also, lots of flares due to the bulbous front element.


----------



## exige24 (Jun 23, 2021)

A big, ol fat Meh. The budgeteers should be excited though!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 23, 2021)

exige24 said:


> A big, ol fat Meh. The budgeteers should be excited though!



Not just them. Anyone who does not want to carry the almost 1kg 15-35 and would rather save a few 100 grams. Some people never use 2.8 aperture on a wide angle.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 23, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Depends on if you really need 14mm with IS. Otherwise I would buy the Sigma 14-24 F/2.8 Art for 1449 Euros. It is very sharp and should work very well on a DLSR and even on a high resolution mirrorless camera, as it was designed for cameras with 50 megapixels and above.



Brighter is not always better. Sometimes being lightweight has more value. The Sigma is a brick.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2021)

14mm f/4 and takes 77mm filters. Gives me hope for a possible future 14 or 15 mm TS lens that takes standard front filters (even 96mm to match the 28-70/2 would be an improvement over the 145mm Wonderpana salad plates I use with the TS-E 17).


----------



## APP (Jun 23, 2021)

I really hope it has comparable performance to the 16-36 f/4 on a sharpness and vignetting basis. I am actually considering a day 1 order on this (usually I'd wait for some discount). Excited for more info!


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 24, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> With the RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS and the 14-35 f/4 IS, I wonder how Canon will slot in a 14mm prime. I hope Canon goes like sigma with a 14mm f/1.8 rather than like its overpriced EF 14mm f/2.8. And hopefully, it'll be designed for minimal coma.


Only Canon will know the sale volume of the 14mm/2.8 but I can't imagine it is a volume seller especially at that price with Samyang options being so cheap for astrolandscape. The RF24-105mm is slightly cheaper (in my market) than the EF version but I think we can agreed that the rest of the RF lenses are more expensive... but they do add new features to tempt EF owners to migrate. 

I can't image a Canon RF 14mm/1.8 will be cheaper than the EF14/2.8 or in line with the Sigma version. I believe that Canon would improve coma as astro is a market that they can't ignore for a 14mm prime.


----------



## Diltiazem (Jun 24, 2021)

We saw R3 in England during the recent G7 summit. Now it is in the USA as well. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CQcPgC2lVun/

Seems like R3 will be announced very soon, maybe next week as Craig said.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 24, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> I saw an interesting observation on another forum. This is Canon’s first truly digital from the ground up platform. EF glass is designed to work on film where distortion corrections aren’t possible.
> 
> I think with RF, some degree of distortion correction will be present with every lens. And they’ll be designed with not only glass in mind, but size, weight, AF, speed, etc.
> 
> It won’t be 10x zoom type corrections. But it wouldn’t surprise me if some barrel distortion or pincushioning will be corrected for even in L glass.


Clearly the observer in the other forum isn’t familiar with the best selling MILC platform in the world, the Canon M series....

As for thinking the RF lens designers have any consideration for size or weight I’d point out the lenses they have made so seem to make zero allowances for that!


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 24, 2021)

BroderLund said:


> Sony also has an excellent 14mm f/1.8. Lighter than the sigma too. I would expect Canon to match the brightness on their 14mm, given their current RF lineup


Here’s hoping for a nearly coma-free 14mm f/1.4!


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 24, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> With the RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS and the 14-35 f/4 IS, I wonder how Canon will slot in a 14mm prime. I hope Canon goes like sigma with a 14mm f/1.8 rather than like its overpriced EF 14mm f/2.8. And hopefully, it'll be designed for minimal coma.


I hope it's Sigma that releases a 14 f/1.8, becuase I know the Canon will be way too expensive especially if it's an L.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Clearly the observer in the other forum isn’t familiar with the best selling MILC platform in the world, the Canon M series....
> 
> As for thinking the RF lens designers have any consideration for size or weight I’d point out the lenses they have made so seem to make zero allowances for that!


Depends on the RF lens.... RF24-105mm, RF70-200mm (f2.8 and f4), RF100-500 (cf EF100-400mm) are all smaller and lighter especially when taking the adapter into consideration. There are definitely bigger examples though!


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 24, 2021)

Kit. said:


> It likely weights twice as much, is 1.5 times longer, and only accepts rear filters. Also, lots of flares due to the bulbous front element.


It actually weighs 'only' 795g, so about the same as the RF 15-35 F2.8. It's overall length including the non-detachable hood is 131mm, so not quite 1.5 times longer than the 14-35. It is very sharp and the flaring is well controlled (at least above 'average', or better than most equivalent lenses). I was hoping there would be an RF version, but it has been 2 years since it first came out for the Sony E mount. Yes, only rear filters. Overall, an attractive option for about $1300.


----------



## noms78 (Jun 24, 2021)

Annoyed there is no FL marking for 16mm? Nikon 14-30 has 14,16,20,24,30. RF lens has 14,20,24,28,35


----------



## exige24 (Jun 24, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Not just them. Anyone who does not want to carry the almost 1kg 15-35 and would rather save a few 100 grams. Some people never use 2.8 aperture on a wide angle.


Categorizing and prioritizing every quality of what makes a good lens a good lens, if that one characteristic isn't at the very bottom of that list, it's damn near close to it. 

I can't take any pictures because the light lowered, but damn if this lens doesn't fit in my pocket!!!! What a great lens!!!


----------



## xwxw (Jun 24, 2021)

noms78 said:


> Annoyed there is no FL marking for 16mm? Nikon 14-30 has 14,16,20,24,30. RF lens has 14,20,24,28,35


That’s not a problem with mirrorless as you could see the focal length in the viewfinder while you zoom.


----------



## jim (Jun 24, 2021)

Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?


----------



## xwxw (Jun 24, 2021)

jim said:


> Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?


The lens is at its shortest when zoomed to 22mm. If you have ever used one of the ubiquitous EFS 18-55 lenses you know it’s understandable when size is one factor in the design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2021)

jim said:


> Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?


Many UWA zooms do not extend – they have an inner barrel that moves in and out during zooming, but all of that movement is behind the filter threads. However, the RF 15-35/2.8 does have a traditional extending barrel.


----------



## noms78 (Jun 24, 2021)

xwxw said:


> That’s not a problem with mirrorless as you could see the focal length in the viewfinder while you zoom.


not with canon RF?


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 24, 2021)

Two weeks ago I had two options in mind: 2nd RP body with EF 16-35 4.0 IS for 1772 EUR or a 2nd M50 for 600 EUR to extend capabilities for (1) VLOG style video and (2) to get an ultra wide which is usable with my EOS M cameras.
Finally I bought a 2nd M50 (mark ii) with the 15-45 lens for 680 EUR because it's open to me if I should invest in a real video camera or stay with hybrid cameras. And the 15-45 @ 15mm with IS does give me the same technical possibilities like EF 16-35 with 25% of the weight!

RF _*14 *_- 35 makes this lens a very interesting candidate for the EOS RP, just with its crippled 4k mode (roughly 21-50 equiv) and a good candidate for e.g. a future C50 ... and finally it will be a good photographic lens for FF too. With 1092 EUR open to be spend!

I see a nice combo: RP with 14-35, one M50 with EF-M 32 (50mm equiv) and 2nd M50 with EF 70-200 (110 - 320mm equiv) which fits in a small backpack and avoids my most hated action: changing lenses in adverse environments!


----------



## xwxw (Jun 24, 2021)

noms78 said:


> not with canon RF?


You are right. I was mistakenly under the impression that this was possible but apparently even the R5 canny do that. Olympus has had it for years.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 24, 2021)

exige24 said:


> Categorizing and prioritizing every quality of what makes a good lens a good lens, if that one characteristic isn't at the very bottom of that list, it's damn near close to it.
> 
> I can't take any pictures because the light lowered, but damn if this lens doesn't fit in my pocket!!!! What a great lens!!!



You can take as many landscapes as you want from a tripod. That's what i meant. Probably 90 percent of people want a lens like this for landscapes from a tripod. One stop of light won't make a difference.
But for them a 2.8 aperture is a hindrance because of the lens weight.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 24, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> It actually weighs 'only' 795g,


You seem to confuse it with the DG DN lens, which doesn't exist for the EF mount.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 24, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> You can take as many landscapes as you want from a tripod. That's what i meant. Probably 90 percent of people want a lens like this for landscapes from a tripod. One stop of light won't make a difference.
> But for them a 2.8 aperture is a hindrance because of the lens weight.


For Landscapers there are several criteria. Firstly, size and weight are important factors. No one wants a long walk / hike with a bunch of heavy lenses. Brightness, less so as usually these lenses are heavily stopped down for extended depth of field. Landscaper's (generally) couldn't give a hoot at the lens' wide open sharpness. Then there's flare resistance, Ability to natively wield a pair of filters with out mechanical vignette. Strong light leak prevention for long exposures and nice looking sun stars (best so far is the ef 16-35IIL). Low CA and geometric distortion...too corrected and it'll look like an architectural lens, too little and everything looks like it has strong barrel distortion.


----------



## noms78 (Jun 24, 2021)

Quickly choosing 15/16mm could be difficult to eyeball. But I have a feeling 14mm might be too wide for outdoor shots.

I may end up adding two white dots for 15 and 16mm if those FL get used more often than 14mm.


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 24, 2021)

Kit. said:


> You seem to confuse it with the DG DN lens, which doesn't exist for the EF mount.


You are, of course, correct. I was referring to the DG DN and not the HSM, which weighs about 1.15kg. The DG DN lens seems like a good option for RF if/when Sigma decides to produce it for the RF mount.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 24, 2021)

It will surprise me a lot if it's better than the 16-35 F4 IS. I'm findin RF lenses hit and miss atm. I still miss me EF 24-70 mkii due to the excessive vignetting of the RF version.


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 24, 2021)

BroderLund said:


> Sony also has an excellent 14mm f/1.8. Lighter than the sigma too. I would expect Canon to match the brightness on their 14mm, given their current RF lineup


Or, with Canon’s penchant for upstaging rivals and setting standards with fast glass, perhaps an f~1.4


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 24, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Why? Nether the 15-35 or the Nikon 14-30 have bulbous front elements.


probably because my only experience at 14mm is the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, also when looking at the ef 11-24, it has a large front lens. At what point (mm wise) is a large front end required?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2021)

noms78 said:


> Quickly choosing 15/16mm could be difficult to eyeball. But I have a feeling 14mm might be too wide for outdoor shots.
> 
> I may end up adding two white dots for 15 and 16mm if those FL get used more often than 14mm.


Do you actually pick the focal length you want and _then_ compose your image? Personally, I select the composition and perspective I want, and if the lens on the camera cannot deliver that then I change lenses. I don’t care about the focal length that ends up written to the EXIF.

Imagine – I’m going to drive my little hatchback today, not the big SUV. I want to take 6 friends with me, but I chose the hatchback so three of them can’t go. That would be silly.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 24, 2021)

wsmith96 said:


> probably because my only experience at 14mm is the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, also when looking at the ef 11-24, it has a large front lens. At what point (mm wise) is a large front end required?



Not sure but looks like the short flange distance of mirrorless allows flat front element at wider angles. I would guess around 12mm, considering that Sonys 12-24 F4 has a bulbous front element. It also depends on the compromises being made, like the amount of vignetting allowed (pretty high for the 15-35) and lens size.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jun 24, 2021)

A canon 14mm you can put filters on the front. Nice.


----------



## xwxw (Jun 24, 2021)

Canon is taking deliberate efforts to set itself apart from other manufacturers:

14-35 - starts wider than most manufacturers. and for the only one that can match Canon on 14mm, it pales in terms of reach and filter size.

15-35 - still wider than Sony and Nikon, plus IS

24-70/2.8 - IS is still absent from Sony and Nikon

70-200/2.8 or 4 - well, at least size matters, and it carves out a new path nobody has contemplated before.


----------



## st jack photography (Jun 24, 2021)

Of course I had to buy the EF 16-35 f4L IS a few months back to go with my control ring adapter and EF 100mmL. I had found a Like New 16-35 at KEH for $700. But this RF lens was what I wanted. I would look for that lens to retail at $1599 at most, with $1349 being my final guess.
I live in deep poverty, but I will definitely be after this lens, after using the RF 85mm f2 and discovering that focus peaking turns on as soon as you take over focus after one-shot AF. With EF lenses the focus peaking only works in MF. Also the EF 16-35 is HUGE on my tiny RP. I use the 16-35 for street photos, so smaller lens is great. (Please Canon, make a 28-35 f2 for my street work!!!) The EF lenses are fantastic on R bodies, but the RF lenses offer more features, even IF you have the control ring adapter.
So I am very excited and glad that this is finally coming out. I want the f2.8s and the f2's, but I can't afford them. The R5 and RF 50L broke me for months.
So looks like I will be selling my 16-35 this year sometime...unless I hear a good rumor about a 24-35mm lens, I am all in on that zoom.


----------



## st jack photography (Jun 24, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> That size is... really compelling. If it's $1200-1300, it may not be the worst idea for me to sell my EF 16-35 F/4 and pick this up for the $500 price difference. I really don't use my ultra ultrawide enough to really warrant the $1500 extra over selling my EF F/4.
> 
> Honestly may just depend on the price of the R3. If the R3 is cheaper than expected, that's extra money towards a new lens.


Is there a consensus on the suspected price of the R3? Logic says it will be right between the r5 and 1D in price, but other factors like competitor prices may influence it.
My guess is $4,998 to $5498 in price for the R3, and I would call this a middle range of pricing not based on anything Sony sells, which to be honest is their only competitor for full frame. With Nikon's move to cheap manufacturing, they are toast, one of the longest deaths ever, considering the death knell was sounded in 1987 with the introduction of Canon Electro-Focus and Electro-Optical System. Poor Nikon...I guess they'll always have the hunting scopes market.


----------



## Marximusprime (Jun 24, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> Of course I had to buy the EF 16-35 f4L IS a few months back to go with my control ring adapter and EF 100mmL. I had found a Like New 16-35 at KEH for $700. But this RF lens was what I wanted. I would look for that lens to retail at $1599 at most, with $1349 being my final guess.
> I live in deep poverty, but I will definitely be after this lens, after using the RF 85mm f2 and discovering that focus peaking turns on as soon as you take over focus after one-shot AF. With EF lenses the focus peaking only works in MF. Also the EF 16-35 is HUGE on my tiny RP. I use the 16-35 for street photos, so smaller lens is great. (Please Canon, make a 28-35 f2 for my street work!!!) The EF lenses are fantastic on R bodies, but the RF lenses offer more features, even IF you have the control ring adapter.
> So I am very excited and glad that this is finally coming out. I want the f2.8s and the f2's, but I can't afford them. The R5 and RF 50L broke me for months.
> So looks like I will be selling my 16-35 this year sometime...unless I hear a good rumor about a 24-35mm lens, I am all in on that zoom.



Sigma makes a 24-35 f2 in EF mount. It's not small, though.


----------



## mangobutter (Jun 24, 2021)

I wouldn't have minded a 17-40 remake, especially if they can make it super light and small, no IS etc. i'd buy that in a heartbeat. of course it would have to be cheaper. the 17-40 got many, including myself, into L lenses well over a decade ago. Got my first 17-40 in 2006. it was so exotic and high end to me... made me proud to own and got me into the L club. they need a lens like that for young people.. an affordable dream


----------



## slclick (Jun 24, 2021)

This will soon take the mantle the EF 16-35 f/4L held. Solid.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 24, 2021)

noms78 said:


> Quickly choosing 15/16mm could be difficult to eyeball. But I have a feeling 14mm might be too wide for outdoor shots.
> 
> I may end up adding two white dots for 15 and 16mm if those FL get used more often than 14mm.


It never in my life occurred to me to frame a shot with a zoom lens by setting according to the little numbers on the barrel.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 24, 2021)

noms78 said:


> Quickly choosing 15/16mm could be difficult to eyeball. But I have a feeling 14mm might be too wide for outdoor shots.
> 
> I may end up adding two white dots for 15 and 16mm if those FL get used more often than 14mm.


I used the RF 15-35 for some time, then I switched to EF 16-35 (size, 77mm filter thread). I miss that extra 1 mm almost half the cases. Can’t wait for this lens if has 77 mm filter thread.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 24, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> Is there a consensus on the suspected price of the R3? Logic says it will be right between the r5 and 1D in price, but other factors like competitor prices may influence it.
> My guess is $4,998 to $5498 in price for the R3, and I would call this a middle range of pricing not based on anything Sony sells, which to be honest is their only competitor for full frame. With Nikon's move to cheap manufacturing, they are toast, one of the longest deaths ever, considering the death knell was sounded in 1987 with the introduction of Canon Electro-Focus and Electro-Optical System. Poor Nikon...I guess they'll always have the hunting scopes market.


Well, I certainly hope Nikon is not toast. After 25 years as a Canon shooter, I sold my R a couple months ago and got both a Z5 and Z50. The Z5 refurbished was $899, it was too good a deal to pass up as I continued to wait for a low or mid priced FF mirrorless and an APS-C RF mount camera from Canon. There are no doubt trade-offs in switching, but Nikon offered certain things in FF mirrorless that Canon so far has not brought to the table (lighter, smaller high-quality lenses, and a low-priced FF with a high quality sensor and 2 card slots). What convinced me to switch was their Z 24-200mm f/4 and 14-30mm f/4 lenses. I much prefer a lens with a wide zoom range, and while I thought the Canon RF 24-240 was a very good lens for its type, the 24-200 just blew me away. Both lenses (as well as their 24-70 f/4) are smaller and lighter than comperable Canon offerrings, something that I was really hoping for with a switch to mirrorless with Canon. I miss the back screen touch AF (and focus in general is noticeably slower) but I'm using the Nikon Z5 mainly for landscape, so neither of those specs are particularly needed. One keeps hearing negatives online about Nikon, but as a photographer and not a gear-head, their lenses were so good I decided to switch. (The price of the cameras was also a factor, of course.)


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 24, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Well, I certainly hope Nikon is not toast. After 25 years as a Canon shooter, I sold my R a couple months ago and got both a Z5 and Z50. The Z5 refurbished was $899, it was too good a deal to pass up as I continued to wait for a low or mid priced FF mirrorless and an APS-C RF mount camera from Canon. There are no doubt trade-offs in switching, but Nikon offered certain things in FF mirrorless that Canon so far has not brought to the table (lighter, smaller high-quality lenses, and a low-priced FF with a high quality sensor and 2 card slots). What convinced me to switch was their Z 24-200mm f/4 and 14-30mm f/4 lenses. I much prefer a lens with a wide zoom range, and while I thought the Canon RF 24-240 was a very good lens for its type, the 24-200 just blew me away. Both lenses (as well as their 24-70 f/4) are smaller and lighter than comperable Canon offerrings, something that I was really hoping for with a switch to mirrorless with Canon. I miss the back screen touch AF (and focus in general is noticeably slower) but I'm using the Nikon Z5 mainly for landscape, so neither of those specs are particularly needed. One keeps hearing negatives online about Nikon, but as a photographer and not a gear-head, their lenses were so good I decided to switch. (The price of the cameras was also a factor, of course.)


I was a big fan of Nikon mirrorless after years with Nikon DSLRs (back to the D100). Z6 was a delight. But... Canon was producing great lenses and Nikon's are ho-hum. The deal-breaker was the 70-200, with Canon's amazing compact form compared to Nikon's horse's leg. I did love the Z24-70 f4, except for the irritant that it was non-functional in its normal compact position. 

I'm thrilled to be able to screw on and off lenses the right way after decades of Nikon, but am still struggling to get the zoom direction right each time.


----------



## noms78 (Jun 24, 2021)

wockawocka said:


> It will surprise me a lot if it's better than the 16-35 F4 IS. I'm findin RF lenses hit and miss atm. I still miss me EF 24-70 mkii due to the excessive vignetting of the RF version.


are you saying the rf 24-70 f/2.8 vignettes more then the ef 24-70 f/2.8 ii? i thought the rf glass was at least as good as the ef.


----------



## noms78 (Jun 24, 2021)

I didn't believe this too until I read the opticallimits reviews of the rf 15-35 2.8 and rf 24-70 2.8. They concluded vignetting was worse than the ef equivalents.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 25, 2021)

Yes, almost 5 stops of vignetting in the corners is a bit too much for a lens costing over $2000 and weighting 850g.


----------



## noms78 (Jun 25, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> It never in my life occurred to me to frame a shot with a zoom lens by setting according to the little numbers on the barrel.


The 16-35 f4 is my most used lens. i usually know what focal length to select before looking through the viewfinder. there is a big difference between 14mm and 20mm. i think it is a mistake that canon did not put a 16mm marking on the lens. nikon had the foresight to do it.

anyway, i will get used to it. first world problems hehe


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, almost 5 stops of vignetting in the corners is a bit too much for a lens costing over $2000 and weighting 850g.


I thought that before I bought the EF 11-24, a $3,000 lens that weighs 1,180g and vignettes over 4 stops in the corners. Then I got it and shut up and took pictures with it, what an amazing lens. Funny thing is I have never looked at the corners and thought 'darn that vignetting is an issue'.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 25, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, almost 5 stops of vignetting in the corners is a bit too much for a lens costing over $2000 and weighting 850g.


It heavily depends on the focus distance, for 5 stops is a worst case scenario.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 25, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> (Please Canon, make a 28-35 f2 for my street work!!!)


Really? That small zoom range?
For that I would use a 28mm, maybe a upcoming 28 1.2 and crop if needed.

I have nothing between a 35 and a 70(-200) and don't miss anything. I can easily crop 50mm or so out of the 35mm, if I want to.
I also don't have anything between my 17 TZE and a 35 (except a 1.4 TK for 17=>24), and this works too. I sold my 24-105 years ago.
But I can imagine to buy this 14-35/4 to use this and with the 70-200/4 as a small two lens setup. I would never add a 24-105 or a 24-70 to fill any gaps between... so I never understand the holy-trinity (or the one for f/4) talk, but everybody is different...


----------



## 12Broncos (Jun 25, 2021)

I really don't care about the lens. The announcement of the R3 is what caught my attention. I know this is a rumor site and I should at least be a little skeptical. Which I am, however, right now I'll cling to any good news I can get. Here's hoping the announcement is next week for the R3!!


----------



## st jack photography (Jun 25, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> Sigma makes a 24-35 f2 in EF mount. It's not small, though.


Yes, and it is lovely to behold. (chef kiss) 
However, I bought a 50 f1.4 art, and its AF was *so bad *it could not be corrected because it shifted depending on distance. I know it isn't their fault, it is Canon's fault supposedly, but I swore then I would never use a Sigma lens EVER. I am too much of a perfectionist and too addicted to wide open shooting to put up with f1.4 shots being off in AF. It is a shame, because I love the company. I loved my Sigma dp2 Quattro with the foveon sensor, and if I had the money, I would go all in on the fpL with the incredible viewfinder that allows top down viewing. That would make an excellent street shooting camera, with the multi-angle viewfinder. Geez I miss waist-level finders. Hint-hint, Canon. Canon got so close with a few of the M bodies and that first detachable VF that allowed 90-degree viewing angle (not the mark 2 viewfinder.)
Anyway, thanks for the tip. That 24-35 isn't too well known.


----------



## st jack photography (Jun 25, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Well, I certainly hope Nikon is not toast. After 25 years as a Canon shooter, I sold my R a couple months ago and got both a Z5 and Z50. The Z5 refurbished was $899, it was too good a deal to pass up as I continued to wait for a low or mid priced FF mirrorless and an APS-C RF mount camera from Canon. There are no doubt trade-offs in switching, but Nikon offered certain things in FF mirrorless that Canon so far has not brought to the table (lighter, smaller high-quality lenses, and a low-priced FF with a high quality sensor and 2 card slots). What convinced me to switch was their Z 24-200mm f/4 and 14-30mm f/4 lenses. I much prefer a lens with a wide zoom range, and while I thought the Canon RF 24-240 was a very good lens for its type, the 24-200 just blew me away. Both lenses (as well as their 24-70 f/4) are smaller and lighter than comperable Canon offerrings, something that I was really hoping for with a switch to mirrorless with Canon. I miss the back screen touch AF (and focus in general is noticeably slower) but I'm using the Nikon Z5 mainly for landscape, so neither of those specs are particularly needed. One keeps hearing negatives online about Nikon, but as a photographer and not a gear-head, their lenses were so good I decided to switch. (The price of the cameras was also a factor, of course.)


Gee, I feel bad for you a bit. I feel bad for anyone that is suckered into Nikon who doesn't already have a large glass commitment to them. They just barely limp in with gear now, playing catch-up with Sony and Canon. *If it was anytime before 1987, I would go all in on Nikon, they are legendary,* BUT it isn't 1986.....the world has moved on. If I was wealthy and impatient I too may have bought the Z, just to play with for a few months, but I remember reading the specs and not being impressed, as usual, when I compared it to Sony. At that time I just bought a Sony rx1rm2 to tide me over. The last time Nikon impressed me was the 36mp d800E, which was the last Nikon body I ever owned. It was when they moved manufacturing that I realized they were _probably _done, and would end up the next Ricoh or Pentax, making a few cameras for extreme fans, but making nothing really innovating or industry-changing.
I would love to be wrong on this, but Nikon is going to need to make major changes if they still want that market share they once had in their glory days.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 25, 2021)

noms78 said:


> Annoyed there is no FL marking for 16mm? Nikon 14-30 has 14,16,20,24,30. RF lens has 14,20,24,28,35


Do people actually rely on those markings? I usually just frame my shot. What is accomplished by the markings?


----------



## st jack photography (Jun 25, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> Really? That small zoom range?
> For that I would use a 28mm, maybe a upcoming 28 1.2 and crop if needed.
> 
> I have nothing between a 35 and a 70(-200) and don't miss anything. I can easily crop 50mm or so out of the 35mm, if I want to.
> ...


Yes, that small a zoom range, but because I am imagining it being half the size of a 24-70, which isn't necessarily true. My 16-35 f4 is my first zoom ever, so I am new to zooms. With the adapter, the EF 16-35 is HUGE on my rp and r5. I used to favor an 85 prime doing street, isolating subjects in narrow DoF, but now I want to do entire scenes at f4 or slower, and I find myself using 24, 28, and 35 most of all.
The biggest factor for me is hiding the gear, the reason I want small or discreet lenses. I only shoot full frame, so this doesn't leave many options for my budget. ( I had tried sigma dp2, canon m3, m5, m6, canon g5x, and *I hate aps-C*.)
So that is what motivates me to have a zoom like that. Sigma makes a 24-35 f2, but it is designed for several brands, and the lens is accordingly 10 feet long. I don't mind 3rd party sometimes, but in this case it needs to be special-designed for the massive R mount, not compromised by making sure the lens also fits the tiny APS-C Sony E-mount. Why SONY chose an aps-c mount to go over a full frame sensor seems stupid to me. It would be like if Canon had put the M mount on the R cameras. Yes, the smaller backfocus allows for aps-c DSLR to work on FF MILC, but at huge detriment to lens size and price.
I will likely do what you suggest, buy a fast 28 prime. I have no idea why I own so many 50's. I hardly use them. Anyway...thanks for the 28 advice.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 25, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Do people actually rely on those markings? I usually just frame my shot. What is accomplished by the markings?



I used them on my zoom if I want a certain outdoor portrait look and I don’t have my 85 with me. I also used it when I was debating if I wanted to wait for the 50 or get the 85. Also, if I’m using my zoom to shoot a panorama and I want it at 50.

Lots of reasons.


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 25, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> That size is... really compelling. If it's $1200-1300, it may not be the worst idea for me to sell my EF 16-35 F/4 and pick this up for the $500 price difference. I really don't use my ultra ultrawide enough to really warrant the $1500 extra over selling my EF F/4.
> 
> Honestly may just depend on the price of the R3. If the R3 is cheaper than expected, that's extra money towards a new lens.


1200-1300

That is some serious wishful thinking, imho. I'm about to expense a 16-35 f4 EF, and that is still about 1100-1200 US. Cant see how that new lens wont have premium attached to it.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 25, 2021)

Joules said:


> My bet is on shenanigans being involved.


The usual shenanigans beat the 10 pounds of glass it might take to duplicate the corrections in the lens.


----------



## Rollie (Jun 25, 2021)

12Broncos said:


> I really don't care about the lens. The announcement of the R3 is what caught my attention. I know this is a rumor site and I should at least be a little skeptical. Which I am, however, right now I'll cling to any good news I can get. Here's hoping the announcement is next week for the R3!!


Vanessa Joy has a copy of the R3. She made a YouTube short vid with it in her hands.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2021)

Rollie said:


> Vanessa Joy has a copy of the R3. She made a YouTube short vid with it in her hands.


And it’s quite funny too. She loved her 1DX II’s and III’s but has used the R, R5 and R6 a lot too so I am very interested in what she has to say when her opinion comes out. Hope it isn’t too fawning.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 25, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> I will likely do what you suggest, buy a fast 28 prime. I have no idea why I own so many 50's. I hardly use them. Anyway...thanks for the 28 advice.


Here is a example in this thread of an other forum:




__





Cropping 28mm to 35mm: Beginners Questions Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com




(below)

There you can see the small difference. I think there is absolute no need to have this zoom range, you can crop it.
24-35 is more, so this is nearly the same at the outer side, but it is also now soo much, but ok to have this as a zoom, if you really really want it. (this Sigma)
There is small EF 28 2.8 IS version (or 24), you can try them too. Much smaller than a zoom lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Do people actually rely on those markings? I usually just frame my shot. What is accomplished by the markings?


Well, they came in really handy when I was writing reviews of the EF-M lenses, and wanted to show focal length examples at 18-24-35-50-70-100-135-200mm. But for actual photography? I couldn't care less about those markings.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 25, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> Gee, I feel bad for you a bit. I feel bad for anyone that is suckered into Nikon who doesn't already have a large glass commitment to them. They just barely limp in with gear now, playing catch-up with Sony and Canon. *If it was anytime before 1987, I would go all in on Nikon, they are legendary,* BUT it isn't 1986.....the world has moved on. If I was wealthy and impatient I too may have bought the Z, just to play with for a few months, but I remember reading the specs and not being impressed, as usual, when I compared it to Sony. At that time I just bought a Sony rx1rm2 to tide me over. The last time Nikon impressed me was the 36mp d800E, which was the last Nikon body I ever owned. It was when they moved manufacturing that I realized they were _probably _done, and would end up the next Ricoh or Pentax, making a few cameras for extreme fans, but making nothing really innovating or industry-changing.
> I would love to be wrong on this, but Nikon is going to need to make major changes if they still want that market share they once had in their glory days.


No need to feel bad for me. Nor was I suckered into Nikon. The Nikon Z5 at $899 is such a better deal than the Canon RP at a similar price. If Canon would have put the R's sensor in the RP, then there might be a reason to stick with Canon at that price point, but the Z5's images are superior for anything in low light (and quite frankly better in any light). The Z5 with the 24-200mm f/4 gives me better image quality than the Canon R6 and the RF 24-105, in my opinion. If choosing between Nikon and Sony, well, I have tried Sony and I am never going back there again! With Nikon I have the advantage of the Sony sensor, but don't have the awful Sony ergonomics and all the other Sony manufacturing shortcuts. For wildlife I use an Olympus E-m1 II, so don't need the well respected Sony AF for fast moving subjects. Had a chance to use the Canon R6 for a couple weeks, but for the current price, I was able to get both the Nikon Z5, Z50 and the 24-200mm lens used. If that's being suckered, I will willingly be suckered anytime.

Of course, every camera's specs may be - or may not be - what each photographer needs or is looking for. I was looking for an inexpensive FF camera with good low light performance, 2 card slots, and most importantly smaller, lighter lenses. Canon is not offering those things at the moment.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 25, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> I was a big fan of Nikon mirrorless after years with Nikon DSLRs (back to the D100). Z6 was a delight. But... Canon was producing great lenses and Nikon's are ho-hum. The deal-breaker was the 70-200, with Canon's amazing compact form compared to Nikon's horse's leg. I did love the Z24-70 f4, except for the irritant that it was non-functional in its normal compact position.
> 
> I'm thrilled to be able to screw on and off lenses the right way after decades of Nikon, but am still struggling to get the zoom direction right each time.


The fact that Nikon does everything backwards is the most annoying part about switching from Canon! And my other camera is an Olympus - which does everything in Canon's direction. So I am really confused now!


----------



## stevelee (Jun 25, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> The fact that Nikon does everything backwards is the most annoying part about switching from Canon! And my other camera is an Olympus - which does everything in Canon's direction. So I am really confused now!


The traditional advice for new users to choose between Nikon and Canon: try both, and pick whichever one has things turn in a way that feels right to you.


----------



## todddominey (Jun 27, 2021)

This looks like a FANTASTIC lens for landscape photography. Wouldn't need an aperture larger than f/4, plus support for 14mm full frame wide angle with support for threaded filters! I was considering the 15-35mm f/2.8 for this same purpose, but I'll be picking this beauty up instead. Hope it comes out quick, I have a trip coming up.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 28, 2021)

stevelee said:


> The traditional advice for new users to choose between Nikon and Canon: try both, and pick whichever one has things turn in a way that feels right to you.


That's great until some poor dumb bastard thinks Canon is right about how to insert and lock lenses but wrong about zoom. Or vice versa.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2021)

SteveC said:


> That's great until some poor dumb bastard thinks Canon is right about how to insert and lock lenses but wrong about zoom. Or vice versa.


I have a blender that is also designed to make smoothies directly in dedicated, insulated cups. So the cup lids thread on normally, the blade assembly threads onto the cups (which we don’t use) and thus the standard pitcher (which we do use) in reverse.

I hate that blender. I’ll stick with Canon.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 28, 2021)

New image per Nokishita, confirming the front elements are in fact still 77mm!


----------



## stefang (Jun 28, 2021)

Size and weight are very comparable to my 17-40 F/4. Very nice for 3mm extra at the wide end and IS. I hope the price will be reasonable...


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 28, 2021)

Almost 0.4 reproduction ratio. That's almost "macro" in Canon terms for f/4 L lenses. 

One of my favorites, my Laowa 15mm f/4 macro (true macro at 100 percent), could be replaced by this as I almost never use it at that strong a magnification, because it would require the subject to be a few millimeters from the end of the lens.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 28, 2021)

Canon makes my dreams come true. 14mm at the wide end, 77mm filter, 0.2m focusing distance, IS, relatively compact size... Is there any compomise besides the construction, that goes in and out (which I don't realy mind)? Let's hope its price is not too crazy


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 28, 2021)

Traveler said:


> Canon makes my dreams come true. 14mm at the wide end, 77mm filter, 0.2m focusing distance, IS, relatively compact size..


Same here  All I hoped for has been confirmed so far, I don't even about the weight anymore

Noooooow please Canon, make it available in 2021!!!! Just take my money and let me have it


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 28, 2021)

It's the right size & weight for me . Assuming that the IQ is at the usual RF L lens level, that only leaves the price point to be below 1400 to shift it from buy to 'must buy'.


----------



## JordanCS13 (Jun 28, 2021)

Size and weight and front filters look amazing....but a few things before I'm ready to swap out my exceptional Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8:

1) Image quality - this thing will need to be outstanding. There is no reason for Canon to skimp here given the current climate for lenses - with Tamron releasing small, affordable f/2.8 ultra wides that are sharp to the corners, Nikon with their excellent 14-30 for the Z system and Sony with their excellent 12-24mm f/4, this lens needs to be sharp across the frame throughout the focal range.

2) Flare resistance. This has been a weakness of a lot of recent Canon lenses, so hopefully things look good here.

3) How wide is the 14mm? You may think that's a bit of an odd question, but according to the patent, the actual focal length was 14.8mm, so calling it 14mm is being a little generous. Would be curious to see the width compared to my 14-24mm, as well as some 14mm primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2021)

JordanCS13 said:


> 3) How wide is the 14mm? You may think that's a bit of an odd question, but according to the patent, the actual focal length was 14.8mm, so calling it 14mm is being a little generous.


Rounding 14.8mm to 14mm would, IMO, be unethical. However, it's important to note that specific lenses are not patented, optical formulae are, and also that most patents contain many such formulae so it may be the one you've seen that looks like a 15-35/4 is not the one on which this 14-35/4 lens is based. Nor is it a requirement that a lens be based on a patent.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 28, 2021)

Rear filter mount?!

I want a way to mount filters near the sensor - I know there are some? But its a new thing...

I hope it will cost under 1500€ ...  news lenses are so heavily expensive. I have already the 16-35 4.0L IS.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 28, 2021)

stevelee said:


> The traditional advice for new users to choose between Nikon and Canon: try both, and pick whichever one has things turn in a way that feels right to you.


The good thing about Canon for me is that all the lenses Mount the right way but only the zoom lenses operate the wrong way.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 28, 2021)

I previously posted that I'd prefer a small 18-28 f/2.8 IS, and I'd still prefer that, but the small size and low weight of this f/4 could make me a believer.


----------



## Diltiazem (Jun 28, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Looks like it is practically the same size as the RF 24-105L assuming a 77mm filter thread.
> View attachment 198514


It weighs 540 gm, 24-105 weighs 700 gm.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jun 28, 2021)

JordanCS13 said:


> Size and weight and front filters look amazing....but a few things before I'm ready to swap out my exceptional Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8:
> 
> 1) Image quality - this thing will need to be outstanding.
> 
> ...


4) or 1.1) My only concern is vignetting, which affects several recent lenses.
If vignetting disappears at 15-16mm or stopping down to F/8.0, it's an issue only for the inevitable Youtube clickbait.

5) Price in USD and in Eur. We'll see soon.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 28, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> With the RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS and the 14-35 f/4 IS, I wonder how Canon will slot in a 14mm prime. I hope Canon goes like sigma with a 14mm f/1.8 rather than like its overpriced EF 14mm f/2.8. And hopefully, it'll be designed for minimal coma.


One solution would be to introduce a 13mm prime (on a Friday)




.


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 28, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> It weighs 540 gm, 24-105 weighs 700 gm.


Indeed, but I was referring to size, which the 14-35, being about 7mm shorter, is pretty close. My image comparison is definitely not accurate, though both 24-105 and 14-35 would occupy about the same volume in a bag.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 28, 2021)

It's clear that ordering the first day (or hour, or minute) is the best way to assure that one get high-demand product in the first batch, usually the first day. Avoids months of waiting for hits like the R5, and the 100-500.

Besides checking in here and elsewhere occasionally, what's the best way to avoid missing out on the announcement of the release, and the oopening up of ordering by retailers? With the R5 there was a live announcement that was the starting gun (and might well have been open for orders prior), but other items might not have a pre-announced announcement time. Any good lists to be on? Frankly, BH ought to have such a thing to tell me the instant it's open for me to buy from them, or in advance.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 28, 2021)

noms78 said:


> are you saying the rf 24-70 f/2.8 vignettes more then the ef 24-70 f/2.8 ii? i thought the rf glass was at least as good as the ef.


Yeah, it does and not only that, the lens correction profiles in lightroom don't completely eliminate it. Great otherwise but it's a bit of a pain if you like shooting wide apertures.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 28, 2021)

wockawocka said:


> Yeah, it does and not only that, the lens correction profiles in lightroom don't completely eliminate it. Great otherwise but it's a bit of a pain if you like shooting wide apertures.


One of the issues is that the amount of vignette depends on the focus distance, which I don't think LR handles. DPP4 does.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 28, 2021)

And at least in ACR you can add manual corrections on top of the ones from profiles.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 28, 2021)

SteveC said:


> That's great until some poor dumb bastard thinks Canon is right about how to insert and lock lenses but wrong about zoom. Or vice versa.


This PDB knows Canon is right, but spent too many decades zooming the other way to quickly unlearn the reflex.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Jun 28, 2021)

I wonder how much it will cost, but probably, seeing the way that L lenses are getting, no less than two grand. The 28-70 f2 deserves every euro that it costs and I love it, lets see this new one in IQ.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 28, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> This PDB knows Canon is right, but spent too many decades zooming the other way to quickly unlearn the reflex.


Never was with Nikon, but the zoom just seems backwards to me. But lenses follow righty-tighty lefty-loosey.

(Yes, that means I too am a PDB.)


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 29, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Never was with Nikon, but the zoom just seems backwards to me. But lenses follow righty-tighty lefty-loosey.
> 
> (Yes, that means I too am a PDB.)


When I drive the screw “in” (clockwise) I expect things to be closer. I’m begging anyone for a powerful explanation for the reverse I can use to reprogram my brain.


----------



## jdavidse (Jun 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> When I drive the screw “in” (clockwise) I expect things to be closer. I’m begging anyone for a powerful explanation for the reverse I can use to reprogram my brain.


The numbers on top of the lens go to small to large left to right, just like the way you read left to right. Forget the screw analogy. Heck, forget thinking about rotation direction at all. Just tell your brain that left side of the barrel is small number and right side is large number. By turning the ring you are just moving across a page.


----------



## exige24 (Jun 29, 2021)

If it's a wide f4 zoom, it better be 9 or 10mm to 24mm. Get this turd out of here. Lol


----------



## rgp (Jun 29, 2021)

The RF 14-35 lens is up for preorder on B&H website, $1699


----------



## danfaz (Jun 29, 2021)

Canon officially announced on IG


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 29, 2021)

Having watched the release video it looks like a really nice lens, a worthy successor to the EF16-35 f4 is. Video shooters are going to love the lack of focus breathing!


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 29, 2021)

There is a video on B&H YouTube channel too.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jun 29, 2021)

Just announced, with a price point at $1,699 usd. Jesus Christ. I was hoping for closer to $1,200. I am stunned that it’s only $400 less than the 15-35 f/2.8. Bummer.


----------



## jeanluc (Jun 29, 2021)

Preordered!

I have the 15-35, and love it. This will be for space and weight constrained travel. Since I shoot mainly landscapes, the extra 1 mm will be nice too.

Thanks to those who put up the info that Preordering was open on B & H; I greatly appreciate it!


----------



## deleteme (Jun 29, 2021)

JordanCS13 said:


> 3) How wide is the 14mm? You may think that's a bit of an odd question, but according to the patent, the actual focal length was 14.8mm, so calling it 14mm is being a little generous. Would be curious to see the width compared to my 14-24mm, as well as some 14mm primes.


Good point.
My experience is that the zooms of various manufacturers have different ideas of focal length.
My Tamron 28-75 was shorter at 75 than my Canon 70-200 at 70. I was scolded by many online that that was the way things are.
IMO that is nonsense as the camera enthusiast and professional market obsess over published specs and treat them as gospel.
I am thinking that the Sigma may not be quite as wide as you think or maybe the Canon will not be. Its a toss-up. Frankly, the markings out to be accurate. If the Canon is really 14.8mm then that makes significant difference while at longer FLs a 1 or 2 mm difference is negligible.


----------



## Dj 7th (Jun 29, 2021)

Looks like a very nice lens, I was hoping it would be about 1200 though. Looks like I will stay with my RF15-35 f/2.8 and deal with the weight.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 29, 2021)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Just announced, with a price point at $1,699 usd. Jesus Christ. I was hoping for closer to $1,200. I am stunned that it’s only $400 less than the 15-35 f/2.8. Bummer.


$600


----------



## GMAX (Jun 29, 2021)

It comes with a price tag about 1.819EUR incl. tax here in Germany - seems that I keep my EF16-35 4.0 for a looong time


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jun 29, 2021)

Pre order on B&H, $1,700.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jun 29, 2021)

Same



GMAX said:


> It comes with a price tag about 1.819EUR incl. tax here in Germany - seems that I keep my EF16-35 4.0 for a looong time


----------



## pzyber (Jun 29, 2021)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Just announced, with a price point at $1,699 usd. Jesus Christ. I was hoping for closer to $1,200. I am stunned that it’s only $400 less than the 15-35 f/2.8. Bummer.


Well at least better then the Swedish price of $1,899 USD (excluding the 25% VAT).
EF 16-35 is a bargain with it's $1,030 USD here ($979 USD at launch).


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 29, 2021)

GMAX said:


> It comes with a price tag about 1.819EUR incl. tax here in Germany - seems that I keep my EF16-35 4.0 for a looong time


€1849 here in .nl. With the new RF100 in pre-order, my 17-40L be safe from replacement for a few years more


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 29, 2021)

Canon are certainly owning the low volume, high margin approach to pricing aren’t they?


----------



## stefang (Jun 29, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> €1849 here in .nl. With the new RF100 in pre-order, my 17-40L be safe from replacement for a few years more


I'm in the same boat. My 17-40 is still going strong and adding €1500 to it for a trade-in towards this 14-35 is just too steep for me.
Now lets hope that the second hand market will see some nice 16-35 F/4's appear.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 29, 2021)

"Preordered" (arranged to be on the waiting list) on last Friday.

A little more expensive than I hoped, but still OK.


----------



## fentiger (Jun 29, 2021)

£1749 in the UK 
RF stands for require funding


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 29, 2021)

I will just pick up an used 16-35 F4 for £600 + drop-in filter adapter. A bit extra weight but half the price.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 29, 2021)

fentiger said:


> £1749 in the UK
> RF stands for require funding


Once again Canon is price gouging the UK by 10% relative to the EU (and to repeat earlier stuff, Nikon and Sony don't do this, it's a genuine rip off). RF stands for Rip-off For-us. Fortunately, we have honest grey market sellers.


----------



## RF_specialist (Jun 29, 2021)

*The Canon RF 14-35mm F4.0 L USM was announced today by Canon USA:




*


----------



## padam (Jun 29, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I will just pick up an used 16-35 F4 for £600 + drop-in filter adapter. A bit extra weight but half the price.


It is not just the size and weight, 14 is a lot wider than 16.


----------



## fentiger (Jun 29, 2021)

I do wonder what the price of the R3 is going to be, I predicted earlier that it would be £5500.
Im not so sure now, and in light of this lens price think the R3 could be closer to £6000.


----------



## Fischer (Jun 29, 2021)

The suggested price is just 420 USD less than my current best price for the RF 15-35mm. I'd wait and hope the price comes down somewhat. YMMV.


----------



## Fischer (Jun 29, 2021)

fentiger said:


> I do wonder what the price of the R3 is going to be, I predicted earlier that it would be £5500.
> Im not so sure now, and in light of this lens price think the R3 could be closer to £6000.


Better to sell more cameras up front than lenses down the line. That R3 will be wanting some glass to go along.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 29, 2021)

Cmam said:


> I do not think so. The focal range of 22-56mm (full-frame eq.) would be indeed useful, but not for the expected prise and bulk of this lens.


With the quoted price I have to agree with you. Far too expensive for this.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 29, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> Good point.
> My experience is that the zooms of various manufacturers have different ideas of focal length.
> My Tamron 28-75 was shorter at 75 than my Canon 70-200 at 70. I was scolded by many online that that was the way things are.
> IMO that is nonsense as the camera enthusiast and professional market obsess over published specs and treat them as gospel.
> I am thinking that the Sigma may not be quite as wide as you think or maybe the Canon will not be. Its a toss-up. Frankly, the markings out to be accurate. If the Canon is really 14.8mm then that makes significant difference while at longer FLs a 1 or 2 mm difference is negligible.


At least the TV makers will specify with precision the actual display dimension of their “75 inch class” TV.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 29, 2021)

Pricing feels like the pricing for the 70-200 zooms. Close enough that anyone tempted by the faster big one will go for it.
But if it’s truly 7% wider measured linearly then the f4 has its own argument. But if that matters then the 10-24 is the one to await.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 29, 2021)

Looks to be a nice lens, but I am surprised to see that in the US it is only $600 less than the 15-35 mm f2.8 lens. I anticipated that the 14-35 mm f4 would have been significantly less. For landscape photographers I can see this being a great wide angle zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> Good point.
> My experience is that the zooms of various manufacturers have different ideas of focal length.
> My Tamron 28-75 was shorter at 75 than my Canon 70-200 at 70. I was scolded by many online that that was the way things are.
> IMO that is nonsense as the camera enthusiast and professional market obsess over published specs and treat them as gospel.
> I am thinking that the Sigma may not be quite as wide as you think or maybe the Canon will not be. Its a toss-up. Frankly, the markings out to be accurate. If the Canon is really 14.8mm then that makes significant difference while at longer FLs a 1 or 2 mm difference is negligible.


manufacturers don’t have different ideas of focal length, that’s a physical property and rounding can only get you so far from the value printed on the lens. The actual focal range will be close to the specified focal range. A Canon 14-35 lens is not going to be 14.8mm at the wide end. 14.2mm, possibly.

The thing to keep in mind is that lens focal length is specified with the lens focused at infinity. Lenses exhibit varying degrees of focus breathing, which results in a shorter focal length as the lens is focused closer. Zooms generally suffer more from focus breathing than primes, and it’s often better corrected in more expensive lenses.

As an example, the Canon 100L Macro IS lens is 100mm at infinity, but at the minimum focus distance (1:1 magnification), it’s focal length
only 68mm.

One reason cine lenses are so expensive is minimal focus breathing, so focus can be pulled in a scene without the framing changing.

So, your Tamron 28-75mm is probably something like 28.4-73.5mm, but has a fair bit of focus breathing.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 29, 2021)

jdavidse said:


> The numbers on top of the lens go to small to large left to right, just like the way you read left to right. Forget the screw analogy. Heck, forget thinking about rotation direction at all. Just tell your brain that left side of the barrel is small number and right side is large number. By turning the ring you are just moving across a page.


Thanks, I'll really try to program my brain to think of it that way. I may just have needed a model or way to frame the thinking to train myself.


----------



## Rumours not rumors (Jun 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> "16 elements in 12 grounds"


When did lens groups turn into grounds???


----------



## stevelee (Jun 30, 2021)

Don’t they still grind lenses?


----------



## deleteme (Jul 2, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> manufacturers don’t have different ideas of focal length, that’s a physical property and rounding can only get you so far from the value printed on the lens. The actual focal range will be close to the specified focal range. A Canon 14-35 lens is not going to be 14.8mm at the wide end. 14.2mm, possibly.
> 
> The thing to keep in mind is that lens focal length is specified with the lens focused at infinity. Lenses exhibit varying degrees of focus breathing, which results in a shorter focal length as the lens is focused closer. Zooms generally suffer more from focus breathing than primes, and it’s often better corrected in more expensive lenses.
> 
> ...


I compared the Tamron to my Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS at infinity.


----------



## Michael T (Aug 27, 2021)

I preordered the RF 14-35 RF right after the announcement from B&H. It will be here on Monday. Now if I can just get an R3. I am a convert from Nikon after 47 years. Kind of ironic that I have no Canon RF body yet, just lenses!!


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 25, 2021)

Did no one post any reviews of this. The price is just too much, would buy an EF one and adaptor.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 25, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Did no one post any reviews of this. The price is just too much, would buy an EF one and adaptor.


It's hard to fully review this lens right now because it's not supported in Lightroom, and I refuse to use Canon DPP software to edit any of my actual work. What I can say so far from my experience with the lens this past month or so, roughly, is that this lens is worth the price for me. The only negative attributes to this lens are its price and the uncorrected distortion (which actually comes with a tangible strength). The list of positives is extremely lengthly and, at least for me, help justify the price. I'm currently using the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 lens profile for distortion correction and it works really well for images shot wider than 17mm, but it's not perfect and over-corrects beyond that....so I(we) really need an Adobe profile because it's how I work.

From a sharpness standpoint, this is a very VERY sharp lens - all the way into the corners wide open, I don't know where people are getting off saying it's not sharp because they've clearly had no experience with it. 14mm is extremely useful and I personally have been wanting something just a little bit wider and almost jumped on the 15-35...but I'm glad I waited. The minimum focusing distance is also very useful. The flare control is brilliant and takes on a very beautiful aesthetic that I honestly think looks like a prime lens. The image stabilization paired with the R5/R6 is rock solid and bests my 24-105...but it's also wide, so it should. Size and weight...wow, thank you Canon - it's perfect!

Let's talk about these "negatives" because they are directly linked, IMO.

At this price, which I admit is higher than I believe it should be, you would expect and should expect an optically perfect lens. We didn't get that here...Canon made obvious compromises in the design to allow the use for screw-on filters...and I'm OK with that. I refuse to buy bulbous front element lenses. But because of these compromises, the lens requires correction in post to work correctly. It was designed from the ground up for this and uses some of the best quality glass in the world to compensate for the "stretching" that will occur in software or in camera for JPEGs. There are THREE Aspherical elements in the design, two are glass-moulded and these are not cheap to produce in addition to the coatings. Canon threw the kitchen sink at this thing to make sure the optical performance survived correction with minimal deterioration. This design comes with a really great benefit - 14mm wide-angle shots with a 77mm CPL or ND filter WITHOUT seeing the filter vignette. This is possible because the corners are essentially thrown away. A common misconception with this lens is that it's a 16mm after correction, this is totally incorrect. This is more realistically a 12mm lens that "flattens" out to a 14mm lens. The worst parts of the image are removed and you're only left with the good stuff.

If you can pay the price and use wide angle lenses on a tripod a lot like me, I don't think there is a better option out there for Canon. I can't wait to unload my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM on the used market because this lens is everything I need and more for my work.

The price is wrong. The performance is world-class.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 25, 2021)

I'm very happy with the lens. I use DPP and place considerable value on size , weight, the additional width at the short end, and lack of need for a converter. It does seem over priced, but I also see it holding it's long term value better than a similar EF lens.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 27, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Did no one post any reviews of this. The price is just too much, would buy an EF one and adaptor.


I'd say the price was correct for the launch, given that the lens is still on backorder in major shops.

As to the performance, the lens is great when/if you can use DPP; I'm still waiting for Adobe to add the lens profile to ACR. A minor annoyance is the placement of the zoom ring, poorly suited for people with big hands.


----------

