# Review: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 17, 2021)

> Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his full review of the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM which was announced this past June and will begin shipping in limited quantities this month.
> From The-Digital-Picture
> The first question on my comparison list was: How does the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens compare to the RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens?
> … In the image quality comparison equalized at f/4, the two lenses are similar overall, with each having some advantages at specific focal lengths. The f/4 lens has dramatically stronger geometric distortion and has stronger lateral CA. The f/2.8 has stronger peripheral shading in most equalized comparisons.
> … As I said at the beginning of the review, the...



Continue reading...


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 17, 2021)

That strong forced distortion correction at 14mm is really shocking. For $1699 I would expect a lens without such a heavy distortion.


----------



## t.linn (Aug 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That strong forced distortion correction at 14mm is really shocking. For $1699 I would expect a lens without such a heavy distortion.


And yet the output is very impressive.


----------



## t.linn (Aug 17, 2021)

Bryan’s reviews are always thorough. This one is no exception. It is excellent.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 17, 2021)

t.linn said:


> And yet the output is very impressive.


Maybe, but the difference between a cheap and an expensive lens always was that you need less correction at the expensive lens. Of course today Lightroom and other software handles cromatic aberration quite well for example, but with a good lens it should be lower in the first place. Same with flares and distortion. If I need artificial intelligence to correct it, it should not be that expensive. I own the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and it has much less distortion, but only costs half the price. I hope some reviewer will make a comparison between those lenses.

Of course the IS is quite nice. 7 stops of compensation helps a lot in Dubai, where you need a written permission to use a tripod in many areas, as even the streets are owned by developers there. The same is true in more and more cities. More than one second of exposure and still sharp image means I could take handheld night shots at f/4 with ISO 400 or even lower.


----------



## fox40phil (Aug 17, 2021)

@Bryan

Why are the comparison shots like here (14-35 vs. 15-35) or vs. Sigma 14 1.8 etc.. not like the example shots from the review?
It seems, that those comparison shots of the new 14-35 are complete perfect (with DPP correction)? And then the stretched shot from the review is anything else then perfect?
So are the comparison shots corrected (only the 14-35?) and the one from the review is not - like the text mean.


----------



## Joules (Aug 17, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> @Bryan
> 
> Why are the comparison shots like here (14-35 vs. 15-35) or vs. Sigma 14 1.8 etc.. not like the example shots from the review?
> It seems, that those comparison shots of the new 14-35 are complete perfect (with DPP correction)? And then the stretched shot from the review is anything else then perfect?
> ...


Looks like in the comparison tool, the corrections are not forced off. Note that for example the RF 24-240 mm lens also has its corrections applied.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 17, 2021)

Yes, that is quite strange. Why does Bryan use a corrected image for the distortion comparison? Of course if the corrections are turned on, there is no distortion at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Yes, that is quite strange. Why does Bryan use a corrected image for the distortion comparison? Of course if the corrections are turned on, there is no distortion at all.


His standard workflow involves shooting RAW and converting with defined settings using DPP. So, if DPP has forced corrections, those corrections will be applied for the comparison tool images.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 17, 2021)

That is cheating by Canon. I wonder how that can be legal. 

What will happen if you do not use DPP, but Lightroom instead? Will the distortion be visible or will Canon produce a fake RAW to hide the distortion?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That is cheating by Canon. I wonder how that can be legal.
> 
> What will happen if you do not use DPP, but Lightroom instead? Will the distortion be visible or will Canon produce a fake RAW to hide the distortion?


We already know what will happen, since Bryan posted RAW files opened in Capture One that show the uncorrected distortion. If you have the lens profile installed in C1, LR, etc., then the distortion will be automatically corrected. 

The difference is that in DPP, you can not turn the correction off.


----------



## aceflibble (Aug 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I wonder how that can be legal.
> 
> What will happen if you do not use DPP, but Lightroom instead? Will the distortion be visible or will Canon produce a fake RAW to hide the distortion?


1) Because they don't claim it is corrected optically. If Canon wrote "this lens is corrected for distortion optically and does not rely on software correction" then yes, this would be illegal; that's the very definition of false advertising. But they don't say that. All they say in their advertising is that it has "excellent optical performance". Since they don't specify distortion, just optics in general, they're technically above-board.
If someone wanted to build a case with trading standards against Canon's advertising, they'd be better off going after the 85mm f/2 IS (which Canon still claims is both "compact" and has "quiet" AF, which anyone who's so much as glanced at it knows are two completely erroneous claims). Even then, that's more indiciative of a wider industry problem than anything specific to Canon. Every manufacturer needs to shape up. (If you think Canon's advertising is misleading, go check out Fujifilm, oh boy.)

2) Lightroom's adherence to Canon's opcodes is pretty random. With some lens and body combinations Lightroom will follow Canon's adjustments, and with other combos Lightroom does entirely its own thing. Capture One more consistently follows Canon's opcodes, though still not every time as Bryan has demonstrated with his particular lens. If you want to have all the corrections, using a manufacturer's own software is always the most accurate solution, though it's very rare for Lightroom to not recieve a 99.9% accurate profile within a couple of weeks of a lens being on store shelves. DxO's Pure Raw is also very good for correction distortion and much better than DPP for cleaning up noise at the same time, though it does result in files twice as large and it's not really worth buying unless you're dead-set on having the most absolutely 100% perfectly-corrected files possible. Raw Therapee is the best software for totally bypassing any opcodes and seeing the raw file as 'raw' as possible.

By the way, every raw is a "fake raw". The R5 has opcodes for noise reduction and exposure boosting, hiding the fact its real sensitivity is much lower than it states. Sony raws have opcodes for sharpening and saturation boosts. Fuji raws have opcodes for damn well everything and anything you can name, but most notably extremely strong chromatic noise reduction. Nikon raws have opcodes for distortion, noise _and_ sharpening, though generally (varies by camera model) to a lesser extent than Sony's sharpening or Fuji's and Canon's noise reduction. I've not pulled apart raw files form Panasonic or Olympus in a good while but I'm willing to bet their files are full of opcodes for all kinds of hidden adjustments, too. There's not actually any such thing as a truely "raw" file. Any raw file you look at has been through_ some_ form of processing, which at the bare minimum includes a subjective evaluation of colour and contrast just in order to turn all the 1s and 0s into a picture you can actually see. Raw Therapee can show you a file without demosiacing and opcodes, but then you just get a pixelated mess which you really can't use. 



Anyway. 


This does still take the piss quite a bit considering how much more expensive this is than the EF equivalent. They're charging £1750 for this, while the EF f/4L IS is £999 (and of course much less used) and third-party equivalents are cheaper again. Granted, this 14-35 is the (fractionally) smaller than the EF and gives you an extra 2mm, but I've never been in a situation where 16mm wasn't already too wide and it's not like the EF lens was ever prohibitively large or heavy. (And there's the Tamron f/2.8-4 which is even smaller and lighter than the RF lens, granted with 3mm less on the widest end.)
For this lens to justify costing 80% more it had to _really_ deliver, and this doesn't seem to, regardless of whether it's relying on software or not. I'm not seeing any extra resolving power here and Bryan's testing demonstrates more fringing than the EF lens even with all the corrections, slightly more vignetting, more flare wash-out, _and _more distortion... nah, that's not a £1750 lens. I don't care that it's 100g lighter and 1cm shorter, nor do I care that it brings with it an extra 2mm. (Though looking at these results I'm betting it's not a full 14mm, at least not after such heavy correction.) Those elements I'd pay, at most, £150-200 more for, given the end results are about the same quality. £750 extra is a bad, bad joke.

Buy the EF (or the Tamron), and spend the saved money on a trip somewhere you'll actually get use out of the lens, or get some really nice ND filters, or just pocket it and save it for the next lens. Nobody should be paying £1750 for this and I feel very sorry for the poor saps who blindly pre-ordered. Hopefully people will learn, stop pre-ordering lenses, and force manufacturers to actually deliver some real value. These are £999 results in a £1750 shell... just don't do it. Don't. This is silly.


So much for mirrorless providing better optimisation for wide-angle lenses. It's bizarre and somewhat ironic that its been telephoto which has benefitted most since the move to mirrorless, even though telephoto formulas don't actually benefit from the shorter flange distance.


----------



## benpisati (Aug 17, 2021)

Canon is making very compact lenses, very good. But I think he should pay more attention to ergonomics, specially for professional customers, the three rings seem to be one, especially AF and MF, it's really easy to get confused. Same goes for the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4. I would like to have a large zoom ring well spaced from the others.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 18, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> So much for mirrorless providing better optimisation for wide-angle lenses. It's bizarre and somewhat ironic that its been telephoto which has benefitted most since the move to mirrorless, even though telephoto formulas don't actually benefit from the shorter flange distance.


And yet it should be remembered that the actual review ends up concluding _"the RF 14-35’s image quality is excellent (I’ll get over the strong barrel distortion aspect), the Nano USM AF system is silent, high-speed, and accurate, and the L-series build quality promises to hold up to the rigors of constant use." _

It's at a price level beyond what I need, but that price is pre- the eventual discounting, and provides 'L' build quality in a native RF mount (and full access to IS) for those who do need it. For everyone else, the EF equivalent, or third-parties, are almost certainly better options.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 18, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Maybe, but the difference between a cheap and an expensive lens *always* was that you need less correction at the expensive lens. Of course today Lightroom and other software handles cromatic aberration quite well for example, but with a good lens it should be lower in the first place. Same with flares and distortion. If I need artificial intelligence to correct it, it should not be that expensive. I own the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and it has much less distortion, but only costs half the price. I hope some reviewer will make a comparison between those lenses.
> 
> Of course the IS is quite nice. 7 stops of compensation helps a lot in Dubai, where you need a written permission to use a tripod in many areas, as even the streets are owned by developers there. The same is true in more and more cities. More than one second of exposure and still sharp image means I could take handheld night shots at f/4 with ISO 400 or even lower.


“Always”. Not a good angle.
I judge by the image that I get not the one I have to struggle to obtain. Welcome to the present.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 18, 2021)

It’s just hard for me to get over the ugly reality that before it was the impeccably sharp and distortion free image I can view and enjoy, it used to be a bunch of ugly electrons!


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Aug 18, 2021)

I would like to know the actual focal length at the wide end after taking into account the loss of view caused by the distortion correction. It seems if you are forcing a correction onto the file that the focal length should be the equivalent of 14mm AFTER the correction. I have a feeling this is not the case with this lens.

Dissapointing to see this approach in such an expensive lens...


----------



## deleteme (Aug 18, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Maybe, but the difference between a cheap and an expensive lens always was that you need less correction at the expensive lens. Of course today Lightroom and other software handles cromatic aberration quite well for example, but with a good lens it should be lower in the first place. Same with flares and distortion. If I need artificial intelligence to correct it, it should not be that expensive. I own the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and it has much less distortion, but only costs half the price. I hope some reviewer will make a comparison between those lenses.
> 
> Of course the IS is quite nice. 7 stops of compensation helps a lot in Dubai, where you need a written permission to use a tripod in many areas, as even the streets are owned by developers there. The same is true in more and more cities. More than one second of exposure and still sharp image means I could take handheld night shots at f/4 with ISO 400 or even lower.


I think that last mm on the wide end plus the other compromises result in that distortion.
Also, I feel that the Tamron is very nice but maybe not quite as sharp (I have no idea) but the real point being that the last increment of performance is very hard to see in so many cases.
The most frequent source of our disappointment comes from user error.


----------



## BBarn (Aug 18, 2021)

I guess only individuals should be allowed the use of image modification software.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 18, 2021)

I've read the review and I have a lot of thoughts about this lens...and a lot of skin in the game, as I have TWO of them pre-ordered. I don't plan to keep both of them, but I'm desperate to lose the RF adaptor on my EF 16-35 f/2.8III as soon as humanly possible because I hate using it that way...it's obnoxiously long and I am not someone that holds too much value in f/2.8 for an ultra-wide.

Several months ago someone commented on the announcement of this lens and they joked that it would have loads of mandatory digital lens correction. I didn't think that was possible and I said that it was something I could see with their "silver ring" lenses, but never something I could see them doing with an L-series lens...boy was I wrong. But guess what? I looked through the sample images FIRST and then began to read the details on the lens and I had absolutely no idea significant correction was occurring because the lens was sharp as a tack. I'm not too thrilled with the handling of chromatic aberrations either...to be honest, I'm not overly thrilled with a lot of elements in the lenses I own but they best serve the job I need them to.

This is a very small lens. So small, in fact, that I am willing to forgive some of these perceived flaws because it will bring down the size/weight of Canon's ultra-wide lens options tremendously. If you don't value size and weight, then why are you even considering an f/4 lens? Go buy the f/2.8 and stop acting like anything slower than f/2.8 has no place in your bag at any price. LOL

I'm desperate for this lens. I am DONE adapting my EF ultra-wide and I'm eager to get to work with this thing. Is it perfect? No...and the RF 15-35 has some major flaws of its own - just like every other manufacturer's ultra-wide lenses. This, however, is the smallest and lightest I have ever seen, takes a 77mm filter and will be joining my camera bag by the end fo the month.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> ...will be joining my camera bag by the end fo the month.


I hope so. Canon's recent track record of shipping lenses has not been stellar.


----------



## AJ (Aug 18, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> It’s just hard for me to get over the ugly reality that before it was the impeccably sharp and distortion free image I can view and enjoy, it used to be a bunch of ugly electrons!


And prior to that the image consisted of a bunch of hideous photons!


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 18, 2021)

Also, I would like to add that I thought the lens was a little overpriced before. But now I think it’s significantly overpriced. What a shame. But jokes on me as I will keep mine ordered and use it basically every day and nobody will know it has these flaws but me.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I hope so. Canon's recent track record of shipping lenses has not been stellar.


Haha indeed. Hence why I ordered one for B&H and Adorama just a couple minutes after each other. Whoever gets it to me first wins my money.


----------



## CC88 (Aug 18, 2021)

Hope to see soon on sale. Can’t wait to have it.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 18, 2021)

RF 4.0 14-35: No adaptors, compact, 2 extra-mm, AF well suited for video
EF 4.0 16-35: Works on all Canon cameras, much cheaper, less distortion (!), can be used with C70 (C50?) as ultra wide with .71x-Adapter ...

Not easy to make decisions for the long term - maybe I should give up, sell all my gear and start from scratch ...


----------



## dominic_siu (Aug 18, 2021)

I may need to reconsider if I would buy this lens after reading through Bryan’s review.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 18, 2021)

I wonder if the lens could be corrected optically if it was larger and heavier. Maybe a large curved front element would help. Why do some 14mm or 15mm lenses have a such an etreme front element that does not allow regular filters, but others have not? Is one optical formula better than the other?

So is the RF 14-35 even wider than 14mm uncorrected?


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 18, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I wonder if the lens could be corrected optically if it was larger and heavier. Maybe a large curved front element would help. Why do some 14mm or 15mm lenses have a such an etreme front element that does not allow regular filters, but others have not? Is one optical formula better than the other?
> 
> So is the RF 14-35 even wider than 14mm uncorrected?


I think it is always a compromise between all lens errors: sharpness/res/contrast (including CA, LOCA, coma) is IMO the main design criterion. The next two are distortion + vignetting, then comes bokeh + sunstars.
Just take a look at an ultra wides lens without back cap from the front, use a brighter background to see the aperture. If you look straight into the lens, you see a small aperture which increases if you look at greater angles into the lens - helps against vignetting. For that, a bulbous front element helps, it bends the light stronger and the effective aperture for the image corners is larger.
But it makes lenses bigger, heavier, more expensive and sometimes denys the use of standard filters.

I think there is a movement in technology to optimize hardware AND post processing in conjunction. With today's dynamic range (is it an allowed term anymore  correcting vignetting isn't that problematic and with a high res cam it is easy to correct the distortion but you always loose image quality AND image field (or effective mm) if you use distortion correction.

That is one of the reasons I will stay with the EF-S 10-22 which is maybe not the sharpest lens in terms of resolution while maybe good enough for 4k but it has low distortion, very good contrast/color and reasonable flare resistance.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 18, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> I think there is a movement in technology to optimize hardware AND post processing in conjunction.


That sounds that the manufacturers do not have to bother about errors so much anymore, because post processing can correct that later. That is a very bad developement, because if the lens was great in the first place, it could still be improved by post processing. So a good lens would still be better after post processing.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 18, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> I think it is always a compromise between all lens errors: sharpness/res/contrast (including CA, LOCA, coma) is IMO the main design criterion. The next two are distortion + vignetting, then comes bokeh + sunstars.


Yes, its easy to post process nowadays, and lens design is a compromise.

For 50% extra price, I'd expect a different balance of weight, size, and IQ. I might change my mind when price drops, but the more time passes the less interested I am in upgrading. The Galaxy S21 Ultra has 12MP raw which is good enough for me to often prefer to let my back rest.

IMHO, cheap, well performing 10-24mm + 16-35mm makes more sense than expensive less well performing 14-35mm


----------



## canonmike (Aug 18, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Yes, its easy to post process nowadays, and lens design is a compromise.
> 
> For 50% extra price, I'd expect a different balance of weight, size, and IQ. I might change my mind when price drops, but the more time passes the less interested I am in upgrading. The Galaxy S21 Ultra has 12MP raw which is good enough for me to often prefer to let my back rest.
> 
> IMHO, cheap, well performing 10-24mm + 16-35mm makes more sense than expensive less well performing 14-35mm


I decided to order a copy of the 14-35, while I wait for the preferred Rf 10-24.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 18, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That sounds that the manufacturers do not have to bother about errors so much anymore, because post processing can correct that later. That is a very bad developement, because if the lens was great in the first place, it could still be improved by post processing. So a good lens would still be better after post processing.


This is a psychology problem. And Canon presumably has the data about the percentage of their potential customers who lose sleep (and sales) over how the lens performs when you turn off the intended features of the system the lens was designed to work with.
To call this an “error” is a misplaced insult to the designers. It’s an engineering design choice to make the lens perform better in other respects that most customers actually care about. 
The complaint isn’t about design errors, it’s about design trade off decisions that one customer might not agree with.
Imagine the hypothetical that the same size weight sharpness cost lens could be made with half the uncorrected distortion if it was made without the ability to take filters. Is shooting to produce this design an “error”?


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 18, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I decided to order a copy of the 14-35, while I wait for the preferred Rf 10-24.


Similarly, I’m holding the RF 15-35 f2.8 while awaiting the 10-24. Except that I’m finding that 35 awfully useful for normal shots while the ultra wide capability is on the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Yes, its easy to post process nowadays, and lens design is a compromise.


It’s not just _post_ processing, it’s real-time processing.

If this lens was mounted on a DSLR, someone looking through the OVF at 14mm would see the view looking more like a fisheye than a rectilinear lens, mutter a few choice expletives, and return the lens.

Since this is for MILCs, you’ll never actually see through the lens, and the geometric corrections are applied to what you see in the EVF. Canon can make it better in terms of features (wider, smaller filter, smaller/lighter lens), and charge more for those features. Relying on software instead of glass to correct aberrations means the smaller/lighter lens is cheaper to produce.

Higher price + cheaper to produce = more profit. Compromise? Maybe for us. For Canon, it’s a solid win.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 18, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Similarly, I’m holding the RF 15-35 f2.8 while awaiting the 10-24. Except that I’m finding that 35 awfully useful for normal shots while the ultra wide capability is on the lens.


Yep. Lovin all the new big boy R and RF toys, as we wait for our more relevant ones to be released.


----------



## merznd87 (Aug 18, 2021)

Sounds like Canon chose a very similar set of compromises to Nikon's 14-30 f4. In Nikon's case the corrections are built in and unable to be turned off even in lightroom, so I'd say at least having the option to turn them off is nice for scenes that might not require it. Below (via photographylife.com) is the raw image uncorrected from the 14-30 also at 14 and it looks very similar. Given the Canon goes out to 35, has built in IS and appears at least as sharp if not more so than the Nikon according to TDP, I'd say it looks like a great option. When the Nikon came out everyone said how great it was that there was a small and light 14mm capable zoom for mirrorless and now the Canon equivalent comes out and people are complaining it isn't as good as the Sigma 14-24 that has a shorter range, no IS and is literally double the weight.


----------



## sanj (Aug 18, 2021)

I wanted to get this. But now won't. I think my 15-35 2.8 is a better option.


----------



## sanj (Aug 18, 2021)

I wait for the 24-70 f4 RF now.


----------



## lawny13 (Aug 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s not just _post_ processing, it’s real-time processing.
> 
> If this lens was mounted on a DSLR, someone looking through the OVF at 14mm would see the view looking more like a fisheye than a rectilinear lens, mutter a few choice expletives, and return the lens.
> 
> ...



Nailed it...

You are the first to point out the fact that MILC allows for the lens to be corrected in real-time. This is also the reason for always on IS rather than just when you take the shot.

As for other ppls comments about the loss of mm after correction, we already know from other corrected canon lenses that after correction it is 14mm while the images without correction is in fact wider to allow for the correction.

Canon and other manufacturers intend to their lenses AND cameras... so their whole system to deliver images of a certain quality. And generally they do. There are very few lenses that don't need any distortion correction right? Even good EF lenses need a bit of pin-cushion or barrel distortion correction. So since people are going to have those corrections turned on anyways, what is the big deal if the trade off for more distortion in an uncorrected lenses is the fact that I can use the same filters on the 14-35, as I do on my 24-105 f4, and 100-500??

And of course to reiterate. The image I see on my LCD or EVF is corrected, and what I see is what I get when I press the shutter....

The one thing I don't exactly agree with is the price hike. I can understand that canon will charge more. But IMO it is a bit too far. Here in Europe, the RF 14-35 costs 1850 vs 1050 (euros) compared to the EF 16-35. 

Whereas the Rf 15-35 f2.8 is 2450 euros vs the EF 16-35 f2.8 at 2050. 

The 800 euro difference on the f4s is ridiculous. In my book that extra 2mm isn't worth an 80% hike.


----------



## tron (Aug 18, 2021)

So does this lens has the FOV of a 14mm lens at the wide end when it is corrected or uncorrected?

(Since it has significant barrel distortion at the wide end)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2021)

lawny13 said:


> There are very few lenses that don't need any distortion correction right? Even good EF lenses need a bit of pin-cushion or barrel distortion correction. So since people are going to have those corrections turned on anyways, what is the big deal if the trade off for more distortion in an uncorrected lenses is the fact that I can use the same filters on the 14-35, as I do on my 24-105 f4, and 100-500??


For me (as stated earlier), the 'big deal' is that geometric distortion correction can accentuate the effect of volume anamorphosis. Ok, so it'seo not really a big deal for me personally, because i don't use DPP so the geometric correction won't be forced, and DPP can't correct volume anamorphosis anyway. Given that, the trade-off of a 14mm wide end and 77mm filters is a good one (or would be, were I planning to buy the lens – I'm not, since I'm good with the adapted EF 16-35/4 and EF 11-24/4).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2021)

tron said:


> So does this lens has the FOV of a 14mm lens at the wide end when it is corrected or uncorrected?
> 
> (Since it has significant barrel distortion at the wide end)


14mm FoV _after_ correction. That's clear from Bryan's statement that the the QA-77 chart (based on ISO 12233) he uses was captured at 14mm using the framing marks on the chart (i.e. framed using the EVF or LCD where the geometric corrections are applied live), but the RAW image viewed in C1 showed a wider framing with heavy distortion.


----------



## tron (Aug 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 14mm FoV _after_ correction. That's clear from Bryan's statement that the the QA-77 chart (based on ISO 12233) he uses was captured at 14mm using the framing marks on the chart (i.e. framed using the EVF or LCD where the geometric corrections are applied live), but the RAW image viewed in C1 showed a wider framing with heavy distortion.


Thanks!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 18, 2021)

Faking the image in the EVF is even worse. I always complained that the image of the EVF is not real and the distortion correction in the EVF is even worse than my fears. Shouldn't there be an option to see the same image you would get with an OVF? Instead the EVF shows us was Canon wants us to see. 

And will the future be that Canon lenses will be corrected in the EVF, but not third party lenses?


----------



## SHAMwow (Aug 18, 2021)

I think ya'll need to just skip this lens...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2021)

lawny13 said:


> As for other ppls comments about the loss of mm after correction, we already know from other corrected canon lenses that after correction it is 14mm while the images without correction is in fact wider to allow for the correction.


Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't there another aspect to this 'correction' beyond the geometric distortion? The output image file size is fixed for a camera, e.g the R5 outputs a 45 MP image, 8192 x 5464 pixels. When I take the 14mm RAW file viewed in C1 and manually correct the barrel distortion then crop to the area that is a 14mm FoV (the 3:2 framing marks on the chart), the resulting image is ~12.5% smaller, e.g. an R5 image post-correction would only be ~39.4 MP. To output a 45 MP file, that would need to be upscaled.

If true, then not only is there a loss of IQ in the corners where the image is stretched to correct the distortion, there's also an overall loss of IQ when the resulting image is upsampled to the camera's normal output size.


----------



## AJ (Aug 18, 2021)

So if the image after correction has a 14 mm FOV and it sharp, then who cares about any distortion of the "raw" image? It doesn't really matter in the end.
The barrel distortion is the compromise you end up with given a flat 77 mm front element. The alternative would be a big heavy bulging front element ala Tamron 15-30. 
I'm actually surprised by how little peripheral shading this lens has, given its design. This is not something that's emphasized in the TDP review.
In all this looks like a nice lens. I would have preferred a few extra mm at the long end (e.g. 16-40) but that's not what's on offer. I think the only big thing to complain about is the hefty pricetag.


----------



## tron (Aug 18, 2021)

Maybe peripheral shading is corrected too (at least up to a point). I do not know it's a hypothesis.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 18, 2021)

The distortion is shocking. While I hate the idea of an adapter, no IQ improvement is worth the field curvature with this lens. All of that extra sharpness will get lost in post.


Is this lens Dead On Arrival?
btw, Cr Guy, this page:

https://www.canonrumors.com/recently-discontinued-ef-lenses/ (google finds this first)

NEEDS updates from this page:









Canon officially discontinues a lot more EF lenses


Canon has officially discontinued more EF lenses. Some of them are already discontinued, others will be discontinued sometime in 2021. Below are the addition



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 18, 2021)

So this EVF correction does not happen with every RF lens? I just checked "The Digital Picture" and the RF 70-200 f/4 and RF 15-35 f/2.8 both show visible distortion. So at least DPP does not force any correction on those two lenses. So I would suspect that it also is not corrected on the viewfinder.

And what does "AI" mean in regards to the correction anyway? Doesn't the image just have to be squeezed until lines are straight?


----------



## dilbert (Aug 18, 2021)

AJ said:


> So if the image after correction has a 14 mm FOV and it sharp, then who cares about any distortion of the "raw" image? It doesn't really matter in the end.
> The barrel distortion is the compromise you end up with given a flat 77 mm front element. The alternative would be a big heavy bulging front element ala Tamron 15-30.
> ...
> In all this looks like a nice lens. I would have preferred a few extra mm at the long end (e.g. 16-40) but that's not what's on offer.



Note that you aren't asking for 14-40, rather 16-40. Seems that you and many others would have preferred a narrower lens at the wide end. That would probably have moderated the price and distortion.

I wonder if Canon decided to one-up Tamron with their 15-30 zoom and go wider, without the bulbous front element thinking that everyone would just suck up their crazy distortion as something to pay extra for and fix in post, because everything gets fixed in post.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't there another aspect to this 'correction' beyond the geometric distortion? The output image file size is fixed for a camera, e.g the R5 outputs a 45 MP image, 8192 x 5464 pixels. When I take the 14mm RAW file viewed in C1 and manually correct the barrel distortion then crop to the area that is a 14mm FoV (the 3:2 framing marks on the chart), the resulting image is ~12.5% smaller, e.g. an R5 image post-correction would only be ~39.4 MP. To output a 45 MP file, that would need to be upscaled.
> 
> If true, then not only is there a loss of IQ in the corners where the image is stretched to correct the distortion, there's also an overall loss of IQ when the resulting image is upsampled to the camera's normal output size.


If - for some weird reason - you want a 45MP JPEG, then yes.

The funny thing, though, is that the lens is the least sharp (wide open) at 35mm, where it needs no distortion correction at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2021)

Kit. said:


> If - for some weird reason - you want a 45MP JPEG, then yes.


There would be no if about it. The R5 and DPP are going to output images that are 8192 x 5464 (for the R5, obviously other camera have different output sizes), even though they need to be upscaled to get to that fixed output size. What algorithm is Canon using for upscaling? How good is it? We won't know, it's a black box, but regardless upscaling is adding information to the file that was not in the original scene.

Note that I'm not positive that's the case – maybe this lens on an R5 will yield a 39.5 MP image at 14mm, a 41 MP image at 16mm, etc. I doubt it, but I really don't know. Since Canon does a similar 'trick' with the RF 24-240, it would be occurring there as well and I haven't heard anyone mention that the 24mm images from the superzoom are lower resolution.

The 'workaround' is to use a different RAW converter, one that ignores or allows disabling of the default correction.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 18, 2021)

If it is upscaled, it is either sharpened or filled with "AI" pixels. So if you sharpen it again later, it is sharpened twice, which you should avoid.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 18, 2021)

That distortion at 14mm is very very surprising and not in a good way..


----------



## Skux (Aug 18, 2021)

I really thought the "we'll fix it in post" mentality would be limited to the cheaper RF lenses.


----------



## aceflibble (Aug 18, 2021)

dilbert said:


> The distortion is shocking. While I hate the idea of an adapter, no IQ improvement is worth the field curvature with this lens. All of that extra sharpness will get lost in post.



Going by Bryan's results, there's no actual IQ improvement anyway. Sharpness is a dead-tie, each one varying_ slightly_ in different areas of the frame at different focal lengths, and fringing on the new lens is worse even aftrer corrections. Vignetting is also slightly worse, too, which usually corrects fine at low ISO but if you're shooting at medium or higher ISOs then that extra correction is going to bring out more noise; technically not a lens IQ problem, but an overall image IQ problem all the same.



neuroanatomist said:


> Note that I'm not positive that's the case – maybe this lens on an R5 will yield a 39.5 MP image at 14mm, a 41 MP image at 16mm, etc. I doubt it, but I really don't know. Since Canon does a similar 'trick' with the RF 24-240, it would be occurring there as well and I haven't heard anyone mention that the 24mm images from the superzoom are lower resolution.



This sort of correction isn't just cropping away the edges and presenting a lower res file, no. Some parts of the image are being squashed down while others are being stretched out. The final image resolution out of the camera is always the same.
What _is_ being reduced is the _optical_ resolution, since it is not physically possible for distortion to be corrected without lowering optical resolution, even if you keep the file resolution the same. So the file's pixel count may still be the full 45mp, but the optical resolution may only be 40mp, stretched out to 45mp. (And actually optical resolution is never that high to begin with, so really it's probably more like 30mp of optical resolution stretched out over a 45mp file.)

The 24-240mm is an interesting case because the non-linear distortion means the center of the image really doesn't need much correcting if you're focused more than a few feet form the lens. If you don't want a 3:2 file and you focused, say, six or seven feet away or more, then you can just crop the sides a little bit and you have a roughly 22mm shot which is much sharper than the corrected 24mm; Canon seem to _over_-correct the 24mm quite significantly and bring it to more like 25mm, possibly to account for the extra distortion the lens suffers from once you bring it close to minimum focus. It could be that this 14-35 is the same kind of case and perhaps a higher optical resolution could be retrieved from it if a squarer crop is acceptable and depending on the focus distance.


Still, I argue these are not things that anyone paying £1750 should have to be thinking about, anyway. The 24-240 gets away with it because it's a plastic superzoom made to be an hobbyist's jack-of-all-trades, and priced accordingly. This L lens is _not_ advertised or sold as such and nobody dropping this kind of premium—again, 80% higher than the EF equivalent new, let alone third-parties—should be having to have these conversations.


----------



## manwithafrotto (Aug 18, 2021)

Personally I can't wait to get this lens to chase my kids around with.. a lot of haters here I see. Might not be for you, and that's OK. For now I'll stick with the R6, 14-35f4, 50mm1.2, 100mm 2.8, and 100-500. I'd love to add a 24 or 28 1.2 then I think I'll be done buying for a while. Until the next 5 series body comes out I guess.. oof

I'm glad I unloaded all my old canon 5D3 and all EF Glass a few years ago and tried Sony for a while. Sold all of that and have switched back to Canon RF, and I don't see myself going anywhere else. I'm sticking with the amazing RF mount and lenses.


----------



## aceflibble (Aug 18, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> I've read the review and I have a lot of thoughts about this lens...and a lot of skin in the game, as I have TWO of them pre-ordered.
> 
> This is a very small lens. So small, in fact, that I am willing to forgive some of these perceived flaws because it will bring down the size/weight of Canon's ultra-wide lens options tremendously. If you don't value size and weight, then why are you even considering an f/4 lens? Go buy the f/2.8 and stop acting like anything slower than f/2.8 has no place in your bag at any price. LOL
> 
> I'm desperate for this lens. I am DONE adapting my EF ultra-wide and I'm eager to get to work with this thing. Is it perfect? No...and the RF 15-35 has some major flaws of its own - just like every other manufacturer's ultra-wide lenses. This, however, is the smallest and lightest I have ever seen, takes a 77mm filter and will be joining my camera bag by the end fo the month.



1) Good job reenforcing Canon's customer-unfriendly design practices and rewarding them for their marketing rather than their actual products. You are why we're having to have these conversations at all. Stop giving companies money until you know that they've actually delivered.
2) Tamron's 17-35mm f/2.8-4 is lighter and smaller than this, also uses a 77mm filter thread, and at least going by Bryan's results of this 14-35, the Tamron is optically better in the center and only very slightly worse in the furthest corners. The f/2.8 wide end is a bit soft but you can consider that aperture to just be a bonus, since the Canon lenses don't have it at all; stop it down to f/4 or beyond and the Tamron sharpens up significantly. (Or at least my copy did.) I've owned the Tamron, it wasn't my favourite wide-zoom by any means, but if size is important to you then it is your winner and optically it's very good. I did prefer the optics of the Canon 16-35mm f/4 and that's ultimately what I stuck with, but I appreciate not everyone wants to carry something that size around (and it is only size, not weight; the EF lens is only 80G heavier than this RF and only 150g heavier than the Tamron!) and/or pay that much.

However you spin it, however you want to try to justify it to yourself, you know that you've paid a gigantic, arbitrary premium, twice, for the sake of saving 80g (180g, if we're including the adapter), about ~1.5cm in length, and a clearly-flawed extra 2mm which is being completed via software rather than the glass you've ostensibly paid for. This is the problem—you are part of it—and this is what manufacturers (it's not Canon alone) need to _not_ be rewarded for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> This sort of correction isn't just cropping away the edges and presenting a lower res file, no. Some parts of the image are being squashed down while others are being stretched out. The final image resolution out of the camera is always the same.


Based on the RAW file out of C1, the images coming from in-camera jpgs or DPP output are cropped. Bryan used 3:2 registration marks on the QA-77 / ISO 12233 chart to frame the shot, and that’s what came out of DPP. The C1 RAW file shows that the edges were cropped away by the camera/DPP (and stretched first, of course).


----------



## Jethro (Aug 19, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> 1) Good job reenforcing Canon's customer-unfriendly design practices and rewarding them for their marketing rather than their actual products. You are why we're having to have these conversations at all. Stop giving companies money until you know that they've actually delivered.
> 2) Tamron's 17-35mm f/2.8-4 is lighter and smaller than this, also uses a 77mm filter thread, and at least going by Bryan's results of this 14-35, the Tamron is optically better in the center and only very slightly worse in the furthest corners. The f/2.8 wide end is a bit soft but you can consider that aperture to just be a bonus, since the Canon lenses don't have it at all; stop it down to f/4 or beyond and the Tamron sharpens up significantly. (Or at least my copy did.) I've owned the Tamron, it wasn't my favourite wide-zoom by any means, but if size is important to you then it is your winner and optically it's very good. I did prefer the optics of the Canon 16-35mm f/4 and that's ultimately what I stuck with, but I appreciate not everyone wants to carry something that size around (and it is only size, not weight; the EF lens is only 80G heavier than this RF and only 150g heavier than the Tamron!) and/or pay that much.
> 
> However you spin it, however you want to try to justify it to yourself, you know that you've paid a gigantic, arbitrary premium, twice, for the sake of saving 80g (180g, if we're including the adapter), about ~1.5cm in length, and a clearly-flawed extra 2mm which is being completed via software rather than the glass you've ostensibly paid for. This is the problem—you are part of it—and this is what manufacturers (it's not Canon alone) need to _not_ be rewarded for.


A little harsh frankly - and I'll repeat my previous comment (for much needed perspective on this thread): the actual review ends up concluding _"the RF 14-35’s image quality is excellent (I’ll get over the strong barrel distortion aspect), the Nano USM AF system is silent, high-speed, and accurate, and the L-series build quality promises to hold up to the rigors of constant use."_


----------



## tron (Aug 19, 2021)

What I like in this lens is its size (just like the 70-200 4L IS)

But to put it to good use I would have to get another R5 since my most useful R5 combo is with the 100-500.

Also for excursions I am used to 5DMkIV and 16-35 f/4L IS combo due to its IQ and believe it or not: size! (compared to using 5DIV with 16-35 2.8L III). There was a case in my last excursion where I did not want to carry much and wanted to also take astro pictures. In that case 5DIV and 16-35 2.8L III combo has been used both for astro and landscapes.

There are cases where the RF 2.8 lenses would be useful and that would be when visiting museums. In that case I would get R5 with 15-35 and 24-70 2.8 L IS lenses because of their superb IS and f/2.8

So it seems that although I would love 14-35 for its size I do not need it and it would complicate things as long as I keep my DSLRs.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 19, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> This does still take the piss quite a bit considering how much more expensive this is than the EF equivalent. They're charging £1750 for this, while the EF f/4L IS is £999 (and of course much less used) and third-party equivalents are cheaper again.


Some good insights in your post, but this assertion about price seems a bit skewed. The release price of the ef 16-35mm f/4L IS in early 2014 was about $1200, which, adjusted for inflation is about $1350 today (August, 2021). The new lens is being sold in the USA for $1600 at the time of release, *higher by only $250*.

Materials, labor, and distribution costs for particular industries have been affected unevenly by the pandemic. Canon might also be looking at production delays for some time, so even if they charged less to increase sales volume, they might just end up losing sales as people give up on waiting.

Canon does seem to be charging somewhat higher prices per unit to maintain profit margins. But I think using the current market value of an EF lens that might well be going out of production sooner rather than later, instead of the lens's price at the time of its release, distorts the otherwise fair observation you are making. Of course discussing used prices of a seven year old lens to compare to a lens just now being released doesn't really help--but I agree that considering a good deal on any EF lens is worthwhile--as long as the ergonomics and AF speed work for you. (And I STILL love my ef 35mm f/1.4L II on the R6!!! Adapter is not even noticed.)


----------



## tron (Aug 19, 2021)

Jethro said:


> A little harsh frankly - and I'll repeat my previous comment (for much needed perspective on this thread): the actual review ends up concluding _"the RF 14-35’s image quality is excellent (I’ll get over the strong barrel distortion aspect), the Nano USM AF system is silent, high-speed, and accurate, and the L-series build quality promises to hold up to the rigors of constant use."_


A little marketing BS perhaps? I refer to "_I’ll get over the strong barrel distortion aspect"_ I remember from a US photo magazine many years ago that it wrote good things for all the lenses tested but the charts were telling a different truth for some of these lenses.


----------



## APP (Aug 19, 2021)

I was primed to love this lens, despite the high price. Unfortunately, I'm turned off by the coma results (which are reported to be noticeably worse than the 15-35, which has its own astro issues due to severe vignetting), and of course the distortion. For now it looks like I'll keep my Ef 16-35 f/4.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 19, 2021)

tron said:


> A little marketing BS perhaps? I refer to "_I’ll get over the strong barrel distortion aspect"_ I remember from a US photo magazine many years ago that it wrote good things for all the lenses tested but the charts were telling a different truth for some of these lenses.


But what's the 'marketing' element - isn't this from a well-respected 3rd party reviewer? He's acknowledging the (pretty drastic) issues, but saying he's still seeing excellent results.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 19, 2021)

Why do I get the feeling that people on this forum would rather have a non-corrected and very distorted image in the EVF, and a non-corrected and very distorted photo rather than a non-distorted, sharp, excellent quality photo that this lens delivers with auto corrections turned on. I have been using a similarly auto-corrected pro level 12-100 Olympus lens for years and I never give the auto-corrections a second thought. I probably have other new mirrorless lenses that have the same auto-corrections and I don't even know about it. Apparently the final image isn't as important to many forum users compared to how you get there.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 19, 2021)

Jethro said:


> A little harsh frankly - and I'll repeat my previous comment (for much needed perspective on this thread): the actual review ends up concluding _"the RF 14-35’s image quality is excellent (I’ll get over the strong barrel distortion aspect), the Nano USM AF system is silent, high-speed, and accurate, and the L-series build quality promises to hold up to the rigors of constant use."_


It will be quite easy to "_get over the strong barrel distortion aspect" _because when you actually use the lens, you will never know it's there unless you intentionally use software without the automatically loaded profiles. In other words, you will never know it's there unless you intentionally do something stupid.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 19, 2021)

I’m curious what a Raw picture would look like de-Bayered but linear rather than logarithmic.

Anyhow, I am not shocked by the notion of lens corrections in ACR and in camera. I’m quite pleased with the results from the tiny lenses on my G cameras, and glad not to be carrying around the extra two pounds of glass it would take to do the corrections optically.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Aug 19, 2021)

benpisati said:


> Canon is making very compact lenses, very good. But I think he should pay more attention to ergonomics, specially for professional customers, the three rings seem to be one, especially AF and MF, it's really easy to get confused. Same goes for the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4. I would like to have a large zoom ring well spaced from the others.


Yes. I've found the RF 24-70 F/2.8 hard to grip to mount and dismount. All the bumps from the switch housings on the EF version make for a much better grip.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> …you will never know it's there unless you intentionally use software without the automatically loaded profiles. In other words, you will never know it's there unless you intentionally do something stupid.


There are times when it is desirable to reduce or eliminate the distortion correction applied by a lens profile.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Why do I get the feeling that people on this forum would rather have a non-corrected and very distorted image in the EVF, and a non-corrected and very distorted photo rather than a non-distorted, sharp, excellent quality photo that this lens delivers with auto corrections turned on. I have been using a similarly auto-corrected pro level 12-100 Olympus lens for years and I never give the auto-corrections a second thought. I probably have other new mirrorless lenses that have the same auto-corrections and I don't even know about it. Apparently the final image isn't as important to many forum users compared to how you get there.


Because that is what they are used to. People have been very quick to dump DSLR’s but you can’t do this kind of shenanigans with an optical viewfinder.

If the ‘lens improvements’ the RF mount gives amount to nothing more than clever software tricks (I wondered how Nikon and Canon had managed to make non bulbous front element ff 14mm lenses) then I’d be pretty pissed too.

When compared to stand out lenses like the EF 16-35 f4 IS and the EF 11-24 f4, let alone the TS-E 17mm some of these current RF premium lenses seem like a bit of a bad joke.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 19, 2021)

Yes, for a camera with an OVF they would never have produced an L-lens with such a heavy distortion, because they know that people would hate that, even if that photo looks still start after correcting it in software. Now people have an EVF and Canon knows that most buyers will never know about the distortion, as the EVF gives Canon the chance to hide it. 

I am still curious if the distortion will be visible in the RAW if you open it with Lightroom, as there applying lens profiles is optional. Or does Canon have an agreement with Adobe to force correction on this lens?


----------



## dilbert (Aug 19, 2021)

tron said:


> A little marketing BS perhaps? I refer to "_I’ll get over the strong barrel distortion aspect"_ I remember from a US photo magazine many years ago that it wrote good things for all the lenses tested but the charts were telling a different truth for some of these lenses.



And why do they do that? Because when you write bad things about vendors equipment in reviews, vendors stop sending you things to review and thus you stop getting page views, etc.

Bryan might be calling it optically excellent but the barrel distortion can't be hidden and is nowhere near "excellent."


----------



## dilbert (Aug 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I am still curious if the distortion will be visible in the RAW if you open it with Lightroom, as there applying lens profiles is optional. Or does Canon have an agreement with Adobe to force correction on this lens?



Applying lens profiles is optional in Lightroom and other Adobe products. Then there's Capture One, and so on.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 19, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I’m curious what a Raw picture would look like de-Bayered but linear rather than logarithmic.



If you want to play with raw images like that, I think RawTherapp?

There's some tools around that will let you extract the R, B, G1 and G2 images separately from the .CR2 file - my understanding is that CR2 is not a 4 color channel image but a container for four images with image representing one of the 4 channels.

I think DPP and Lightroom also have a "linear" color profile option.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 19, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Applying lens profiles is optional in Lightroom and other Adobe products. Then there's Capture One, and so on.


Yes, that is the case so far, but that could change now or later as we enter the era where the image is even corrected in the viewfinde. What if Canon offers Lightroom the exact correction data (which Adobe otherwise would have to find on their own) in return for a correction that happens even before hitting the lens profile checkmark?

It is strange that no Youtube review I saw so far mentions that distortion. Are they not aware of it, because they use DDP or are they just ignoring it?

I am very much looking forward to third party glass for the RF mount. I am sure Sigma and Tamron will come up with great lenses. They arlready have some for the E-mount and it should be possible to make RF-mount versions. I hope they find a way that their IS works together with the IBIS and also achieves seven or eight stops. Othewise they will have a huge disadvantage compared to native Canon lenses.

Canon should make it possible to turn off the distortion correction in the EVF, because in some situations people might want that curved look and they still want to preview the image in the EVF.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> [..]It is strange that no Youtube review I saw so far mentions that distortion. Are they not aware of it, because they use DDP or are they just ignoring it?[..]


They could be using JPEG instead of RAW.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 19, 2021)

I found Canon JPEGs unusable in both 1D series cameras I owned so far. No matter how I change the settings, there seems to be some kind of noise reduction always applied even if you turn off all noise reduction. The images look like wrapped into plastic. I decided to only use them for previews.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 19, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> and a clearly-flawed extra 2mm which is being completed via software rather than the glass you've ostensibly paid for.


The grapes are sour, hehe.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I found Canon JPEGs unusable in both 1D series cameras I owned so far. No matter how I change the settings, there seems to be some kind of noise reduction always applied even if you turn off all noise reduction. The images look like wrapped into plastic. I decided to only use them for previews.


Even with the 'Fine Detail' profile enabled? I haven't used in-camera JPEGs in years, but selecting 'Fine Detail' improved video quality a lot for me! DPP4 will also use the profile you have selected in the camera.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> What if Canon offers Lightroom the exact correction data (which Adobe otherwise would have to find on their own) in return for a correction that happens even before hitting the lens profile checkmark?



Adobe already effectively have a process to do that. Adobe's software also competes with DPP and you can bet that there would be internal political pressure at Canon to not supply Adobe with that information.



Skyscraperfan said:


> It is strange that no Youtube review I saw so far mentions that distortion. Are they not aware of it, because they use DDP or are they just ignoring it?



No. Canon is known for stopping the sending of review copies of cameras and lenses if you provide the Internet with bad reviews of their equipment or call them out all the time. When you make money from "first" reviews, you're not going to bite that hand that feeds you.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Adobe already effectively have a process to do that. Adobe's software also competes with DPP and you can bet that there would be internal political pressure at Canon to not supply Adobe with that information.


I don't buy that for a second. Adobe is the 800lb gorilla of software and I'm sure Canon has a close and positive working relationship with Adobe. Canon has much more to lose by not cooperating with Adobe than Adobe has. Canon knows that DPP is just a gnat on the windshield of processing software and has no interest or financial reason to jeopardize their relationship with Adobe for the sake of DPP.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 19, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Even with the 'Fine Detail' profile enabled? I haven't used in-camera JPEGs in years, but selecting 'Fine Detail' improved video quality a lot for me! DPP4 will also use the profile you have selected in the camera.


Where can I find that? I only found settings for changing the JPEG quality from 0 to 10 or so. I always opted for the highest quality. I also disabled JPEG sharpening and all noise reduction that I can disable.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 19, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Adobe's software also competes with DPP


Oh really?

Does DPP make any money for Canon that Adobe's software wouldn't?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Where can I find that? I only found settings for changing the JPEG quality from 0 to 10 or so. I always opted for the highest quality. I also disabled JPEG sharpening and all noise reduction that I can disable.


It should be in the Camera icon menu under 'Picture Style'. The presentation is a bit disingenuous, every style listed has a different baseline, so the individual adjustments are against that specific baseline, you can't recreate a style on your own by copying the slider settings.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 19, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> It should be in the Camera icon menu under 'Picture Style'. The presentation is a bit disingenuous, every style listed has a different baseline, so the individual adjustments are against that specific baseline, you can't recreate a style on your own by copying the slider settings.


I only have the picture styles Auto, Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Natural and Monochrome.


----------



## snapshot (Aug 19, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Oh really?
> 
> Does DPP make any money for Canon that Adobe's software wouldn't?


i assume dpp is there so that canon can claim owners can access all of the advertised functions of the equipment without 3rd party products and without disclosing protocols and formats. some users it is good enough so as not to have to rent the adobe stuff.


----------



## snapshot (Aug 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Yes, for a camera with an OVF they would never have produced an L-lens with such a heavy distortion, because they know that people would hate that, even if that photo looks still start after correcting it in software. Now people have an EVF and Canon knows that most buyers will never know about the distortion, as the EVF gives Canon the chance to hide it.
> 
> I am still curious if the distortion will be visible in the RAW if you open it with Lightroom, as there applying lens profiles is optional. Or does Canon have an agreement with Adobe to force correction on this lens?


all of this stuff are tools to be used within a system. when i bought into the EF system i chose to mount a ef28-70L to my elan-7e and used various developer/print makers to see the results. In that system, a lens with noticeable geometric distortion would not have produced the results i was looking for. Some folks might still be shooting and processing film and digital correction may still not be an option. I used a tamron 28-300 for a light weight travel rig, and while that lens has some distortion i was pretty pleased with the results i obtained with correction. This was for me a better tool and system choice for different goals.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2021)

snapshot said:


> I assume dpp is there so that canon can claim owners can access all of the advertised functions of the equipment without 3rd party products...


Agree


snapshot said:


> ...and without disclosing protocols and formats...


Disagree. I believe Canon probably shares relevant protocols and formats with Adobe so that users can process Canon files as seamlessly as possible with the world's most popular photo processing software.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2021)

snapshot said:


> i assume dpp is there so that canon can claim owners can access all of the advertised functions of the equipment without 3rd party products and without disclosing protocols and formats. some users it is good enough so as not to have to rent the adobe stuff.


I use DPP only when a camera is too new to be supported by DxO PhotoLab.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I am still curious if the distortion will be visible in the RAW if you open it with Lightroom, as there applying lens profiles is optional...


Just a side note. I noticed that when I downloaded the latest version of Camera Raw, the default setting was to have the "apply lens profile" option checked. I had to turn it off. I wonder if this is a function of the move to mirrorless.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 19, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Oh really?
> 
> Does DPP make any money for Canon that Adobe's software wouldn't?



Every time someone buys a Canon camera that comes packaged with DPP, they're paying for DPP. So yes, DPP does make money for Canon. You pay for everything in the box, camera, battery, strap, charger, manual(s), and software package. You don't buy "just the camera".


----------



## dilbert (Aug 19, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't buy that for a second. Adobe is the 800lb gorilla of software and I'm sure Canon has a close and positive working relationship with Adobe..



Adobe has to wait for a retail version of the product to test and develop profiles with - for reasons that should be obvious.

That and there is always a lag between when a Canon camera/lens is released and when ACR/LR support it.



unfocused said:


> Just a side note. I noticed that when I downloaded the latest version of Camera Raw, the default setting was to have the "apply lens profile" option checked. I had to turn it off. I wonder if this is a function of the move to mirrorless.



Or people compare LR/ACR images with those from other products that do apply this correction automatically and decide the non-Adobe product is better.

Or they surveyed users and found that many had it in profiles and wanted it enabled by default because it suitd their workflow better.

Mirrorless cameras have been around for ages now...


----------



## Kit. (Aug 19, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Every time someone buys a Canon camera that comes packaged with DPP, they're paying for DPP.


So what?

If I buy a Canon camera, I get DPP no matter whether I use it or not.
If I buy Adobe software, I can buy a Canon camera if it's supported by Adobe, or I can buy a camera from another manufacturer that is better supported by Adobe.
In which of these scenarios Adobe software and DPP compete for my money, and how exactly?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 19, 2021)

I am still looking for a way to import camera profiles into Lightroom 5.7. With lens profiles that works great. I can just download Adobe Camera RAW for free and copy the profiles to Lightroom. Unfortunately the same trick does not work for camera profiles. So with a mirrorless camera I would have to switch to a different software, as I will never pay for a software subscription.


----------



## AJ (Aug 19, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Because that is what they are used to. People have been very quick to dump DSLR’s but you can’t do this kind of shenanigans with an optical viewfinder.
> 
> If the ‘lens improvements’ the RF mount gives amount to nothing more than clever software tricks (I wondered how Nikon and Canon had managed to make non bulbous front element ff 14mm lenses) then I’d be pretty pissed too.
> 
> When compared to stand out lenses like the EF 16-35 f4 IS and the EF 11-24 f4, let alone the TS-E 17mm some of these current RF premium lenses seem like a bit of a bad joke.


To me the bad joke is f/4. They teased us with patents for ultrawides in the f/1.2 to f/1.0 range - crazy wide and crazy fast. And what do we get - f/4. And at a hefty price, too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Every time someone buys a Canon camera that comes packaged with DPP, they're paying for DPP. So yes, DPP does make money for Canon. You pay for everything in the box, camera, battery, strap, charger, manual(s), and software package. You don't buy "just the camera".


By that logic, Canon makes money on camera boxes, and competes with Adobe to sell packaging material. Oh, wait…that’s not really logical, is it?

No doubt Canon covers the costs of DPP development through camera sales, in the same way they cover the costs of printing warranty cards. But no one ‘buys’ warranty cards, and Canon doesn’t sell DPP. It’s a free download.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> By that logic, Canon makes money on camera boxes, and competes with Adobe to sell packaging material. Oh, wait…that’s not really logical, is it?
> 
> No doubt Canon covers the costs of DPP development through camera sales, in the same way they cover the costs of printing warranty cards. But no one ‘buys’ warranty cards, and Canon doesn’t sell DPP. It’s a free download.


The difference is that developing software is really expensive.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The difference is that developing software is really expensive.


Then Canon pays their engineers too well. The last time I had to use DPP, the UI looked like something I wrote in BASIC on an Apple ][ several decades ago. Maybe DPP4 is better.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 20, 2021)

DPP4 is no better to look at than previous versions. I've found it actually quite competent to use, on the occasions I have used it, and obviously it exists because Canon has to provide users with a means of processing images captured on its hardware. But (like others) I would only use it until camera profiles appeared in LR and/or DxO.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 20, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The difference is that developing software is really expensive.



That's correct, however once software is developed, the reproduction costs for selling it are much reduced than anything physical.

And each new camera/lens that Canon produces requires that its software is also trained (or given template data about the equipment) and thus updated.


----------



## Frodo (Aug 20, 2021)

I shot a couple of photos with the 15-35 (first) and the 14-35 (second) at a photo show a month ago. I have posted them below. LR does not have a lens profile for the 14-35 and so I switched off the profile for the 15-35. The exposures on my R are 1/[email protected] f/2.8 and 1/60 @ f/4 respectively, both at ISO 6400.
The photos are not ideal for checking geometric distortion, but to my eyes the images are quite similar.
What struck me was the severe shading in the extreme corners of the 14-35.
Comparing the angles of view through the OVF, I thought there was little difference between the lenses. However, the difference between the uncorrected images (below) seems greater.
As I did not have the 14-35 profile, I was not able to find out the full resolution file size.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 20, 2021)

Wow, that image really shows that the uncorrected version is pretty much unusable. That looks like a lot of stops of vignetting and correcting it would cause extreme noise if you already used a somewhat high ISO indoors.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 20, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Why do I get the feeling that people on this forum would rather have a non-corrected and very distorted image in the EVF, and a non-corrected and very distorted photo rather than a non-distorted, sharp, excellent quality photo that this lens delivers with auto corrections turned on. I have been using a similarly auto-corrected pro level 12-100 Olympus lens for years and I never give the auto-corrections a second thought. I probably have other new mirrorless lenses that have the same auto-corrections and I don't even know about it. Apparently the final image isn't as important to many forum users compared to how you get there.


As much as my instinctive reaction is to be unimpressed by the distortion before software correction, I take your point. And I suspect Canon would say it is just using computation photography and ask why people are criticsing it for that when people tend to praise mobile phone manufactureres for what mobile phone cameras can achieve these days using computational photography, 

As I think someone else has already said, perhaps the real issue may not be that Canon is using software to work around limitations of its gear, or (at least arguably) to achive its gear (eg by making it smaller and lighter than it would be otherwise, or enabliing it to go to a wider angle than it would otherwise), but the prices Canon is charging. Then again, if enough people buy the gear at Canon's asking price, you can't really criticise Canon for not pricing lower (they are in it for the money, after all!). Personally I do struggle with why people are willing to pay Canon's asking price for a lot of the R system gear, but it seems quite a few people are.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't buy that for a second. Adobe is the 800lb gorilla of software and I'm sure Canon has a close and positive working relationship with Adobe. Canon has much more to lose by not cooperating with Adobe than Adobe has. Canon knows that DPP is just a gnat on the windshield of processing software and has no interest or financial reason to jeopardize their relationship with Adobe for the sake of DPP.


Adobe and Canon have very much had an on/off relationship for years. It seems that is the norm for Adobe and their corporate fellows.

There have been occasions where Adobe have obviously had pre release data for cameras as the profiles for them have been available as soon as the cameras were released whereas some bodies, especially when they are in short supply/high demand, have taken months after release to get body specific profiles and even then those have often been pretty poor in comparison to the boxed Canon profiles.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 20, 2021)

jd7 said:


> As much as my instinctive reaction is to be unimpressed by the distortion before software correction, I take your point. And I suspect Canon would say it is just using computation photography and ask why people are criticsing it for that when people tend to praise mobile phone manufactureres for what mobile phone cameras can achieve these days using computational photography,
> 
> As I think someone else has already said, perhaps the real issue may not be that Canon is using software to work around limitations of its gear, or (at least arguably) to achive its gear (eg by making it smaller and lighter than it would be otherwise, or enabliing it to go to a wider angle than it would otherwise), but the prices Canon is charging. Then again, if enough people buy the gear at Canon's asking price, you can't really criticise Canon for not pricing lower (they are in it for the money, after all!). Personally I do struggle with why people are willing to pay Canon's asking price for a lot of the R system gear, but it seems quite a few people are.





jd7 said:


> Then again, if enough people buy the gear at Canon's asking price, you can't really criticise Canon for not pricing lower (they are in it for the money, after all!). Personally I do struggle with why people are willing to pay Canon's asking price for a lot of the R system gear, but it seems quite a few people are.


Understandable viewpoints jd7. For years, I waited long periods for reviews on new products and the price to come down to a level I thought justified a purchase. Yes, in other words, I was a tightwad and had plenty of time, IMO, to wait it out. Many things in life are a matter of personal belief, opinions, budget constraints, wants, needs, timing, motivation, influences, etc. Now, at age 76, as long as I can afford it, I overlook my prior purchasing hang ups. I do agree that almost all new Canon gear is overpriced when first released, not just the RF 14-35mm F4L lens and think that it should have been priced around $13-1400.00. In the meantime, I no longer own any wide angle EF zoom lenses, such as the EF 16-35 F4 L is and am in need of some form of wide angle zoom. Now preferring native mount lenses, whenever possible, I buy RF, knowing that's where most of Canon's R&D is going. If people waited to buy new gear until the reviews were mostly positive and prices were in bargain territory, hardly anyone would have initially bought R5's and R6's, in the face of all the vitriol surrounding both cameras. Thank goodness, most overlooked the overwhelming negative publicity and decided to find out for themselves, paying MSRP and happy to get their new gear. Now, most everyone will agree, even the naysayers, that both bodies provide an outstanding photographic experience, even up against Sony's A1 body. So, bucking all the ongoing neg commentary on the new RF 14-35, I can afford its overpricing and have it on pre-order and will make my own decisions after hands on experience with it. If that is enabling Canon to overcharge for future gear, then so be it. How else does anyone expect Mfgs to recover their start up costs, both R&D, as well as Mfg costs and continue to develop new products. If the lens provides me with greater positive photo experiences, then I will not care what I paid for it. If all the naysayers are correct and the lens just sucks, I'll just sell it and move on to something else. Generally, it's pretty easy to re-sell new Canon gear. Just look at how many people have sold their much maligned R5's, R6's, RF28-70's, etc., shortly after being released, for more than MSRP. Thank goodness for early adopters. It took me a few years to realize they are the direct reason we see new gear coming down the pipe. Personally, I thank them rather than questioning why they bought it and/or paid too much.


----------



## entoman (Aug 21, 2021)

I really wish Canon hadn't put the zoom and focus rings so close together on this and some other RF lenses - it's so easy to accidentally grab hold of the wrong one when the camera is at the eye, especially as the rubber rings are so similar in texture and feel.

Of course, Canon can't just go back to the drawing board and redesign them now - it's too late for that. But a small step in the right direction would be to radically change the texture/ribbing of the zoom ring, to make it easier to distinguish it by feel, from the focus ring...


----------



## entoman (Aug 21, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Personally I do struggle with why people are willing to pay Canon's asking price for a lot of the R system gear, but it seems quite a few people are.


Canon do actually produce a small but expanding range of budget lenses in RF mount, e.g. 35mm F1.8 macro, 50mm F1.8, 85mm F2 macro, 24-105mm F4-7.1, 600mm F11, 800mm F11, 24-240mm F4-6.3. All of these have had good reviews. I own the 800mm F11 and a friend has the 600mm F11, which both open up new fields of photography for those on a tight budget.

Each lens purchase needs to be considered on its own merit. Sometimes it's better to splash out on the RF exotica, other times it's better to go for the budget RF optic, or to get an EF version and use it with the EF-RF adaptor. Ergonomically, the EF lenses are actually better designs, because their RF replacements have the focus and zoom rings too close together and use the same texture of rubber, making it difficult to distinguish between the zoom and focus rings by feel, when the camera is at the eye.

I currently own an EF 100mm F2.8L macro, and have considered the new RF version, but I don't think the 1.4x magnification or the aspherical control are worth the extra expense. My EF lens is now 10 years old, very heavily used and suffering from intermittent problems with AF and OIS, so it's due for replacement. But I'm more likely to buy the non-L 85mm macro, which is optically excellent, or to get another EF 100mm F2.8L macro, than to spend £1500 on the RF 100mm macro.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 21, 2021)

entoman said:


> I really wish Canon hadn't put the zoom and focus rings so close together on this and some other RF lenses - it's so easy to accidentally grab hold of the wrong one when the camera is at the eye, especially as the rubber rings are so similar in texture and feel.
> 
> Of course, Canon can't just go back to the drawing board and redesign them now - it's too late for that. But a small step in the right direction would be to radically change the texture/ribbing of the zoom ring, to make it easier to distinguish it by feel, from the focus ring...


I see this complaint a lot. It makes me wonder if you’ve used an RF lens or not. There is no mistaking what the zoom ring is on any of these lenses because it’s nicely contoured. However, the manual focus ring is VERY hard to find and I will occasionally have to take my eye off the EVF to make sure I’m holding the right spot.


----------



## entoman (Aug 21, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> I see this complaint a lot. It makes me wonder if you’ve used an RF lens or not. There is no mistaking what the zoom ring is on any of these lenses because it’s nicely contoured. However, the manual focus ring is VERY hard to find and I will occasionally have to take my eye off the EVF to make sure I’m holding the right spot.


I don't lie. Check my gearlist. Furthermore the fact that you've noted that this is a common complaint adds weight to the points I made. Why would someone who owns one of these lenses complain, unless there was a genuine reason???

The 24-105mm F4 is a pain in the butt to use because the zoom and focus rings are immediately adjacent and both have very similar rubber ribbing. Sure, you can move your finger up and down the lens to locate the contour of the zoom ring, but the rings are only separated by a 2mm gap and it's very easy to grab the wrong one, unless you actually *look* at the lens first.

Now, admittedly I've only owned this lens a couple of weeks and no doubt I'll gradually become more familiar with it, but nevertheless the ergonomics are plain awful when compared with my old EF 24-105mm F4 Mkii. The latter had a significant space between the 2 rings, and each had an instantly recognisable texture. The EF zoom ring was also much smoother in operation compared to the rather stiff RF version.

Another issue with the RF version is the proximity of the focus and control rings - the only saving graces being that the control ring does have a different texture, and can be disabled. There are so many customisable buttons and dials on the camera that the control ring IMO is just a fairly useless sales gimmick that would better have been left off. Without it, Canon could have made the focus ring far more substantial, and separated it properly from the zoom ring.

Optically the RF version is stunning, and it focuses much faster than the EF version, but ergonomically it's a disaster.

A classic example of form over function.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 22, 2021)

entoman said:


> Canon do actually produce a small but expanding range of budget lenses in RF mount, e.g. 35mm F1.8 macro, 50mm F1.8, 85mm F2 macro, 24-105mm F4-7.1, 600mm F11, 800mm F11, 24-240mm F4-6.3. All of these have had good reviews. I own the 800mm F11 and a friend has the 600mm F11, which both open up new fields of photography for those on a tight budget.
> 
> Each lens purchase needs to be considered on its own merit. Sometimes it's better to splash out on the RF exotica, other times it's better to go for the budget RF optic, or to get an EF version and use it with the EF-RF adaptor. Ergonomically, the EF lenses are actually better designs, because their RF replacements have the focus and zoom rings too close together and use the same texture of rubber, making it difficult to distinguish between the zoom and focus rings by feel, when the camera is at the eye.
> 
> I currently own an EF 100mm F2.8L macro, and have considered the new RF version, but I don't think the 1.4x magnification or the aspherical control are worth the extra expense. My EF lens is now 10 years old, very heavily used and suffering from intermittent problems with AF and OIS, so it's due for replacement. But I'm more likely to buy the non-L 85mm macro, which is optically excellent, or to get another EF 100mm F2.8L macro, than to spend £1500 on the RF 100mm macro.


Personally, I would not call the 35mm F1.8 macro or 85mm F2 macro "budget" lenses, even if they are much cheaper than an L series lens. The 35mm goes for over A$700, and the 85mm for over A$1,000. Further, I don't think they look good value when you put them up against lenses like the Sony 35mm f/1.8, Samyang 35mm f/1.8, Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S (although admittedly the Nikon is a higher price bracket), Sony 85mm f/1.8, Samyang 75mm f/1.8, Samyang 85mm f/1.4 and Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S, and I'd even throw in the old EF 85mm f/1.8). From everything I have seen and read, I would rate the two Canon RF lenses to be the weakest lenses of that group (optically and at the weak end for AF), with the possible exception of the EF 85mm f/1.8 although I still think it's possible I prefer the images it produces over the RF 85mm f/2 IS even if the RF lens is sharper. I also wouldn't call the RF 85mm f/2 IS small or light for what it is. I guess to be fair though, the Canon lenses are the only ones in that group with IS, and no doubt their close focus ability will be useful to some people.

The RF 50mm f/1.8 is in the budget category I guess, but even so it's twice the price of the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and from everything I've seen and read, apart from the price the differences seem minimal. And again, if you consider it against the 50mm-ish lenses for the Sony and Nikon systems, there are options there for not a whole lot more money which are much more attractive to me.

The 600mm F11 and 800mm F11 are interesting options for anyone looking for that sort of reach, and I think it's probably fair to call them budget lenses once you think about the cost of getting that sort of reach with other lenses. That said, the RF 600mm is about A$1,300 and the RF 800mm is about A$1,700, while a Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 OS C for EF mount goes for under A$1,350. The Sigma is significantly bulkier but it also has a wider maximum aperture and gives you zoom flexibility, so I can see some people preferring it to the RF primes, but equally I can see other people preferring the RF lenses for their size and weight.

As for the 24-105mm F4-7.1 and 24-240mm F4-6.3, I have never looked closefly at them so I won't say anything about them.

Anyway, all of that to say that I struggle to see that Canon's "budget" RF lenses, and particularly the lenses which seem to me to be most likely to be useful to a large number of photographers, namely the 35mm F1.8 macro, 50mm F1.8, 85mm F2 macro, are great value. They are part of the reason that, personally, I don't see good value in the RF system.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2021)

Not to beat a dead horse too much, but some questioned my assertion that Canon and Adobe work hand-in-hand.



unfocused said:


> ...I'm sure Canon has a close and positive working relationship with Adobe...


So I was reading through reviews of RF lenses from The Digital Picture and happened to come across one review where he quoted Canon technical advisor Rudy Winston 



Rudy Winston via The Digital Picture said:


> I’m told that Canon worked aggressively with Adobe to be sure to have the right profiles available to customers using Lightroom or ACR as soon as possible.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 22, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Not to beat a dead horse too much, but some questioned my assertion that Canon and Adobe work hand-in-hand.
> 
> 
> So I was reading through reviews of RF lenses from The Digital Picture and happened to come across one review where he quoted Canon technical advisor Rudy Winston


Ah, that must be why Adobe still has no Camera Matching profiles for anything newer than the original R.


----------



## Joules (Aug 22, 2021)

I can't tell if this has been adressed already as I have not read every post. But evaluating the distortion present at 14 mm by making comparisons to the EF 16-35 mm 4.0 IS USM if clearly not doing it properly, simply because of the difference in focal length. I was curious to visualize the difference in distortion the RF 14-35 mm displays compared between different focal lengths. According to the uncorrected images from the review linked in the OP, the lens is virtually perfect by 28 mm and so I used that as baseline. It is kind of hard to see the distortion in my opinion when viewing the full uncorrected images, as those are also wider than the stated focal length and so the correction encompasses both a stretch and crop. So I compared them separately:

How much wider than stated are the uncorrected images (dark borders illustrade area to be cropped):



How much distortion is present in the uncorrected images, once the crop is applied:



At 16 mm, both compromises are clearly visible compared to the almost perfect image at 28 mm. But they appear also less pronounced than at 14 mm and do not look that problematic to me. Although it is unfortunate that you don't get a FF image out of this L lens at the ultra wide angle, due to the necessary crop. Looks to me like the loss in resolution due to that crop is greater than the one due to the stretch.

A proper comparison to the EF 16-35 mm 4.0 IS USM seems difficult to me, at least using the images from TDP, as those have differnt motives and it is not clear what distances the charts are at. From looking at it briefly on the TDP comparison tool, the EF lens looks quite similar to my eyes at 16 mm compared to the RF one at 16 mm. At 14 mm, no valid comparison is possible due to the difference in focal length.

On a side note, I find it interesting how severely this issue is perceived with regards to the people wishing for circular sensors. If those were a thing, the extreme distortion and fall off in image quality at the edge of the image circle would be visible in each and every frame and so people would have to chose all the time what amount of these issues they can tolerate for a given image. In this lens, Canon just does the same, only in the opposite direction they wish for. Instead of revealing more of the image circle by using an expensive modified sensor, we get to see more of it due to it just being too small to properly fit the FF sensor and therefore the sensor is digitally altered to the appropriate size.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 22, 2021)

Will be interesting to see how this lens fares over at opticallimits.com


----------



## entoman (Aug 22, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Anyway, all of that to say that I struggle to see that Canon's "budget" RF lenses, and particularly the lenses which seem to me to be most likely to be useful to a large number of photographers, namely the 35mm F1.8 macro, 50mm F1.8, 85mm F2 macro, are great value. They are part of the reason that, personally, I don't see good value in the RF system.


Hi, I was using the term "budget" loosely, to indicate that they are much cheaper alternative to the Canon L series, but I agree that none of Canon's lenses are exactly cheap.

I only compare Canon with Canon, because other brands are not fully compatible with the RF system, although they work acceptably well for many people. No one's gonna stick a Nikon or Sony lens on a RF Canon, so they are irrelevant to the discussion. If someone wants Sony or Nikon lenses, they should obviously have bought a Sony or Nikon body, not a Canon.

I think Canon are to some extent justified in pricing their RF lenses higher than the EF nearest equivalents, because most of the RF lenses offer better optical performance and superior specifications e.g. more compact, closer focusing, wider maximum aperture etc.

If you are on a tight budget, don't forget that there are masses of superb Canon L lenses in EF mount that will work just as well on an RF camera, although they'll usually be a bit bulkier and may not focus quite as rapidly. Most of them are half the price of RF lenses, and there are thousands of mint condition ones on the secondhand market - I personally wouldn't buy a body secondhand, but lenses are usually a safe proposition - what happens is people buy a lens and then find that they don't use it often enough to justify the expense, so when they feel the pinch, they sell them, and they're usually in mint condition. I'be bought several lenses secondhand e.g. my 180mm F3.5 macro and 24mm T/S-E tilt-shift. Shop around and you'll find some great bargains!


----------



## lawny13 (Aug 24, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> 1) Good job reenforcing Canon's customer-unfriendly design practices and rewarding them for their marketing rather than their actual products. You are why we're having to have these conversations at all. Stop giving companies money until you know that they've actually delivered.
> 2) Tamron's 17-35mm f/2.8-4 is lighter and smaller than this, also uses a 77mm filter thread, and at least going by Bryan's results of this 14-35, the Tamron is optically better in the center and only very slightly worse in the furthest corners. The f/2.8 wide end is a bit soft but you can consider that aperture to just be a bonus, since the Canon lenses don't have it at all; stop it down to f/4 or beyond and the Tamron sharpens up significantly. (Or at least my copy did.) I've owned the Tamron, it wasn't my favourite wide-zoom by any means, but if size is important to you then it is your winner and optically it's very good. I did prefer the optics of the Canon 16-35mm f/4 and that's ultimately what I stuck with, but I appreciate not everyone wants to carry something that size around (and it is only size, not weight; the EF lens is only 80G heavier than this RF and only 150g heavier than the Tamron!) and/or pay that much.
> 
> However you spin it, however you want to try to justify it to yourself, you know that you've paid a gigantic, arbitrary premium, twice, for the sake of saving 80g (180g, if we're including the adapter), about ~1.5cm in length, and a clearly-flawed extra 2mm which is being completed via software rather than the glass you've ostensibly paid for. This is the problem—you are part of it—and this is what manufacturers (it's not Canon alone) need to _not_ be rewarded for.


End of it all it comes down to price. Close to 2k is steep… really steep. If this lens was priced closer to the original 16-35 then I think there would be less issues for people. when the price of A product goes as high as this one we inevitability start to ask ourselves why….

Main question… does the extra 2 mm on the wide end and filter situation justify what appears to be an 80% (!!), here in Europe, price jump?

People of course start to look at the competition, and alternatives. IMHO, this lens is 300-500 euros too expensive. So keeping that in mind…. I will consider getting it later when price comes down in combination with sales if nothing better comes out during that time. Cause I am still hoping for Tammy and/or sigma to jump in. This is low hanging fruit for them. i don’t see why one of them wouldn’t come out with an affordable 16-35 f4 that a lot of people would choose over this RF 14-35


----------



## hawkjody (Sep 7, 2021)

I got my copy and used it for the first time this weekend - notice SEVERE vignetting a 14 mm - is this to be expected or could it be a bad copy? No Lens hood on No Filter on. No lens profile yet available int LR none applied


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 7, 2021)

hawkjody said:


> I got my copy and used it for the first time this weekend - notice SEVERE vignetting a 14 mm - is this to be expected or could it be a bad copy? No Lens hood on No Filter on. No lens profile yet available int LR none applied


I would recommend trying to open your files in Canon's DPP software so the lens corrections can be applied. Until Adobe adds support for corrections to this lens, you will notice severe vignetting. Check out the reviews of the lens to compare, but your lens' performance is likely completely normal at this time.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 19, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I would recommend trying to open your files in Canon's DPP software so the lens corrections can be applied. Until Adobe adds support for corrections to this lens, you will notice severe vignetting. Check out the reviews of the lens to compare, but your lens' performance is likely completely normal at this time.


That’s very true, although Adobe does offer a manual tool that is very easy to remove or add big netting should you desire to.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2021)

JohnC said:


> That’s very true, although Adobe does offer a manual tool that is very easy to remove or add *big netting* should you desire to.


That would come in handy for pictures of commercial fishing.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That would come in handy for pictures of commercial fishing.


Oh man. Lol. Don’t you just love autocorrect? Sorry.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 20, 2021)

JohnC said:


> Oh man. Lol. Don’t you just love autocorrect? Sorry.


Autocorrect makes you say things you didn’t Nintendo.


----------

