The Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM is in stock, deliveries to customers start June 27

[JTP]

@Viggo - I don’t want to get into a forum argument here. I'm not defending the lens; I'm simply saying that I don't care about the meaningless arguments presented in the video. Have you actually used this lens yet? My point is that people often get hung up on technical tests that don't reflect real-world use cases. This lens is remarkable in terms of sharpness from center to borders, and the colors are spectacular. The issues with chromatic aberration and lens flare he mentions will almost never affect me, so why should I care? My clients, who provide me a full-time living, won't care either. People often focus too much on the technical details and forget to appreciate the important aspects. Now, I have a 35mm lens that is 1.2 pounds and rivals the 50mm 1.2 at 35mm. This new 35mm lens outperforms the old EF 35mm. I’ll continue producing consistent work for my clients, who pay me to do this for a living. That’s all that matters to me. If you prefer to use older lenses, go ahead. I'll tell you what - here's a few of my recent images, go take the older lenses and produce this sharpness, consistency, and these colors. These new RF versions are better in just about every way possible and the 35mm is just another exceptional addition to the lineup.

 

[JTP]

Seemed to work ok for the 24-105/2.8L, though. For me also, the aperture ring is useless...but it's an excellent lens.

Didn't Canon state that you would be able to use the aperture ring with future camera releases? - and agree, as a photographer I won't use it either, but it's nice to have if I ever want to pop it on for video some day.

 

[JTP]

This is a SOOC test JPG from the RF 35 of my little boy. The greens and blues, along with skin tones are just silky and beautiful. I haven't had a chance to dig into client work with it yet, but will soon and I'll post some examples for folks.

 

[Viggo]

Seemed to work ok for the 24-105/2.8L, though. For me also, the aperture ring is useless...but it's an excellent lens.

I’ll rephrase that, I wish they made the same priorities optically as with the 50 and 85, less focus on correcting focus breathing and more focus on correcting distortion, busy bokeh and CA. I view this lens differently than maybe Canon intended as I never shoot video. They hybrid shooters may love this, but as stills shooter I’m disappointed.

 

[JTP]

I’ll rephrase that, I wish they made the same priorities optically as with the 50 and 85, less focus on correcting focus breathing and more focus on correcting distortion, busy bokeh and CA. I view this lens differently than maybe Canon intended as I never shoot video. They hybrid shooters may love this, but as stills shooter I’m disappointed.

Could you share any personal photos taken with the lens that didn't meet your expectations? Personally, I haven't noticed any significant differences between this lens and my 85mm or 50mm lenses. I use 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses for 99% of a wedding day, and to me, the 35mm performs like an RF 50mm in 35mm form. I'd be curious to see some personal real world examples and comparisons from you that highlight the differences, as I haven't observed them myself.

 

[Viggo]

Could you share any personal photos taken with the lens that didn't meet your expectations? Personally, I haven't noticed any significant differences between this lens and my 85mm or 50mm lenses. I use 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses for 99% of a wedding day, and to me, the 35mm performs like an RF 50mm in 35mm form. I'd be curious to see some personal real world examples and comparisons from you that highlight the differences, as I haven't observed them myself.

I’ll go back to my initial statement “ if he’s not straight up lying this is disappointing”. I didn’t really see any negative reviews of either 50 or 85. And btw, those two aren’t equal either, the 85 is quite a bit better in every regard. Your clients won’t be able to tell the difference, that we ageee on, but by that statement I could get away with using pretty much any lens ever made, that’s not the point here.

Canon made this lens less expensive, which I don’t get, and included some qualities that I don’t want by sacrificing qualities I appriciate.

There were always those who said “MY ef 50 f1.2 L doesn’t have focus shift” yes it does..

 

[JTP]

I’ll go back to my initial statement “ if he’s not straight up lying this is disappointing”. I didn’t really see any negative reviews of either 50 or 85. And btw, those two aren’t equal either, the 85 is quite a bit better in every regard. Your clients won’t be able to tell the difference, that we ageee on, but by that statement I could get away with using pretty much any lens ever made, that’s not the point here.

Canon made this lens less expensive, which I don’t get, and included some qualities that I don’t want by sacrificing qualities I appriciate.

There were always those who said “MY ef 50 f1.2 L doesn’t have focus shift” yes it does..

Sorry my friend, maybe they'll make one more appealing for you next round. Or maybe you'll get your hands on one soon, shoot with it, and have a change of heart. It's a truly remarkable 35 and a very welcome addition to the kit of every professional that uses Canon that I know. Good luck!

 

[john1970]

Magnetic Field Strength of VCM

Out of curiosity, this evening I used a Gauss meter to measure the magnetic field strength around the Canon RF 35 mm f1.4 lens. The maximum reading I received was located just above the AF/MF switch located on the lens. All measurements are approximate, but at two inches away the magnetic field strength was <= 1 Gauss. Measurements taken with the lens unmounted on the camera.

 

[frankchn]

I get that you like to defend your purchase, but it isn’t as good as it should be, and relying on software to correct MASSIVE distortion and more CA than any other RF-L is pretty bad for an L.

Have you seen the uncorrected images out of the 10-20L at MFD 10mm? I think digital correction is here to stay going forward on all RF lenses, like it or not.

Canon made this lens less expensive, which I don’t get, and included some qualities that I don’t want by sacrificing qualities I appriciate.

I don’t think it is less expensive relative to the competition — sure it is cheaper than the EF 35L, but this is the most expensive FF mirrorless 35mm prime not branded “Leica”.

The Sony GM and Sigma 1.2 Art are both less expensive right now on B&H. I think they would be hard pressed to justify a $2000 lens like the EF version in the current market.

 

[Del Paso]

@Viggo - I don’t want to get into a forum argument here. I'm not defending the lens; I'm simply saying that I don't care about the meaningless arguments presented in the video. Have you actually used this lens yet? My point is that people often get hung up on technical tests that don't reflect real-world use cases. This lens is remarkable in terms of sharpness from center to borders, and the colors are spectacular. The issues with chromatic aberration and lens flare he mentions will almost never affect me, so why should I care? My clients, who provide me a full-time living, won't care either. People often focus too much on the technical details and forget to appreciate the important aspects. Now, I have a 35mm lens that is 1.2 pounds and rivals the 50mm 1.2 at 35mm. This new 35mm lens outperforms the old EF 35mm. I’ll continue producing consistent work for my clients, who pay me to do this for a living. That’s all that matters to me. If you prefer to use older lenses, go ahead. I'll tell you what - here's a few of my recent images, go take the older lenses and produce this sharpness, consistency, and these colors. These new RF versions are better in just about every way possible and the 35mm is just another exceptional addition to the lineup.

View attachment 217763View attachment 217764View attachment 217765View attachment 217766View attachment 217767

Leica's optical developers have always stated that lenses shouldn't be judged on the basis of test- chart results, but on actual real-life results. If you use the Noctilux to shoot charts on a wall, you'll be fully disappointed. Different story if you take pictures of people in an adequate environment. Look at the RF 100-400 MTFs or charts, mediocre at best.
Yet, quite strangely, you get very good pictures with this lens.
If I didn't have the EF 1,4/35, I wouldn't hesitate one second and order the RF version. Generally speaking, I distrust reviews and I distrust even more reviewers...
PS: very nice mariage pictures!

 

[Viggo]

Have you seen the uncorrected images out of the 10-20L at MFD 10mm? I think digital correction is here to stay going forward on all RF lenses, like it or not.

I don’t think it is less expensive relative to the competition — sure it is cheaper than the EF 35L, but this is the most expensive FF mirrorless 35mm prime not branded “Leica”.

The Sony GM and Sigma 1.2 Art are both less expensive right now on B&H. I think they would be hard pressed to justify a $2000 lens like the EF version in the current market.

One might say “the competition” when comparing brands, but not really though. People, well most, don’t change systems because of one lens. And the other RF-primes, although expensive, is mostly considered absolutely worth it, so what Sony or Nikon might charge for their similar lenses isn’t all that relevant.

Charts have their purpose, but I wasn’t referring to charts in my initial comment, but rather his general findings, which included the backlit portraits etc. The other RF-L primes aren’t dependent on digital correction. I think it’s bad enough my 28 f2.8 pancake needs it… which is kind of my point with 35, it isn’t the “all-in” lens the EF mk2 and the other RF-L primes was.

I’ve shot quite a bit with several different Nocti’s and they are pretty horrible in a technical way. So much so that it wasn’t really enjoyable, much like the ef 50 L. That’s my opinion, I like sharp and very good technical lenses with great bokeh, like the RF 50, 85 and 135. I’m no so sure the new 35 matches those at all, which is weird because loads of people will be using two or more of those together.

 

[roby17269]

I've used the new RF 35 1.4 last saturday in the streets of Soho (Manhattan).
I cannot share the results as the files are with the retoucher.
A few considerations...

On the good side: love size and weight. The lens feels well built and, while I did feel the rattle once, it did not bother me carrying it around in my backpack (i.e. I did not shake it deliberately). The AF is silent. The resulting images are plenty sharp (looking at them in LR and PS, meaning with profile corrections applied) and at ISO 400 there was no hint of additional noise due to vignetting correction.

On the less good side: I wish Canon had made the focus ring wider. It's too early to judge it but I would classify it as a competent lens but without the "magic" of the 85 1.2. I would prefer the 50 1.2 to it as well for what I've seen.

All in all, a good showing but not stellar. In line with the price. I would not call the conditions I have used it in "extreme": I mean I did not shoot fully open nor in the dark requiring high ISO. And the model was not moving at high speed or randomly More testing needed.

I would still prefer a 35 1.2 with a design approach closer to the current 1.2 primes. Of course Canon would have to make one

 

[nhandumuc]

Bryan's review is up!

Canon RF 35mm F1.4 L VCM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 35mm F1.4 L VCM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[koenkooi]

Bryan's review is up!

Canon RF 35mm F1.4 L VCM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 35mm F1.4 L VCM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

Kinda, it starts with:

The Canon RF 35mm F1.4 L VCM Lens has been announced, and this review will be completed at a high priority upon its arrival.B&H expects to ship this lens on June 27th. In the meantime, here is information about and expectations for this lens.

and it proceeds with generic information.

 

[frankchn]

One might say “the competition” when comparing brands, but not really though. People, well most, don’t change systems because of one lens. And the other RF-primes, although expensive, is mostly considered absolutely worth it, so what Sony or Nikon might charge for their similar lenses isn’t all that relevant.

It might or might not be relevant in terms of your choice of systems, but as a matter of product positioning, pricing, and design, the big three closely matches each other for their professional primes. We have the following prices on B&H today:

Focal Length	Canon RF L	Nikon Z S-line	Sony GM
35mm	35 f/1.4L - $1500	None (non S-line for $600)	35 f/1.4 GM - $1400
50mm	50 f/1.2L - $2100	50 f/1.2 S - $1900	50 f/1.2 GM - $2000
85mm	85 f/1.2L - $2600	85 f/1.2 S - $2800	85 f/1.4 GM - $1800
135mm	135 f/1.8L - $1900	135 f/1.8 Plena - $2500	135 f/1.8 GM - $2100

The only standouts that are differ by more than $100-$200 from their competitors are the 85 f/1.4 GM (which is slower than the other two) and the Nikon 135mm f/1.8 Plena (which I consider to have specific design characteristics not found on the other two, somewhat like the 85L DS). Canon is unlikely to design and price a 35mm f/1.4L lens at $2000+ for mirrorless.

They would obviously price a hypothetical f/1.2L higher (maybe ~$2300-$2500 looking at the gap between the Canikon 85 f/1.2s and the Sony f/1.4), but once they decided to build a f/1.4, the pricing etc are basically set.

 

[nhandumuc]

Kinda, it starts with:

and it proceeds with generic information.

The review has added image quality comparison, vignette and distortion for the RF35L, not the generic one back on the announced date.

 

[Viggo]

The review has added image quality comparison, vignette and distortion for the RF35L, not the generic one back on the announced date.

Take a look at Distortion comparing it to the EF 35 L II.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Take a look at Distortion comparing it to the EF 35 L II.

Compare it to the RF 14-35mm @ 14mm. Then compare the latter to the EF 11-24/4 @ 14mm. Then consider that in that second comparison, the two post-processed images have essentially identical image quality in the extreme corners.

Seriously, people need to get over their hangup about digital correction of distortion. It yields similar quality as optical (glass in the lens) correction of the older lenses.

 

[Viggo]

Compare it to the RF 14-35mm @ 14mm. Then compare the latter to the EF 11-24/4 @ 14mm. Then consider that in that second comparison, the two post-processed images have essentially identical image quality in the extreme corners.

Seriously, people need to get over their hangup about digital correction of distortion. It yields similar quality as optical (glass in the lens) correction of the older lenses.

That last sentence is it through. They’re no better are they? If they did the optical correction the corner performance would be absolutely stellar. I normally never ever correct distortion in Lr because the lens and image loses its pop. If it’s forced correction, can I adjust it back? And if so, the distortion is way too much. No thanks, I prefer stellar optics in stead of digital fakery….

 

[neuroanatomist]

That last sentence is it through. They’re no better are they? If they did the optical correction the corner performance would be absolutely stellar.

The RF version is smaller, much lighter (the EF MkII is 40% heavier), and significantly cheaper.

If they did the optical correction, it would likely match EF version optically as well as in size, weight and cost.

There’s no free lunch. The bottom line is that digital correction is just as effective as optical correction (neither inherently worse nor inherently better), but needs less glass.

I normally never ever correct distortion in Lr because the lens and image loses its pop. If it’s forced correction, can I adjust it back? And if so, the distortion is way too much. No thanks, I prefer stellar optics in stead of digital fakery….

That’s your choice. Fortunately, no one is forcing you to buy the lens.

Having carried the massive 11-24/4 on many travels, I’m thrilled with the 10-20/4.