2 Years With The Canon RF14-35mm f/4 IS USM | Review

In this episode I give you my honest thoughts on the Canon RF14-35mm f/4 IS USM. With a RF15-35 f/2.8 IS USM and the newly-announced RF10-20mm f/4 IS STM, where does this lens fit into the ultrawide ecosystem of Canon. After two years of use, I have some thoughts...
Get your RF14-35mm f/4 IS USM here
amzn.to/3MdFH08
My presets for BOTH Capture One and Lightroom are out now! Get them here!
www.kevindealphotography.com/...
Check out my F/11 Podcast!
APPLE
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
SPOTIFY
open.spotify.com/show/0xjzhkB...
Check out my website!
www.kevindealphotography.com/
Check out my Instagram!
/ kevindealphoto

[@KevinDeal]

How long have you had your RF14-35mm f/4 IS USM? Do you still love it? With the announcement of the RF10-20 f/4 STM, are you going to make the switch? Tell me in the comments below.

[@Promikes]

that ibis wobbling is insane...

[@KevinDeal]

You're 100% correct

[@bunkermagnus]

Yes, had the 14-35 for about 2 years also, love the lens, light and the close minimum focus distance allows for some very interesting creative shots. When I bought the 14-35 two years ago the difference between it and the 15-35 was less than $400 but I still went with the 14-35 for these mentioned reasons.

[@KevinDeal]

Yeah. I struggled between the 14-35 and the 15-35 because the prices used to be a lot closer. Now, unless you need the extra stop, the 14-35 is much more valuable at it's lower price.

[@user-du9qp3fe6r]

I FORGOT TO MENTIO ITS MAGNIFICATION REPRODUCTIN IS ABOUT 0.4 X WHIS IS AWESOME ALMOST MACRO , MAKES BLOWING OUT BACKGROUND EASY.

[@frankseophotos9633]

Nice review! subscribed!

[@KevinDeal]

Thank you!

[@TheBigBlueMarble]

On the R5...street photography...just set the R5 to a 1.6 crop.

[@KevinDeal]

I've definitely done that before.

[@aylingpaul]

Nice Review love mine 14-35 perfect for my R7

[@KevinDeal]

Love that lens on my R7.

[@gerrywagner3693]

Thanks for this review. I like your practical approach with lots of sample pictures versus a super techie review. I subscribed. I'm traveling, and part of my photography will be many landscapes and indoors. I'm trying to keep my bag as light as possible, and your comparison of the 16mm 2.8 to the 14-35mm was super helpful. After seeing the side-by-side comparison, I think I'll forgo the 14-35mm and get a small, light 16mm to keep in my bag for wide landscape shots and indoor shots. I plan to carry my 24-105mm F4 L IS USM as my walkaround, too, and possibly an F4 70-200mm L IS USM. I will look to see if you have reviews on that lens, too. I also have a 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM, but it's pretty heavy to carry all day...

[@KevinDeal]

If I were traveling I would likely leave the 14-35 at home unless the point of my trip was landscape photography. It’s a fine lens. I did a review of that one as well if you have time to check out that review. Thank for you for sub!

[@lifesbeautiful3024]

I love my 14-35. I use it for landscapes and not much else, but for landscapes F4 is plenty and the lens is very sharp with a great range so as to show great perspective. I was thinking of the 15-35 2.8, but I didn’t need the extra stop of light and this was way less expensive and yet a fantastic lens

[@KevinDeal]

Pretty much a carbon copy of my thoughts. Thanks for the watch.

[@JohnScarrott]

Interesting review, thanks Kevin! I am off to get the 10-20 next, as I already have the 15-35 2.8. The 10-20 will mean I'm then covered from 10mm to 1000mm apart from 500-600 where the 100-500 + 2x misses that bit. The 10-20 is also rectilinear apparently so keeps lines straight right up to the edges, so should be great for street photography. It's F4 but I think on my R3 with it's great low light ability that's not going to be an issue.

[@KevinDeal]

thanks for checking it out. Want to get my hands on the 10-20 at some point.

[@KyleJones-kk8vw]

I primarily do wildlife, but picked this up used a year ago to have a wider landscape/travel option when the opportunity arises. This really is an outstanding complimentary lens if you want more creative license than the 16mm, but still need to keep weight down. The RF 10-20 is probably overkill for my needs.

[@KevinDeal]

If the 10-20 came out at the same time as the 14-35 and the 14-35 was still selling for $1699 it would be a tougher choice for me. But with it at $1199 currently, the fact that I probably don't need to go wider than 14 and the fact that it gets almost twice the length at 35, it seems like a much better value. The 10-20 looks like a one trick pony and less versatile. It basically exists to shoot at 10mm. I would be interested in a 10mm prime at like f/4 or f/2.8 instead that is over engineered to reduct distortion.

[@TheRealTonyCastillo]

As a hobbyist I couldn't justify the cost of the RF 15-35 2.8. I like to shoot wildlife and storm/lightning photography. I've used the RF 16 a few times for some wide angles, and it did alright, not the sharpest when zooming in on the photo in post but was acceptable. I've had the 14-35 for about 3 weeks now and got it at the price you mentioned so out the door was 1280.00 with taxes. I wasn't 100% sure of the lens. I did my daughters senior pictures with an old EF 85 1.8 and used this lens for a different perspective, and I liked how it looked kind of like you do, and it is really sharp. Is my first RF L lens but have most of the lower RF line of lenses. I think I will keep it and I am having fun with the lens and that is the best part. The F4 doesn't really bother me that much yet, I will see how it performs for lightning photos next spring and summer, I tend to use an older EF 28-70L 2.8 for night stuff.

[@KevinDeal]

Congrats on going with the 14-35. I hope it gives you years of great shots.

[@capture_the_stoke9646]

I’ll keep an eye out for how the 10-20 looks yet for me the 14-35 works as a great range of wide angle. Maybe what might tempt me to switch is how straight the images might look on the 10-20, how they compare to corrected 14-35…

[@KevinDeal]

I'm curious about the 10-20. I haven't put my hands on it yet. But it does seem like it may be a tad too wide for me. Since I primarily use my 14-35 for video, I actually do need the long end often and I'm not sure the long end on the 10-20 will be enough. But....I have yet to actually try the 10-20. For all I know I'll love it.

[@ruslanss]

Good review

[@KevinDeal]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@WeiK0]

good stuff😊

[@KevinDeal]

Thanks 😁

[@nicoxg]

Hi Kevin! Thanks for a great review! When this lens came out, quite a few people were complaining about a horrendous wobbling effect when vlogging, when used in combination with stabilised bodies (a side effect of the combination of OIS and IBIS it would seem). Do you know if firmware updates might have corrected this in the meantime? Firmware seems to be 1.03 at the moment. Alternatively, maybe now cameras allow to deactivate either OIS or IBIS individually? I welcome your feedback! Subscribed!

[@KevinDeal]

That’s a great question. I need to see which version of the firmware I have. Let me go check and I’ll get back to you. I can tell you that the wobbling is still pretty bad. Thanks!

[@KevinDeal]

I'm running 1.02. Looks like I need to go fetch the update and check.

[@nicoxg]

Firmware 1.03 appears to "Add the ability to correct focus breathing during movie recording", but I don't know if that addresses the issue though (not sure it does). 🙂

[@netlawman2001]

Is your comment about cropping correct? My understanding is that the 14mm spec is "corrected" and that the lens itself is actually a wider FOV? That is why you see the change in FOV after corrections. If this is the case, you should really find a way to correct your video.

[@KevinDeal]

Manufacturers approximate specs. For example, the RF85mm is more like a 90mm lens. Put it up next to any other 85mm Canon lens and you will easily see that it is a longer lens. When the lens is "corrected" it presents more like a 16mm to my eyes. It's just a general test I performed. I let others view it and draw their own conclusions. If you'd like to petition You Tube to allow us to upload corrected videos, I'm all for it. That's not a possibility at present time. Thanks for watching.

[@netlawman2001]

no need to petition. But you did state it as fact without the clarification of it being your view. The fact is that the uncorrected lens is wider than 14mm, and the width/FOV of the corrected image depends on the raw converter used. LR, DxO, DPP, and others take slightly different approaches. In the end, the 1mm either way isn't going to kill anyone as we all have feet. But the takeaway from this video is that the Canon exaggerated the specs or that the camera is flawed (i.e., people are assessing the distortion of the lens based on a part of the lens that is not intended to part of the image in the first place - meaning the distortion in the wider-than-14mm section of the lens is wholly irrelevant). @@KevinDeal

[@KevinDeal]

​@@netlawman2001 You should make a video on this where you go into the semantics of the actual measurement of the lens from the sensor and how RAW editors interpret the images. I'd watch it

[@netlawman2001]

@@KevinDealwhat would the point be? My only feedback is a reviewer who looks at and comments on uncorrected raw files should be clear about what they are commenting on to avoid passing on erroneous info. In this case, the implication of your assessment is that the picture quality is compromised at the images edges (as evidenced by the uncorrected raws). That is not semantics. That is a very broad conclusion. It’s very different than saying “the uncorrected raws have distortion and vignetting, but areas of concern are largely outside the intended image/FOV. It is therefore irrelevant. With respect to the image quality within the 14mm FOV, my observations are……”

[@matyasvarga1994]

I search an allarounder lens for my r7 (mainly for video), and I really excited about this lens because of it is an L series lens, weatheseald, and has a strong stabilisation. And it would be the perfect focal lens for me. But I'm a bit worried about the f4 in crop sensor, and there is the famous alternative, the sigma 18-35mm f1.8. Can you share some advice about it?

[@KevinDeal]

I haven’t had an issues with light with the 14-35. It’s been fine.

[@matyasvarga1994]

@@KevinDeal thank you!

[@TheBigBlueMarble]

Canon has established certain expectations for their L-glass and there are certain features the buyer expects. It is always their best build quality and it is designed for full frame cameras. There should be one additional feature of L lenses. They should be designed well enough that in-camera and post processing distortion correction should be mostly unnecessary and CERTAINLY not mandatory in-camera.

[@KevinDeal]

I suppose. Since every single RF lens depends on this I’m assuming you don’t own or shoot on any RF glass. What do you use instead?

[@TheBigBlueMarble]

@@KevinDeal That is not true. Other RF lenses do not mandate that in-camera distortion correction be active.

[@TheBigBlueMarble]

@@KevinDeal Other RF glass does not mandate that in-camera distortion correction be enabled.

[@KevinDeal]

Yeah, I misread your original comment. I was talking about the fact that there is no perfect lens and that they all have profiles that exist in our RAW editors to improve the looks. I wasn't commenting on mandating. Personally, I don't care about this and never will.

[@SLuelmo]

Terrible vigneting… 14mm is marketing cause corrected is probably 15 or even 16mm

[@KevinDeal]

Even though it is physically 14mm from the sensor, which does technically make it 14mm, I completely agree with you. It's more or less a 16-35 f4. Once you get to that 16, it's quite good. But those far outsides are rough.