CANON RF 35 f/1.4 L VCM vs EF 35 f/1.4 L II - Which 35mm is Best?

[@patricioderito3722]

I have the RF, Sold my EF version. I compared both. It's lighter, cheaper, native, don't have to adapt, and image quality is almost identical to the EF version. The RF is actually sharper and contrastier.The distortion issue is not a problem at all, its gets fixed automatically and you forget about it. It's such a NON-ISSUE. Who cares!! the final product looks perfect. Everything I mentioned in the beginning is worth the trade off.

[@bsant7]

The bokeh is also softer , more appealing and less busy than the EF, I personally consider it character that it distorts.

[@GP996_LB]

I love my RF version too but too bad a lot of "influencer" are obsessed with hating profile correction although it does not affect the IQ

[@ER-gn8io]

Ja, aber der niedrige IQ der Influenzer scheint hier wohl das Problem zu sein! Die schreiben alle voneinander ab und veröffentlichen den selben Bockmist!

[@nokianx400]

@@GP996_LB Dustin Abbott showed how it affected the image especially at high ISO... so yes (correction) it has a negative effect.

[@mattgericke4537]

@@patricioderito3722 you’re accepting a less quality lens from a design and build quality perspective because a third party software can fix the issue? That makes no sense. It’s like saying why offer anything lower than F5.6 since we can just use software to Denoise and add background blur and sharpen all in post. Let’s just use an iPhone 7 and call it quality.

[@bluekarel]

I still like my ef tamron 35mm 1.4 sp

[@mattgericke4537]

I have the tamron art series 1.4 ef, and the canon ef 1.4 II, and to me the autofocus is so much better on the canon and the image quality is better, espeically in the corners full open.

[@livin_lino]

@@mattgericke4537 Did you mean sigma art series?

[@michbest]

He ment Sigma G2 Lumix LOL 😅​@@livin_lino

[@dragSD666]

thanks for the video :) i just bought the EF version in the used market and i know i got the right decision.

[@Cphoto1954]

EXCELLENT review! I was hopeful of this new line of RF lenses and agree that moving the pixels around so much is not a good thing. I have the Tamron 35 1.4; it is a stellar lens in every way. I tested them side by side and the Tamron stood out to me both in sharpness and bokeh rendering. Plus the Tamron is more reasonably priced even with the EF/RF Adapter. Yes, it is heavier but to me it is worth it. I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and was hoping to get the new RF 1.4 but thinking it will be disappointing in the same way.

[@พวกพรี่ๆ]

RF 50 1.2 VS RF 50 1.4 VCM Please

[@ukejem]

And versus the 50mm 1.8 please- would love to see the difference

[@TheZachMendez]

@@พวกพรี่ๆ will be making that as soon as I can get my hands on the new 50

[@nokianx400]

@@ukejem 50 f1.8 is no comparison to the L lenses especially if you want to shoot wide open.

[@transparent1054]

Thanks Zach, the difference in distortion is truly eye opening. Appreciate ith your analysis and comparison.

[@brianbeattyphotography]

good comparison. I absolutely love the 35mm II. When the RF version was released, it was one of the last ones that I was looking out for to convert fully with my R5, but with the distortion compromises and lighter build I decided not to

[@jaylistudios]

Definitely a good comparison! Your video changed my opinion for the RF 35 L. Previous engineer here. One thing I noticed that the rf actually did better is the quality of the bokeh of RF is actually higher (I guess it's subjective too as you liked the EF's bokeh more) by reducing the defined/double edges on the bokeh (pretty obvious on the grass you showed at the lower left corner, looks like two lines on the EF but one smooth on the RF). I think that's a more proper bokeh (as they didn't need to compromise that part by correcting for distortion in engineering). RF's Bokeh balls are less defined than the EF's. As for the digital correction, for video it's much less of a problem because of the 16:9 ratio (edges cropped out already), and typically a non-raw workflow, downsampled 4k delivery. But for stills, I think it's safe to estimate you are losing more than 15% of your total resolutions, which is a part of your purchase if you require certain resolutions. I guess for web use it's not that big of a deal but for printing, you may find it noticible. Also, the signal-to-noise ratio will be affected by the extreme vignette. I noticed this trend starting with the RF 16mm f2.8, then 14-35, 24mm f2.8 and now this one. I left canon because I don't agree with their new design philosophy. As for the pricing, it's reasonable that the RF version is lower. As the costs for producing an uncorrected lens like the RF version should be significantly cheaper than its EF counterpart. I think they are finally doing this part right (RF14-35 was so expensive). If they price the RF higher than the EF version, while also not allowing 3rd party manufacturers to produce full frame RF lenses, they will be in deep trouble. But at the end of the day, I feel like the RF version is a good lens within Canon's lineup, considering the size, weight, image quality, and pricing. As a working photographer, I often prioritize the ergonomics and ease of use of a lens over pure image quality. No one can tell there's anything wrong with the RF version without the A/B comparison, and even with the comparison no client would ever tell you they dislike the image coming out from the RF because they prefer the EF's corrected design. If printing large is always the priority, consider the EF, or even upgrade to medium format should be the way to go. For videographers, not needing to rebalance the gimbal is huge. That's one huge advantage for the 24/35/50 VCM over Sony's 24/25/50 f1.4 primes.

[@egor1g]

I have rf 50 1.2 and rf 35 1.4 vcm, I like VCM better overall. I will probably switch 50 1.2 for 50 1.4 vcm. It feels like more modern design for me. It’s light and amazing auto focus. I see no penalties in quality at all.

[@dillonencinia2729]

Let me know when y’all do so I can buy yalls 1.2

[@nokianx400]

a weight weenie.. LMAO

[@AM-bq4cx]

Can't u use crop mode to get 50mm focal length

[@egor1g]

@@AM-bq4cx and get 8 mp image?

[@TheArtofKAS]

Thank you for bringing these two together Zach. I've been contemplating getting EF glass for my R6 Mark II for a little bit now just because of the lack of stuff that you can get for the RF line. Looks like that's about to change to an extent. 🫠🫠👏🏿👏🏿

[@TheZachMendez]

Yes, it's exciting. Thanks for watching!

[@carlom.3737]

For reference, I own an R5ii, RF 24-70 2.8L and RF 50 1.2L. I bought the 35 VCM which everyone criticizes for needing profile correction to fix the barrel distortion and vignetting. I have a good relationship with my local camera shop and could return it for any reason within 30 days. I ended up keeping it. Why? Because after shooting both test charts in controlled lighting and in real world shots, even after profile correction, the resulting RAW images were sharper at the corners than my 24-70 2.8L @ 35mm and my 50mm (had to be further away from subject due to focal length difference). So even after some resolution and sharpness was lost by the profile correction stretching the image to correct for distortion, it was still sharper in the corners than the other two lenses. Which made me wonder: are people just mad that it has to use a lot of correction, versus judging the results after the correction and seeing how they compare to other older and respected lenses? You want optically perfect, you need to throw more glass in a lens. That results in a bigger, heavier and yes more expensive lens (hence the EF 35 1.4 and its pricing). But Canon knew there is a market for hybrid shooting (nearly everyone taking up photography in the last 5 years under the age of 40 does it thanks to social media) so they created a lenses designed for that. Because they aimed for a smaller and lighter lens and needed to throw a VCM in there (it's an amazing video lens btw, beats the pants off of any EF and most RF lenses in this regards), they needed to compromise somewhere (there's no defying the laws of physics) and so they traded off poor distortion performance and relied on profile correction. Oh and knocked $500 off the MSRP. Looking at the results in camera and onscreen, in my view they made the right choice. If you have the EF 35 1.4 and only shoot photos, keep it. But if you're a modern hybrid shooter that does any amount of video, I can't think of a good reason to choose the EF over the RF version.

[@BW_Maher]

So tired of the endless blathering about geometric correction using software. There are pros and cons to both software and optical correction. The idea that one is pure photography and the other is somehow compromised is nonsense. The reason why the EF lens uses optical correction is because it was designed for cameras with optical view finders.

[@olesjor]

The Canon ef 35mm L ii is one of the best lenses produced for the EF mount. had high expectations. i own RF 50mm 1.2 it is a big improvement compared to EF 50mm 1.2. but the RF 50mm 1.2 is not a vidio. have a suspicion that there will be a large and heavy RF 35mm 1.2 that will really take over for the EF 35mm

[@tom_k_d]

An optically solid RF35 1.2 - that's what I'm hoping for, too. I don't care size / weight that much, but I care vignetting and distortion! Loving my RF50 1.2, RF85 1.2 and RF135 1.8, but the RF35mm 1.4 is not really worthy to join this exclusive circle.

[@ER-gn8io]

@@tom_k_d Wieder die gleiche kleinkarierte Meinung von ihnen und immer derselbe Quatsch und derselbe Inhalt den sie von sich geben! Sie schreiben von anderen ab und sind beleidigt weil sie die Wahrheit nicht vertragen! Was sie machen sieht eher nach einem Wichtigtuer aus der immer denselben Senf dazugibt obwohl keine entsprechende Erfahrung zu Grunde liegt! Außerdem gibt es kein RF135 1.4 ! Besitzen sie überhaupt eines der genannten Objektive? Ich weiß welche Lichtstärke meine Objektive haben, sie offensichtlich nicht!

[@ER-gn8io]

@@tom_k_d Es gibt kein RF135 1.4 😊

[@ER-gn8io]

@@tom_k_d Wer weiß, ob es wirklich ein Tippfehler war? Könnte aber auch Ahnungslosigkeit gewesen sein …😂

[@kevindiossi]

Great comparison. The EF was a lens I only rented. I learned that, while I enjoyed that lens, I didn’t think I liked it enough to spend the money on a 35mm. I ended up picking up a second hand Sigma 35mm Art lens. Fast forward about 7 years and I’m fully RF mount and decided to buy the new RF 35mm f/1.4 VCM. I’ve been incredibly impressed and happy with that lens, but I’m still not a 35mm focal length shooter - it’s just a flavor of lens I use here and there. Still, sometimes it’s the right lens for the job, and I really love it when I’ve used it for indoor and tighter spaces when I can’t use a 50mm - my preferred walkaround prime. The lens corrections don’t bother me…honestly, I actually like that it shoots slightly wider because I’ve used that to recover areas of the image that, in the heat of the moment, I cut off some details. I went into Lightroom and dialed back the distortion correction and it turned out looking great. The final result is great and at the end of the day, that’s all I cared about. I pick up my RF 24-105 f/2.8 and am pretty upset that it has crazy distortion correction as well….but now I find it to be the greatest lens Canon has ever made and I DON’T CARE! Haha

[@TheZachMendez]

Hey, thanks for sharing. There is a lot of truth to this. I think we can get so wrapped up in specs and forget what really matters. Thank you so much for watching.

[@nokianx400]

Canon needs to create a separate lens for video and stills photography. They are trying to create a lens that does it all, but they cater more towards the video side...

[@kenschwarz8057]

The RF has deeper blacks and better contrast overall, much like the other RF L lenses, but the difference is subtle for sure. Truth is that the EF was already really, really good. There’s not much room for sharpness improvement. I am glad Canon is innovating in other areas than just image quality. Big, heavy lenses are such a pain to carry and change!

[@danielguillamon]

After 7 years with my EF 35 1.4 II, with which I take 90% of my photos, it is a very very important decision for me to make this change. Thank you for this video because it is definitely not the change I was hoping to make. The EF needs an adapter and is heavier, unbalances the camera and is probably more uncomfortable to use, but the new RF definitely does not justify the change. I am happy with my 35, on my second body I have the 50 1.2 EF and maybe in this case it is worth the change but I will only do 10% of my work with it, so it is not that important.

[@anandhupolaroid]

24mm 1.4 VCM vs 24mm 1.4 EF please !!!!!!

[@evertonwood3310]

Is distortion really that much of a problem for people? After looking at the lens after profile corrections there’s almost no difference. I don’t see why it bothers people so much, but maybe it’s just me

[@MrWiseinheart]

What if you shoot video is the distortion corrected as well?

[@alexmaccape8411]

No it’s not in real world use.

[@boostedgixxer]

People turning off profile corrections is so ridiculous. Modern lenses are designed to work with correction in camera and post processing. That’s how they’re able to get them lighter, smaller, faster, better, etc.. Every manufacturer does it now . And I would much rather have in body corrections than to lug around a pointlessly heavy lens. Only KZbinrs who need something to talk about and some much older photographers seem to care. But most pros and enthusiast could care less. The image quality on the new lenses are amazing. The final product is all that matters.

[@TheZachMendez]

@@boostedgixxer I have to agree with you. Thanks for watching!

[@ER-gn8io]

Sehr richtig! Genau meine Überzeugung!

[@mattgericke4537]

While you're 100% right in today' day in age, there are a number of trade off that might seem small but for me are big. I want the image I framed to be what shows up and not cropped out, I want good low light performance and by boosting corrections especially in the corners it's going to create more noise dispositionally compared to the center of the image. It's double the cost of the ef 35 II. I've purschaed 2 ef 35 II for $700 each in the last 3 months. If you're a hybrid shooter I could see the appeal, but I shoot very little video as of now. However if I did shoot video one I wouldn't have it stopped down to 1.4, 2 I would want a lens that's also stabalized in addition to my body.

[@boostedgixxer]

@ the image you see in camera is the corrected image. You only see that the lens is shooting a little wider when you turn off corrections in post. The end result is the correct focal length

[@nokianx400]

since you're a weight weenie, don't assume everyone is like you.

[@whiterock1865]

I guess I generally agree that since it is corrected in camera its a relative non-issue. The only issue I'd see is if you wanted to use your RF lenses on non-canon bodies like cine camera etc that have rf mount options (though that is relatively uncommon vs the EF-mount predominance). But it does make me have little interest in buying the rf primes as I already have the 28-70 f/2. I like the idea of a lighter lens at times after those 8+ hour event days, but I do bet there will be a f/1.2 version of some of those lenses later.

[@alexmaccape8411]

RF is smaller and lighter, has faster AF, has fn-button and control ring, doesn’t need an adapter and creates more pleasing images. A no-brainer really.

[@Galeidan]

I want RF 35mm f 1.2 L USM. Same quality as RF 85mm f 1.2 L USM but in 35mm.

[@mattgericke4537]

Don't we all!@

[@christophewagner4028]

Thanks ! For me, the EF is so much better ! I have the first version of the EF 35f1.4L and I feel that the look of the images is better that de second version

[@bjartewergedahl5824]

Thank you for a nice review. I must say I was a bit surprised to find that much distortion in the RF. Is it possible that Canon made this lens like this on purpose, and is it possible that the actual native focal length of that lens is less than 35mm, e.g. closer to 32mm? Then with the correction you would get the FoV as if it was 35mm? I just heard a few people mentioning that they feel the lens is wider than 35mm. I have been looking for a camera strap like the one you were using - I assume it is one strap, not two(?), suitable to carry two cameras on your hip. May I ask which brand and model this is?

[@TheZachMendez]

Interesting, I'm not sure. I'll have to do more research into this. The strap is the Moneymaker dual camera strap from Holdfast gear. Thanks so much for watching! :)

[@defge_cd]

Correct. The corrected FoV is basically 35mm.

[@rajeshjantilal]

your thoughts on the rf and ef 24mmm, i.4 lenses? can you do a video?

[@hawaiifreespeechnews]

Did you guys get the RF 24mm 1.4 and RF 50mm 1.4 yet? Would love to see what you think of those shorter and less expensive lenses for video versus the 50mm 1.2 that you are used to using

[@TheZachMendez]

I am really curious to test the new 1.4 primes! We haven't tried them yet, but hopefully soon. Thanks for watching!

[@mirasga]

If we're going EF mount, the Tamron 35 F1.4 would be a better option IMHO.

[@philipphill9518]

That lens is optical perfection and works flawlessly on the R6. Strongly recommended, especially for how much less money you have to shell out for it.

[@livin_lino]

I wanted to see this comparison, EF 35 1.4 mk2 vs Tamron sp 35

[@undifinder6643]

The behemoth Sigma 40mm f1.4 too

[@livin_lino]

@@robertreak1893 Could you share the link?

[@robertreak1893]

@@livin_lino Deleted my comment as in error. Comparison was Canon EF 24-70 vs Tamron. Sorry for error.

[@SretloW]

I would go for the RF version. Because they lok the same and the AF is better and more a video lens. And future proof for firmware.

[@amazingdune]

The RF 35 is definitely prettier to look at that’s for sure

[@sharpasl307]

Great video. Canon should have released a near perfect RF version of the 35mm L when first getting into the mirrorless camera market...we had to wait for years for this VCM thing and it's almost a step back from the EF version. I hope they have an optically superior F1.2 RF version with IS in the works.

[@brainmt]

I agree!

[@TheZachMendez]

I'm very curious about a 1.2 version! Thanks for watching :)

[@seanehook]

When would someone use an uncorrected version of the image?

[@TheZachMendez]

@@seanehook probably never unless it cropped something out of the corners that was important 🤷

[@seanehook]

@ so what’s the big deal? I’m not understanding the concern. Is the view in the EVF corrected or uncorrected? If corrected, then you would think the composition of the frame would alleviate that concern. Idk.

[@mikey0728]

When the RF is on camera do you see the corrected field of view or the uncorrected? If you see the corrected field of view is it still an issue for you?

[@egor1g]

you are always see corrected

[@brainmt]

EF is still better which is a bummer

[@sharokinisayo7389]

Does the EF version of a lens profile that reduces the size, removes the EF to RF adaptor, and increases AF speed?

[@rajeshjantilal]

Hey Zach. Thank a million for this video.Very helpful and i think you may have assisted me in deciding. I shoot 100% in stills. So the EF lens would suit me more as the RF 35mm is more for video. But as you say the weight is a factor with the adapter...so hard choice...I will see if the weight is not a big difference then I will settle for the EF lens. One last issue is that will there be parts for repair with older lenses from Canon. If not then one is tempted to purchase the new latest lenses right?

[@TheZachMendez]

I think either way is great! If you have an RF camera I might suggest just going for the RF lens since it is native RF and you won't need the adapter, it's smaller and lighter, etc. But either way they both have strengths and weaknesses. Thanks for watching!

[@mobelue]

Really nice. Have you the RF VS EF 85mm?

[@tom_k_d]

RF 85mm 1.2 is no contest against the EF versions - RF is almost free of LOCA, while both the EF85mm 1.2 as well as the EF 85mm 1.4 can show massive LOCA in backlight situations. I switched my otherwise perfect EF85mm 1.4 for the RF85mm 1.2, and do not regret this at all.

[@mobelue]

@ Thank you. How close would you suppose the f2.0 would be. Looking for a lighter walking around version. I do more wildlife and travel as opposed to weddings. Ty again.

[@tom_k_d]

@@mobelue Welcome - word is the RF2.0 image quality is almost as good as the RF1.2 - but it's a 2.0, not a 1.2, thus the difference in bokeh is huge. I never tried it: STM motor and no weather sealing was simply no option for me. If you are on a budget: the used EF 85 1.4 is, besides from LOCA, a great lens, and still worth considering especially on lower megapixel and no IBIS bodies as the R8, as the EF 1.4 comes with a very effective IS - I took many great portraits with it, and AF is snappy.

[@mobelue]

@@tom_k_d thank you again. Could afford it, but probably not justify the expense. Shooting an R5 Mark two. I may give your recommendation a try. Thanks again.

[@tom_k_d]

@@mobelue Used the EF85 1.4 a lot on my R6 - AF performance was definitely fast enough for wildlife. In comparison, the EF85 1.2 has very slow AF - but he RF85 1.2 is surprisingly snappy, too, especially for it's size and heft - clearly wildlife compatible, too.

[@robbie154]

"Trade off for the size and weight". No the Sony GM 1.4 is just as compact and doesn't have the distortion. Or the bad flaring/ghosting. Go watch Dustin Abbotts review comparing them. Canon cut all the corners. And still made a more expensive lens.

[@TheZachMendez]

You're probably right. Thanks for watching!

[@chrisjohnsonfilms]

For video the Sony 35 1.4 has some of the wildest focus breathing. When you turn on focus breathing comp your at 46-48mm so every company has various issues with their lenses not just Canon vcm lenses.

[@rajeshjantilal]

Canon needs to explain that the older 7 year 35mm 1.4 USM lens is more expensive than the new Canon RF35 mm VCM to be cheaper? isnt it supposed to be the other way around Zach?

[@defge_cd]

The 35VCM represents a lower/hybrid tier of L lenses. The old USM is more in line with the likes of the newer RF 50 and 85 f/1.2. In other words, a hypothetical RF 35mm f/1.2L USM/VCM would be the direct successor of the old EF 1.4L.

[@samouraidusoleil]

OK love my RF 35 f/1.8 Macro 😜

[@toddbailey5198]

Do you have an affiliate link for your double sling?

[@TheZachMendez]

I don't, but I should!!

[@TheZachMendez]

Thank you for watching :)

[@TomasRamoska]

Such a flex 😂 I shoot on R5 mkII I have two of them 😅

[@khaledfrikha-photopro2733]

Merci Zach pour vos essais et pour ce partage d'opinion. Je trouve assez décevant les dernières tendances prises par Canon. Je n' ai pas l' impression que Canon pense vraiment aux photographes. Comment en 2024 peut-on produire un objectif pareil qui se veut Pro avec une telle distorsion, non stabilisé, avec des gadgets qui ne servent à rien (les 2 bagues) et surtout avec un prix en euros conséquent (mais là c'est secondaire quand on vit de ce métier). C'est quasiment impossible de faire par exemple des photos d'architecture, d' intérieurs, des images d' objets techniques avec cette optique. Dommage ! Sony et Nikon restent au-dessus avec leur 35 mm...ne parlons pas de Leica. Espérons que le nouveau RF 50 mm soit à la hauteur.

[@andrewleiner]

RF distortion: you can choose that you can get straight linear and vertical lines corrected but at the same time people on your photo will be distorted. Funny.

[@GP996_LB]

What do you mean? The profile correction is applied automatically in the EVF and most photo editing programs. If the faces were distorted that means they were not shot properly. What you see in the EVF is what you will get as the final result.

[@luluphoto]

Leica Summilux asph

[@TheZachMendez]

Oooooo i wish!!!

[@luluphoto]

@@TheZachMendez If you can it's absolutely worth it..I've used Leica M's and Summilux asph lenses for the last decade. I recently gave Sony and their best lenses a go and realised how much I'd taken the Leica for granted.

[@robigerovasilisphotography]

I have neither of these..I have the Tamron SP 35mm f1.4. This is a far superior lens than both of these.

[@scottleslie663]

You can't possibly compare any results, shooting hand held. Way to many variable, to get any realistic results

[@mattgericke4537]

why would you shoot a 35mm on anything other than handheld?

[@TheZachMendez]

Thank you lol

[@TheZachMendez]

It wouldn't be realistic for me if I didn't shoot it handheld

[@alanjones3076]

Canon is run by idiots that lack existential flexibility but fortunately for them (for now) the same is true of all others sans Sony. Now that they have the 24,35,and 50 VCM out, maybe they will make photo 35 and 24, L, not the size of pony kegs, and at least as good as lenses 15 years old lol. Until then, I will use my Holgaish RF 35 1.8.