Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM Review | A Polarizing Successor to the 35L II

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

This episode is sponsored by Fioboc. Visit Fioboc.com and use code DUSTIN20 for 20% off everything.

[@acouragefann]

I can certainly see why Canon would not want Sigma to bring their DG DN glass to Full Frame RF-mount if they're selling this at 1499$ ;)

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's hard not to draw that kind of conclusion.

[@richrollin4867]

It’ll be interesting to see if Nikon eventually permits Sigma full frame primes. Currently we are only seeing Tamron’s zooms on Z Mount - aside from some Chinese offerings.

[@mikede2464]

Canon's RF design philsophy seems to be "why should we make a good preforming lens when we can spend less and just use cheap software to correct it?" Software corrections are one thing, but relying on it with the intent to maximize profit is going to come back to bite them eventually. Canon can make an excellent lens if they want to. My RF 100 to 300 2.8 has stellar performance even without profile corrections. Other than that 100 to 300, all my other lenses are EF mount. Thanks for another excellent review.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I really don't get the reliance on software corrections for their premium lenses.

[@af2w131f]

@@DustinAbbottTWI probably the majority of photographers won't notice. Yes, the hard-core enthusiast will notice but they're a minority. The world of photography is now instagram on tiny cellphone screens. We 'old school' photographers who demand the best are no longer their target audience.

[@szank]

"why should we make a good preforming lens when we can spend less and just use cheap software to correct it?" should be "why make a good performing lens if we could just block all and every alternative lens manufacturer on our mount and leave people with no choice?"

[@softwarelivre2389]

​@@szank accurate. Sad, but accurate.

[@m4jqp]

I bought this lens when it was released. Generally I feel similarly to you, I loved the EF mark 2 lens, easily my favourite lens of all time. However, once I got into the R series camera system, the older lens with the adaptor ended up making the lens much more cumbersome and found I would leave it at home more and more. With this new RF lens, the size and weight are huge for me. The IQ is good enough that I don't really notice any significant issues (practically speaking), and I've taken some great photos with it. At the end of the day, you cant take photos with an awesome lens if you don't have it with you, and the size and weight alone result in me carrying my 35mm everyday again.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's 100% the way that I feel. In my case, however, I'm electing to use the Sony lens when I want to use a 35mm prime, which means my Canon body stays home.

[@manukello]

the lens has too high a price and too low a quality. in my opinion, this is canon's disrespect for consumers.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I would say the price would be more justified if there wasn't so many odd design and engineering decisions.

[@davidkoster]

I waited so much for this review, so glad that you made, thank you Dustin, as always your work is appreciated

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You're welcome.

[@robbie154]

The first reviewer to not defend the bad decisions of this lens design. Unfortunately the 24 and 50 will be the same story. I love canon cameras but I think I’ll have to go back to Sony with their gm line up

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Really? I've read a few text reviews that were some somewhat critical, for sure, though I haven't watched anything.

[@milosjakovljevic2602]

If you thought 35mm distortion is bad wait until you see the 24mm (uncorrected), however 50mm seems OK in that regard. That may be just a nature of the 50mm focal length though.

[@wentan8978]

A lot of reviewers are bashing it, although I don't care as long as the final result is sharp. I hate heavy lenses as I often have to shoot for hours.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I suspect the 50mm will be the least compromised of the bunch due to the focal length.

[@EddySawaya8637]

The best auto-focus 35mm lens for Canon cameras is still the Tamron SP 35mm F1.4. Undefeated many years later for a really great price (699$ as of today). Canon seems to be fighting the wrong battles. While the first lenses they released for RF mount were very promising, it seems now that they are focused on making headlines with very highly functional lenses. However, they are not giving the needed attention to the image quality. This is sadly a reality of today's camera world with influencers always pushing for faster autofocus and sharper images with so little attention to the basic attributes that make photography great.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That Tamron was a really excellent lens. I do confess to being a little confused by Canon's philosophy as of late.

[@SEAME7]

Good joke! 😂

[@EddySawaya8637]

@SEAME7 The fact that my comment is the top comment says otherwise... The Tamron I mentioned has slightly better bokeh than even the highly acclaimed EF 35mm from Canon, is slightly sharper, is better built, has more vibrant colors and just as good autofocus. So it is objectively a marginally better lens, and certainly beats this new RF version any day of the week.

[@SEAME7]

@@EddySawaya8637 Tamron's AF is not even close of Canon's!!!

[@EddySawaya8637]

@SEAME7 Dustin's own review shows that this is not the case. The AF was very close in accuracy and just as fast. That was on DSLR, any inaccuracy consideration is eliminated on mirrorless anyway. The RF version is faster to autofocus though I would question how one could buy a wide angle prime lens only based on autofocus speed, knowing that the tamron is plenty fast enough.

[@WILHELMROSENTHAL]

great to see you making canon reviews again

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's tough to get loaners, but I'm always happy when I do.

[@patricioderito3722]

I have both the EF II and this new 35mm. I'm not sure how you compared both but this new one is wayy sharper, contrastier and has less CA. At least in my comparison. In terms of bokeh. Do you feel like the EF version has better bokeh? I'm trying to figure that out but It's so hard to tell. As soon as I saw the size of the actual glass in the new RF version I knew that the bokeh wasn't going to be magical.It just looks so small. I still like it but I feel like it's missing that subject separation. I think they're gonna surprise us with a 1.2. and that's gonna be magical. With all that said. I still LOOOVE this new 35mm RF.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Hmmm, you are the first to say that the new lens is sharper and certainly that it has less CA. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1694&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

[@phjac]

I'm just surprised how much of a markup this lens demands compared to a "regular" 35/1.4. The aperture ring being only smooth and not optionally click-noclick seems like such an oversight for a lens that asks a whopping $1500... I was really looking forward to some canon lenses with proper aperture rings, but I guess Sony will continue to be the only FF camera system that actually cares about that option.

[@acouragefann]

L-mount with Sigma Glass as well

[@phjac]

@@acouragefann True, I keep forgetting that panasonic finally managed to figure their AF-System out a while back

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's a really odd approach to manual aperture control, to be sure.

[@pongokamerat8601]

16:32 Vignett... IMHO the real killer in a lens. Distortions can be corrected in post, as long as the lens keeps being what it is meant to be, a 35 mm in this instance. Sooooo many RF lenses come with a vignett that is NOT acceptable. You can NOT invent light, even in the corners. You WILL have a degraded image in the corners when vignett is corrected. Terrible!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's very true.

[@agent9727]

Canon is acting really greedy with its latest RF L series lenses. Still prefer the EF version👍🏻

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's certainly my feeling with this lens.

[@mikegregory8353]

This review is convincing me to stick with my Sigma Art 35mm F 1.4 with an adapter over this RF option. And save a pile of 💰

[@nat-lj8kt]

What do I expect on a locked up system. They will maximize for profits while keeping costs minimum and optics just good enough to sell. If Sony did this, Sigma would destroy them. Competition is good. It drives prices lower and optical quality higher.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That lack of competition is killing Canon's development when you look cross platform at equivalent lenses in other systems.

[@healinginfluence]

I want to thank you for this review. I especially found your analysis of the lens correction helpful. It made me lose respect for Canon. In my opinion L lenses should not need that much software lens correction. I suspect Canon did it to keep the price, size and weight down but that’s not what I expect from L glass. Buyer beware.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I don't disagree.

[@lexptr]

I'm curious, how many compromises they have to do, to make the 3 new VCM lenses same size and weight? It is possible, they omited some corrections to get the formfactor they wanted. I hope they will make some more traditional non-hybrid L versions of these with proper IQ, like e.g. RF 135 f1.8. But it will probably take another 5-10 years.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's obviously the potential downside when you try to make lenses according to a hard and fast physical constraint. What's a bit odd to me is that these aren't really cine lenses (not set up for gearing), so other than balance on a gimbal, what's the point of forcing them all into being the same size?

[@andymanson]

Great review as usual Dustin. I agree with you - this lens, for an "L" lens in 2024, has too many issues. It's such a shame.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's a shame, as I really wanted to love this lens.

[@Crazy41ism]

Great video Dustin. Please do more reviews of RF lenses in a future. I would love to hear your opinion.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I would like to, but the problem for Canada based reviewers like myself is that Canon Canada has completely abandoned their loaner program for influencers post pandemic. I have to try to get loaners from retailers, and they have 1) limited options and 2) limited quantity. Canon doesn't make it easy (neither does Nikon. Sony and Fuji are great in this regard).

[@Crazy41ism]

I didn't know that. That is really unfortunate. I guess they are saving costs more and more. Even on lens design.

[@maxsr3236]

With a lot of the RF lenses you can feel the cost saving that canon does. They reuse a lot of the same parts for several lenses, save the switch, spring and metal ball for the click/declick switch and the steps in production to put it in, give you rather cheaply made lens hoods, if any at all and lastly the reliance on electronic corrections. That's alright for the more affordable lenses, but I think it's not a good look overall for a high end L-series lens. Not to mention the tendency of putting comparatively slower apertures and other weird restrictions into some of their lenses.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I don't feel like that was the case with EF. I spent pretty much my first decade as a photographer and reviewer as purely a Canon guy.

[@arden625]

I am in the market for a 35mm with my R5. I was hoping the RF version would be a clear winner against the EF Mark II version to make the decision easier, but it doesn't look like it. Given your tests, would you still recommend "going back" to an EF glass instead of this RF version?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That really depends on how tolerant you are of the additional size and weight, and if you ever feel like you'll need to track action. The autofocus and size are the two clear advantages for the RF lens, but the optics still favor the EF lens, IMO.

[@arden625]

​@@DustinAbbottTWII don't care so much about the size/weight with the EF being larger/heavier. But is the AF on the EF version plenty fast enough for family photos with potential kids moving around?

[@CZOV]

Let me explain Canon philosophy today - produce is cheapest way possible, charge as much as possible.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I hope that isn't the actual philosophy ;)

[@GP996_LB]

Hi Dustin Thanks for rhe review As someone who only started photography last year, profile correction didn't really bother me, as what I see in the EVF is what I get in the end result. The image is still very sharp after correction, and the crazy good AF has improved my workflow in some chaotic situation. I would personally take lighter gear over slightly better IQ. Maybe i would have thought differently if i started earlier and have more experience with gears. However, it was very helpful to know where the weakness of my own gear is (in this case, the noise on the corner) Thanks :)

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm glad that the review helped, and even happier that you are enjoying your lens.

[@GainesvilleKen]

Thank you, Dustin. I wish I could have clicked "Like" ten times! This lens prompted me to do something I've never done before: I love the ef 35mm f/1.4L II so much that, just in case something happens to it, I bought a second one just after the RF version was released and had some early reviews. I want to hang on to the beautiful rendering and quality of the great EF version as long as possible. (Part of the justification is that I have two kids becoming good photographers, so they can occasionally borrow the older copy of the lens.) After buying a few of the first round of RF primes and loving them, I was very disappointed by the direction Canon took with these and other recent primes. AND no IS? Hopefully we see a course correction or a higher tier depending less on software correction.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's pretty extreme!

[@kelb89]

I had this lens on my gimbal and the focus never missed a beat. However, the flare resistance is complete dogshit, just like all the RF glass. It's the main reason I'm planning on ditching the system and jumping to Sony.

[@7743dustin]

Sony is good

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Focus is great here, for sure, but some of the optics are less so.

[@kifley19]

😂😂😂 flare resistance is trash on the 1.2 primes as well

[@GinoFoto]

That trend of electronically corrected lenses is a bit unfortunate, there is no substitute for pure optical excellence, especially when Canon knew better, the EF-M 22mm (35mm EQ) f/2 was literally distortion free, with its phenomenal 0.0293% deviation.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I actually loved that little lens. I used it a lot.

[@richrollin4867]

True - there’s far too much cropping, transforming, upscaling and vignette correcting going on nowadays. So much data from the extremities of the sensor never makes it to the final image.

[@billmartin1663]

Autofocus is clearly video-centric. As is the aperture ring. As is the image quality. Canon has seemingly decided that the age of stills is over. Will they ever again produce a lens designed for the stills shooter? (I kind of doubt it.)

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm not sure I would say that about autofocus, as it is fantastic for both stills and video. But I agree on the compromises in other areas.

[@milosjakovljevic2602]

What I found the most interesting part of this review is the autofocus demo in video. It sure is lightning fast. However what your clips confirmed to me is that there is no replacement for manual focus in video. In your clips of going over the foliage shows how the autofocus snaps in place quickly, then as you move it across it holds for a bit and then snaps into new focus instantly. Overall you get the footage where the focus periodically snaps to target and waits in the middle. Not very professional looking in that example. So to me, the fact that they sacrificed everything else for the sake of autofocus speed which doesn't track the scene as smoothly as manual focus makes this video centric lens totally worthless.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's true that I've never yet seen AF pulls look as smooth as a good MF pull from any lens.

[@loudandclearmedia]

I got my hands on a full production copy of this lens pre-release (so, no Adobe profiles yet) and was shocked at the barrel distortion. In fairness to Canon, this trend of making tiny fast lenses that NEED onboard corrections seems to be the going rate industry wide. Whoda thunk, going into 2025 that we'd all still be after EF lenses because they're better. 😅

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's pretty sad, actually.

[@TradeshowThomas]

at this price they should have implemented IS. thanks for the honest review

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback.

[@chrisjohnsonfilms]

Are you saying you see the color blotches and noise at lower iso to or just when using high iso?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Higher ISO. That's going to depend on your camera, obviously, but if you're having to pull back 3 to 4 stops, that can have consequences in certain situations (like high ISO).

[@brianbass3954]

Have you taken any star photos with this lens? Im interested in the coma aberrations. The 35 f1.8 is unusable until at least 2.8 for astro landscapes. Curious how this one compares.

[@beau__]

If you’re shooting raw. You should always use lens correction. This is a non issue.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

If it is non-issue for you, fine. It's not for me. I'm not looking to pay that kind of money for a lens that needs massive amounts of electronic help (all of which comes at a cost). If you don't think it comes at a cost, check out the difference in the noise from the center of the frame and the noise in the corners.

[@yosefco]

thanks, always a pleasure to hear you. it seems canon is struggling, the r5m2 is also in dispute. and thats weird.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm a little perplexed by Canon's logic right now.

[@nnix]

I think these compromises come as a consequence of making a 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm lens in essentially the same build size and weight, which Canon argues is ideal for videographers who want to make changes quickly on gimbals. It's a choice, and an interesting one. But so long as Canon remains #1 in sales, they're going to charge whatever they want.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Probably true. It's just curious to me that they are prioritizing the cine crowd over the traditional photography crowd, but they aren't really producing cine lenses.

[@Yupthereitism]

They’re not #1 in sales anymore. They haven’t been #1 in mirrorless sales in years

[@nnix]

@@Yupthereitism They are

[@Yupthereitism]

@@nnix nah. Haven’t been in years lol 😂 canon sells entry level dslrs, which makes up most of their sales

[@nnix]

@@Yupthereitism Your story's changing now... mmm hmm

[@ryanvacation7319]

Thank you for the thorough review. For the price Canon commands I was hoping for EF 35mm 1.4 mark II level of quality. Looks like I will be sticking with my trusty RF 35mm 1.8 for a little while longer.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Ironically, I didn't love that one, either, but it you're happy with it, that's what matters. I liked the EF 35mm F2 IS better.

[@ThruMyLens100]

Hi Dustin - longtime fan. Really appreciate what you do. You mentioned you no longer have the L EF 35mm II in this review. I still have that lens because I have not found a better fast 35mm lens for the RF platform. 35mm is my favorite focal length. What is your go to 35mm lens for the RF platform? What did you replace the EF 35mm II with? I mainly do photography over video so I can’t see picking up this VCM lens.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Because I have four different camera systems (Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Fuji), I just use Sony for 35mm and use the excellent 35mm 1.4 GM lens (which pretty much tops the Canon lens in every metric). I sold the 35L II and put the money towards the RF 70-200mm F4L IS, as I really wanted a native telephoto option of some kind for my tests and for travel.

[@carlom.3737]

Just wanted to provide a quick update as I've now owned and used this lens for about a week, including for a trip to the Norton Simon museum to shoot photos and videos of the grounds and collection. The benefits of it for video are well documented (fast, silent focusing--onboard mic won't pick it up at all, with no visible focus breathing). What surprised me is how it compared to the RF 50 1.2L which I brought along as well (Van Gogh is my favorite artist so I was going to take many pics using both lenses on my R5mk2). To my surprise center sharpness was better on the 35 1.4 VCM, and it seemed a little more contrast-y than the 50. This was evident on both the SOOC JPEGs (neutral setting) and the profile corrected RAWs. Obviously as we get closer to the edges the 35 starts to fall behind even with the profile corrections, as one of the 50's strengths is decent consistency across the frame. This was evident in just about all shots I took of the art using the frame borders to fill the OVF, keeping aperture at 1.4, ISO at 200, and changing shutter speed slightly to keep exposure consistent. I took multiple shots to eliminate the possibility that camera shake may have caused any blurriness. The results were consistent. For the middle portion of the picture the 35 1.4 was sharper and had slightly more contrast than the 50 1.2. But stray away from the middle portion of the image and the 50 overtakes the 35 and pulls away significantly at the extremes. Even the profile corrections can't make the 35 compete with the 50 at the corners, neither in sharpness nor distortion. I took shots of instruction manuals with tiny text at home and was able to repeat the results in a controlled environment. For those who aren't overly concerned with image performance at the corners, the 35 1.4 VCM is a surprisingly good performer for the parts of the frame where your subjects are most likely to be.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm not surprised at all by the sharpness reports. To me the strengths were great autofocus, good sharpness, but the issues with vignette and distortion do create some issues (as you've mentioned), and I didn't like the overall rendering nearly as much as the 35L II.

[@carlom.3737]

@@DustinAbbottTWI I guess I had just always heard about how great the 50 1.2 was (and on my old R6ii's sensor it was never outperformed by anything) so I guess I was a little stunned that now on the 45MP R5ii its center sharpness was slightly surpassed by the 35 VCM (unless I have a bum copy of the 50 1.2).

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

To me the strength of the 50mm F1.2 is not just the sharpness (which is very good but not exceptional by today's standards) but rather by the overall rendering from the lens, which is great for a lens that is that sharp.

[@KevinJRegan]

Excellent review 👌

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thank you.

[@karthaginiensis5581]

Hi Dustin, Great info as always. We've been following you since your EF Mark 2 review here. I read comments here, that for 35mm, you're inclined to the Sony lens and body. But we're knee deep in just the Canon ecosystem and have no budget for another ecosystem. If you were in our shoes, is it your opinion that we stick with the EF Mark 2 OR sell and move to the RF VCM?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

If you are content using an adapter, then I would personally stay with the MK II lens. The AF is the one clear area of advantage with the new lens, but if you are mostly doing stills, the AF is good enough on the EF lens. Optically I prefer the older lens. The new lens is a bit sharper, but doesn't have as much character in the rendering.

[@rakeshbalhara]

can you please review rf 28-70mm f2.8 lens, especially bokeh quality compared with rf 24-70 f2.8

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's all about whether or not I can source loaners. Canon Canada has no loaner department post-pandemic, so I have to source any loaners from retailers...and they don't have everything to borrow.

[@nokianx400]

Thanks Mr. Abbott, my ag9nizing WAIT for a Canon 35 is over! it looks like I'll be buying the old EF version, or the Tamron.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's pretty sad

[@tonygreenmike]

His Dustin thanks for this review. I have a question, why Canon is coming up with outie aperture diaphragm in the recent lenses instead of an innie ? does it have any mechanical advantages apart from their aesthetics. I personally love the innie . But I am aware the image quality isn't affected that much. The RF135mm f1.8 has an outie too,,, I guess the 85mm f1.2 is last one to have an innie.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm not sure about that. I definitely prefer the look of an "innie" as you call it.

[@FernandoSLima]

that´s why I will keep using DSLRS and EF lenses.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's pretty wild.

[@kifley19]

The transition speed with your hand tests is is slow. I also noticed this on other videos of the new VCM lenses. I'm hoping this can be fixed with a software update.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You could turn that up a bit in camera, but I try to test lenses all at the same settings (standard speed) so that I can show the base performance of the lens.

[@timelesstruths]

Great review.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thanks

[@chrisrout1654]

As ever, a superb review Dustin! ... I like you and lots of others were so keen to see this new fixed focal 35mm, but i'm sadly disappointed with Canon, for a marque lens you'd have expected virtually no distortion and you've hit the nail on the head regarding the lenses optical performance! I'm just wondering is it just worth sticking with the excellent EF35mm f1.4 mk2 or the Tamron 35mm f1.4, anyhow, lets see how the new RF 24mm f1.4 fairs in comparison.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's a tough call. I found that I burned out on using the adapter - that extra size and weight does make a difference...but then again, I expected this lens to be better.

[@chrisrout1654]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Yeah, I totally get the weight issue, especially if your doing a lot of travelling around for different scenic shots, and after such a long wait, i like yourself was a bit disappointed with the new lens. But you know what, looking at the new hybrid lens line up I reckon Canon have gone for uniformity in lens size which may have compromised image quality, who knows after all it appears Canon seem to be favouring video shooters more than stills so maybe that's why they have so many in body corrections.

[@tariqrazi2265]

Why aren’t you reviewing the more main stream releases like Canon R5 Mk 2 and Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8L IS USM?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The simple answer is loaners. Canon Canada has completely abandoned their loaner program, so I have to rely on retailers like Camera Canada getting loaners, and they don't get them for everything.

[@JimBailey]

Thank you Mr Abbott.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You're welcome.

[@andyhewitt1]

Thanks for the review. I will pass this lens. I checked the-digital-picture for vignetting, not sure why but looks like most of the 35 1.4 has a very strong +3 ev vignetting including the original EF version 2.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's true that this has been an ongoing issue for many Canon wide angle lenses.

[@andyhewitt1]

@@DustinAbbottTWI not only Canon, but the new sigma 35 1.4 and 35GM also have this huge vignetting.

[@faocisco]

If you think this one is bad,just wait for the 24mm !!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Oh boy...

[@dima1353]

Great review ! Thank you for your consistency, accuracy and for staying on the consumer side ! Is there any way to calculate with more or less sufficient accuracy how much of the image the correction profile cuts off ? I take your test shots and estimate the extra space by length and width, but because the actual usable area is kinda oval, I could only make a rough estimate. I take the average between the points on the corners that are farthest from the edge and the points in the center of the sides that are closer to the edge. Not very scientific, I'm afraid. It just seems to me that for lenses like this it's time for reviewers to introduce some kind of parameter like "sensor area used index" or something like that. I estimate this lens uses 92% of the sensor area. And 24 1.8 about 83%. Let me repeat, this is a very rough estimate which I did by a method that is certainly flawed and inaccurate. This is if we compare RAW with the Canon profile. I think this is fair because the nominal focal length is determined by the Canon profile.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's an interesting point. Canon does leave extra room for correction, but obviously there would have to be some scaling to the final image to get to the proper resolution.

[@dima1353]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, they get away with it because there is some flexibility in the perception of a sharp image. An initially sharp image can indeed be stretched a little and it won't seem too soft right away. But nevertheless, it affects the quality reserve of RAW. Textures, artifacts - even if there is good contrast at the edges, there seems to be something wrong with these stretched details. Well, and noise too. When you enlarge the image, there are no more details, but the noise scales. It can be said even more simply: we buy a camera with a larger sensor to get less noise, and these lenses use a smaller sensor area. In short, I look at it this way: these lenses, for their normal work, to show some kind of “ok picture”, steal my reserve of quality, which I could use in Lightroom for some other purposes. So I think it's time to introduce some kind of index. Because you can't say "look, the picture is as sharp as the Sony G-Master, so these lenses are the same". No, that's not true, there is a big difference - Sony didn't steal from the sensor's piggy bank to show the same picture. With Sony you will have more quality, even if "picture looks the same".

[@carlom.3737]

After much research I'm very close to buying this lens. I'm not a Canon employee/sponsored shooter, and have zero inside information, so all of this is my best guess at their rationale for such a compromised lens. *It's aimed squarely for combo photographers/videographers who are looking to keep their kit relatively light*. Even with the current $200 holiday discount on the EF 1.4L II, this is still $300 cheaper at the RF's full price, so they're basically acknowledging it will be optically inferior by charging less. The RF is shorter, narrower and lighter than the EF version, while managing to add in VCM along with the host of benefits being in the RF mount gives a lens. If I had to bet, I'd wager there's a RF35 1.2 in the works that will be aimed for those who primarily shoot stills. For those who haven't used this for video, it's performance in terms of silent/fast focusing is superior to any of the RF lenses I've owned and use for video (RF24-70 2.8L ISM; RF50 1.2L). I shot about 10 minutes of footage with it at my local store and came away impressd. It is less prone to focus hunting in challenging and dark environments, it's faster to acquire focus, and it's dead silent so if you have to use a mic mounted on the camera (even my directional Rode VideoMic Pro+ could occasionally capture the focusing noise of the 24-70 or the 50). What I believe Canon is positioning this lens as is a "Jack of All Trades, Master of None". I know $1500 is a lot (I don't want to spend that lol). But if you look at their other fast RF L primes, it's $2K-$3K). And they'll have similar focus performance and noise issues when shooting video, which are all mitigated with the VCM design. If Canon priced this at the EF 35 1.4 II level, I could understand the uproar. But it's MSRP is $500 less, which to me is a tacit admission on their part that optical compromises were struck.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Fair enough. I think if video is your primary purpose, then the tradeoffs are worth it.

[@carlom.3737]

@@DustinAbbottTWI I'd say video doesn't have to be your primary purpose for this lens to be appealing. I shoot about 25% video and that's enough for the VCM/video focus improvements to make a difference. Just out of curiosity I went to Canon's official product page for this and they specifically call it a "hybrid lens" "targeting a wide range of still-image and video shooters". So reviewers should judge it on what it's aimed to be, not what it isn't intended to be. We wouldn't judge a $300 kit zoom lens for not giving top notch sharpness, nor would we criticize the 85mm 1.2 for not being a light and portable lens. They were purpose designed for a use case, and the same can be said for this new line of hybrid L lenses (24 and 50 1.4 VCM are out soon). I'm positive those will have the same (or in the case of the 24 probably worse) uncorrected distortion and vignetting. But I bet they're going to be (relatively) light and have amazing silent/fast focus, especially for lowlight video. Thank you for all of your hard work on your reviews, I find you a valuable resource to consult before making any camera gear acquisitions!

[@billx4266]

Here in EU this lens costs 1900 euro....

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

WOW - that's ridiculous. That makes the price difference between it and the Sony 35mm F1.4 GM absolutely massive at this point.

[@billx4266]

@@DustinAbbottTWI i really love canon but how they price their things, i am thinking to switch....

[@szank]

In the UK the RF 35/1.4 is £320 more expensive (~400$ more expensive). That's the base price, the sony GM has a cashback of £100 right now, so canon cost 30% more here. Lol

[@gothamparksxvx8763]

It’s quite unfortunate that this lens has so many design flaws and optics that don’t match the competition. It does not help Canon’s image of incredible and historic photographic and cinematic optics. And this lens is dropping in a market already populated by such good lenses in this class, like the Sony GM, Sigma variants, or the MF Voigtlander 35mm APO, which all offer the option of logical and easy clicky or clickless apertures, often far less distortion, and beautiful imaging. I feel like something got lost in the sauce with product design and finishing, and standards have been lowered to make something overly complicated and clunky in function, and optically more compromised than it should be. That said, it seems like a solid, usable, and clean lens with good imagery, though at this price and size, and with the legendary Canon name, much better was to be expected, at least by me. It just shouldn’t have this many compromises, flaws, and confusing inconveniences, as a contemporary lens release in the mid-2020s.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Yes, while Canon has few alternatives in the RF space (unless you want to work with adapters), there are absolutely a lot of valid options available for other systems.

[@mabrucevercetti2456]

The lens was designed to have the same size as the 24mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.4 for video purposes. With that in mind, it makes sense that there had to be a trade-off in optical performance.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Yes, but the question is "why?". They aren't geared, so you won't be putting them in a focus follow system. If it is just about recalibrating the balance on a gimbal, I'm not sure that's a big enough market to base that decision on.

[@mabrucevercetti2456]

​@@DustinAbbottTWI Well, that's a very valid point, especially since there's the 24-105mm f/2.8 which comes with more video features. I guess Canon thought they wanted to do a 35mm f/1.4 anyways and are now testing the market. Maybe there will be a "proper" 35mm f/1.2 at some point (wouldn't be for me either though)... Personally, I'm interested in the 24mm f/1.4 for astrophotography and occasional video work. Looking forward to your review! ;)

[@nokianx400]

I have both 50 f1.2 and 85 f1.2 and yes they clunk, especially the 50 (I returned it for back focusing)

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Yep.

[@TheMrKonov]

Why they didn’t just use the formula of the EF35 II 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@eos1d3]

Someone said the engineer went to Sony. xD

[@TheMrKonov]

@ 😆😆😆

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The major reason would be that the flange distance is pretty radically different when you don't have a mirror. They would have had to have a lens about as long as the 35L II plus an adapter, which obviously they didn't want.

[@TheMrKonov]

@ I think you are right, I hope there will be other 1.4 set of lenses, because I don’t like the size and price of the 1.2. Until then, I’m with EF

[@d71t]

In central Europe the lens is 1,900 Euros. Crazy...

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's ridiculous.

[@stevekelly5470]

Excellent review. So disappointing from Canon, for it to take so long to offer such a sub-par product. Let's hope in another 6 years they might bang out the 35mm f1.2 that many of us stills photographers have been begging for!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I was disappointed, too.

[@CanonFlagship]

I’m convinced these lenses were made for the c70. There aren’t any trade offs on a super 35 sensor. And DGO sensor at that. With full frame.. well…

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

But how big of an audience is that? The user base of a camera like the C70 is nothing compared to all of the full frame users.

[@Skux720]

Now that more VCM primes are out it's clear that Canon designed these lenses to have consistent size and controls across the series, and to be used in conjunction with digital corrections. The lenses would not exist in this form otherwise. I don't mind digital corrections, it's the results that matter.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's a valid point, though I'm not sold on the justification for the compromises. I suspect the 50mm will be the best of the bunch, as it probably has to make the least amount of compromises.

[@DoubleTheDom]

I honestly don't know why people use canon. The lens situation sucks..

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It ain't great!

[@julese7790]

Great review. So, for me, it's a pass. I'll keep my EF 35mm 1.4 L II

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Now that lens is a winner!

[@jaylistudios]

Ever since the RF 16mm f2.8, Canon started doing this extreme electronic correction thing, at the costs of loosing resolution and signal to noise ratio. I think at this point these lens designs should be considered scams. Although I still use the R5 but I stopped buying RF lenses. And I started shifting towards Sony because of these lens BS

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's harsh but not wholly unwaranted.

[@ruslanss]

Не берем

[@frankluo230]

I dont get why people complain it is too expe sive. The GM35 has crazy focus breathing like a 35-50mm zoom and same $1.5k asking price. The EF L II was $1800 back in 2016 money which equals to $2k4 inflation adjusted. So canon is selling a successor at 60% of the original price yet got all the negativity.

[@Vantrakter]

Focus breathing is the one thing the GM35 doesn't do well. Vignette, distortion, CA may compare more favorably vs this lens. Either way, it's a bit of a moot point as you tend to invest in one system and stick with it : )

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The focus breathing issue is literally the only thing the the GM lens doesn't do better, and in most markets, the GM is cheaper by at least $100, not the same price.

[@frankluo230]

@DustinAbbottTWI deal breaker level GM focus breathing >> Canon aperture ring not working on older bodies in still mode. Yet canon receives more criticism for it. For people at the level of considering $1400 GM there is no meaningful difference to buying $1500 VCM. The value difference is only on paper.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I've owned the GM for years and never found it a dealbreaker. It obviously doesn't affect stills at all, and Sony's bodies have focus breathing compensation that can eliminate it for video (though at the cost of a crop).

[@frankluo230]

@DustinAbbottTWI It obviously affects stills if the close focused frame Nikon first three versions of AFS 70-200 VR all had terrible focus breathing at 200mm?

[@DjimmyTrovy]

I have the GM and it is fantastic. I think this is one fantastic too.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

There are some excellent choices out there.

[@BW_Maher]

Reviews of Canon equipment by and for people who hate Canon equipment. Whatever. Every Canon review is the same. Feign lack of bias. Minimize the positive. Highlight the negatives. Make some generally unfavorable comments about Canon. Wash rinse repeat.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You can give Canon a pass if you want, but I started my career for the first decade as a Canon only shooter and reviewer. I've got many thousands of dollars invested in Canon equipment.

[@BW_Maher]

A pass for what? Being successful? Trying to create a new line of AF cinema lenses whose benefits you clearly choose to ignore? Disappointing poor Dustin Abbot so he had to switch to Sony? Because that’s really it. You switched to another brand and now you feel compelled to constantly demonstrate that you made the right decision.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

@@BW_Maher LOL - I own a bunch of Canon equipment and a R5 body. I also own Sony bodies, Nikon equipment, and Fuji equipment. If you think this is about trying to justify a choice to "leave Canon", you're dead wrong. I never left Canon; I just added other brands. I've personally bought half a dozen RF lenses, including L series lenses.

[@Jwitherow1964]

Hello brother good one as always

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Appreciate the support!

[@Galeidan]

I wanted RF 35mm f 1.2 L USM. Same image quality as RF 85mm f 1.2 L USM.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Agreed, though would the market be up for a $2700 35mm prime?

[@lionheart4424]

Great review Dustin! Thanks for your honesty. In other non-Canon stuff, I wonder if you will do a comparisson of the Brighting Star 50mm f/1.4 vs the Meike 55mm f/1.4 and maybe even the Sigma 56mm f/1.4? Would love to see the face off.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thanks for the question. Unfortunately I'm already booked solid through the end of the year, so I probably won't be able to do that.

[@dendobriy3684]

In your comparison Canon 35 mm with 35 mm GM, whey have different f-stop, it's not correct))

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Oops, I shot both at F1.4 and then at F2, and grabbed the wrong Sony result without noticing. I just rechecked the F1.4 vs F1.4 results, and the Canon still has much more fringing.

[@bobsykes]

Amazing that this is such garbage. The whole point of the RF system is better glass, and a couple of the f/1.2 lenses seemed to deliver. What where they thinking?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I don't think it is garbage, but I was impressed by some of the early RF lenses but have been disappointed by a lot of them over the past 3-4 years.

[@dineshprasadgupta4625]

thanks for the video. my view in general for the new f1/4 canon RF lens: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpfdfmesfJKbaq8

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You're welcome.

[@Yupthereitism]

If it wasn’t obvious that Sony is pulling away from canon, this should be your wake up call