Canon RF35mm f/1.4 L VCM | Real World Review

[@KevinDeal]

Did you get the RF35mm f/1.4 L VCM? Are you sitting this one out? Are you keeping your EF35mm 1.4 II L instead? What about your RF35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM? Tell me about it in the comments!

[@michalkus509]

I've been shooting on the RF 35mm f1.4 L VCM now - it's a fantastic lens. Incredibly fast and smooth and quiet focusing. Optically very sharp even in the corners, great contrast. I really liked it and it doesn't feel extreme weight like the RF 50 f1.2 RF 85 f1.2 for my R8. It bothers me that you can't use the aperture ring for photography - that would be perfect. In a few weeks, the identically designed RF 24 f1.4 L VCM and RF 50 f1.4 L VCM will be released - I will buy this lens, as the 50mm is more usable for portraits than the 35mm for me.

[@KevinDeal]

I haven’t seen the rumors of the 24mm. That would be a fantastic lens. On my R5MKII I can use the ring for photography. Hopefully a firmware update will make older cameras compatible as well.

[@PNWDOM]

Owned this lens since release and it has not left my R5 yet. Stunning images and super lightweight. Couldn't be happier.

[@KevinDeal]

What a coincidence. It's been on my R5 since I got it as well. Such a great lens. Thanks for stopping by!

[@robertkeating1107]

This is my most anticipated review… Thanks Kevin!!

[@KevinDeal]

Hopefully my review helped you out with your decision making. Thank you for stopping by!

[@DrJake108]

Thanks for the review You’ve convinced me to buy at as I love 35mm - as I’m not in a rush I’ll wait a few weeks in case there happens to be a holiday sale

[@KevinDeal]

Glad I could help. I'm hoping a lot of lenses go on sale. I need some more!

[@chesterjohnson4504]

I purchased this lens a few weeks ago. I drove over 70 miles to my nearest camera store to do another transaction. The sales person told me about the new 35mm f/1.4 L and for 1500.00 I bought it on the fly. No research....I bought the lens and then starting looking at KZbin videos. Buyers remorse settled in. I had about 3 days left to return the lens if I wanted to. I did some street photography in Cheyenne. My first outing with this lens and my RF5 was so, so. I found out the problem, operator error. I had shot at too slow of a shutter speed...I did not notice I was shooting at a 60th of a second. Way to slow for my 71 year old and becoming hand shaky at times. After making the correction and shooting at a much higher speed, wide open at f/1.4 I have had no issues. I decided to keep the lens...Your videos have common sense, no hype and very enjoyable to view. I do not do video so I may have over bought like with the R5. Maybe Canon will listen and make a firmware up date but not counting on it.

[@KevinDeal]

I think they would be foolish to not let the older bodies utilize the aperture ring for stills. Glad you figured out the issue with the shutter speed. It's razor sharp once you dial it in. I appreciate the comments you left about my channel and style.

[@btecww]

As usual great real world review. The 35mm really fits your workflow and look. I lean towards the. rf 85mm and 50mm as my favorites. The 35mm 1.8 meet most of my shooting needs. It really the video capabilities that intrigues me about this lens

[@KevinDeal]

Thanks. I go through phases. I used to be a heavy 85 shooter. I've changed. But I still use that 85 a lot because, it's the 85. lol. Thanks for stopping by!

[@wujacqueline3388]

I own the RF35 1.8 for my R8. Not only for its light weight but also the image stabilization feature which is essential for my R8 while shooting documentary. I will consider the RF35 1.4L once I got my R5 mark ii purchased sooner or later. Nice review anyway. Thank you Kevin.

[@KevinDeal]

The RF35mm 1.8 is an incredible lens for the money. The 1.4 is definitely better in terms of image quality, but I don't think everyone needs that lens. It's my favorite focal length, so it was an easy purchase for me. Thanks for watching!

[@wujacqueline3388]

@@KevinDeal me too, 35mm is my favorite too. I still keep the EF 35mm f2 IS after purchasing the RF 35mm f1 .8. The are incredible.

[@KevinDeal]

@@wujacqueline3388 I agree

[@salvamando1]

Thank you for this thoughtful and balanced review! I thought I recognized you in that promo, that is awesome. It is amazing how this lens has been so polarizing for many and so many people are completely relegating it to “skip/no-go” category without actually using it in real world settings. Your results (and great photographic skills, of course) show that this lens is totally worth it. I have this lens, and during my “staycation” during 4th of July I was able to walk around with this lens around the SF Bay Area and it was so awesome to be able to have beautifully rendered colors and sharpness in such a small package to boot! I have the EF Mk II version as well and this new one is definitely sharper. This lens will be a success for both photographers and videographers and to casual/amateur photographers like me. This lens is coming to all my future travels!

[@KevinDeal]

Thank you for your response. A lot of the negative reviews I’ve seen of this lens were released within a day after the reviewers got the lens and most of them didn’t update their raw editors to take advantage of lens corrections. At best they aren’t using the lens the way it was intended to be used. My findings are similar to yours. When using the lens the way Canon intended my results have been fantastic. Imagine that!

[@EastCoastDigs]

It may be a practical lens but doesn’t really seem worthy of the upgrade or the price tag. Don’t get me wrong I want it since I’m using the 1.8 but it definitely isnt as good as it should have been

[@KevinDeal]

@@EastCoastDigs where did the lens fall short of your expectations?

[@EastCoastDigs]

@@KevinDeal really as a photo only, I feel like I’m paying an extra $150 ish for something I don’t need. Why not stick with the usm motor for sound and maybe even more savings. I’ve seen the CA in another review and it was really bad, maybe theirs was biased. And the onion bokeh leaves a bit to be desired for my eye personally but not really a deal breaker. Comparing it to canons lineup it seems like a nice price but Sony and Nikon deliver a similar product for less. Again I will be a purchaser most likely but the mixed reviews have me waiting for now

[@KevinDeal]

@@EastCoastDigs It definitely depends on what's important to you. I have seen CA in certain situations. To be fair, the situations were extreme. Like shooting 1.4 at a dark telephone pole against a bright sky. You're going to get CA in those situations. I find that on my subjects even in extreme situations the CA was pretty controlled. I was able to get a little bit of onion bokeh, but it didn't really stand out or bother me. I think if you're never going to use the aperture ring, I can certainly see that as a good argument. I wish the 24-105 2.8 didn't have the ring, simply because anything to make that lens lighter would be welcome. I can also see Canon's side that it makes sense to make their lenses hybrid, since they do the same with their cameras.

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Looks like an awesome lens and would have been truly special if that rear filter and aperture ring was useable with older EOS R bodies. Fab video you put together here and again dope you was on the release shoot! Myself, I’m waiting for unicorn lenses like the 28-70/2 as my use case is fine adapting EF glass

[@KevinDeal]

Thanks! I hold out hope on the ring. But only time will tell.

[@rbos6001]

Seeing the price difference and I have an R8 the old 35mm 1.8 is is probably a better choice for me. Thanks for the video love the image you made. Good to know it is as good as the 50mm 1.2 sans the weight.

[@KevinDeal]

Thanks for the watch! That 35mm 1.8 is a fantastic lens!

[@albertma5467]

Great review. I was worried about the tiny front element but as long as the IQ is good. Too bad I blew this years equipment budget early. May be next year.

[@KevinDeal]

Pretty sure I am blowing my budget on an R5 MKII in the morning, if the rumors are true. I'll be sure to release a video about it. 35 is a good lens. It passes the real world test for me.

[@jameslong1540]

So I think Canon said that this is first in a family offering. RF 24mm f1.4 L VCM RF 35mm f1.4 L VCM RF 50mm f1.4 L VCM RF 85mm f1.4 L VCM RF 100mm f1.4 L VCM RF 135mm f1.4 L VCM

[@KevinDeal]

It certainly makes sense. I think the 24mm makes sense to make next. I'd be willing to bet they don't do a 1.4 version of the 135, but maybe they are able to squeeze that extra light out of it by forgoing IS. I wonder if it ends up being an f2 version. I guess we will see soon enough. Or maybe it will take another six years. Lol

[@mousbleu]

135 1.4 VCM I wish.

[@KevinDeal]

@@mousbleu that would be a large lens. Maybe they ditch the IS to save on size.

[@ER-gn8io]

Das ein 100 mm f1.4 und ein 135 mm f1.4 kommt kann ich mir nicht vorstellen! Zu schwer und unhandlich! Ein gutes Beispiel ist Sigma mit ihrem 105 f1.4, ein Ladenhüter!

[@michalkus509]

The RF 24 f1.4 L VCM and RF 50 f1.4 L VCM will be introduced at the end of this month - early October at the latest. I don't know anything about other lenses yet, but it would be great - Personally, I would really like at least 1-2 longer lenses - something like 70mm would make sense - Canon doesn't have this focal length - or 90mm - just something in the 70-90mm range with f1.4 would be great - for longer lenses, the clone would have to be higher, otherwise it would be extremely expensive, large and heavy, and I don't want that - such lenses are 85/1.2 and 135/1.8, and they are great but impractical. When I used the RF 35 f1.4 L VCM on my R8, I had to buy an external grip to make it comfortable - the 550g was fine with it - the R8 has a very short grip and the little finger is out of it - with the additional grip it's as big as R5, but lenses weighing 1Kg are not comfortable even for these bodies.

[@aranelchan]

Thanks for the review. One criticism that I've seen is that this lens produces distorted images that require heavy lens profile corrections, and this can introduce softness at the corners. Is your answer to this your "continuity of character" test, i.e., even if this is true, it is no worse than the other lenses you listed? I use the RF 14-35mm f/4L for landscape as a hobbyist, and from what I understand it too has considerable distortion, but to my eyes after lens profile corrections in Lightroom, I don't have any issues with distortion and any softness that might have been introduced doesn't bother me.

[@KevinDeal]

Evening you said is true. And like you. It doesn’t bother me at all. All I cared about is what I see on my screen, since that’s what I edit. It didn’t make it to my video but I tested the corners in high ISO / noise situations and the noise on the corners is about the same everywhere else on the frame. So the lifting of the shadows by the digital corrections didn’t introduce any additional noise in my testing.

[@patricioderito3722]

Why isn't anyone comparing this lens to the older EF version II? I have yet to find a review. smh. The EF II version is a GEM, I want to know if this new lens is better so I can decide to keep the EF version or upgrade.

[@KevinDeal]

Thanks for stopping by. So a few things. 1) I pay for all the lenses I review on this channel with my own money, unless I state otherwise. I can promise you, Canon has never sent me a lens for free. When they do, I'll be sure to let you know. So with that in mind, the older EF model is currently $2000. That's $500 more than the new native RF model. So for me to spend $2000 ($3500 total) just to compare the two lenses for a two minute segment, would be a big waste of my money. Now, if you want to lend me yours for a few weeks, I'd be happy to make a video, and give you a shout out, but that's really the only scenario in which I would consider it. I would of course send it back. 2) When I released my RF135 1.8 review, I performed that very test on the EF model, and the new RF model completely destroyed it in just about every area. Any time I've ever done tests in the past, the newer lenses always destroy the older lenses. In fact, I've never heard of an older EF lens ever performing better than a newer RF counterpart, outside of maybe rear lit performance, which is a super subjective thing. If I had the older EF35 laying around, I definitely would have done the test. But I don't, so I didn't. 3) I have seen some people leave comments in this video and other videos where they discuss that this newer version is significantly / noticeably better when they compared the two. The only criteria where I've heard one person say they like the older model is how it looks rear-lit. Once again, that's subjective. My findings is that the newer model rear-lit looks the same as my RF50 1.2, RF85 1.2 and RF135 1.8 when they are rear-lit. It's consistent with the other models. Whether or not that's better, that' subjective. So once again, thanks for stopping by, I can't justify purchasing a $2000 lens for a small segment in one of my reviews just to determine that (once again) the RF version is probably going to outperform it in just about every area. I've heard some people say the older nifty fifty is better, but those are so inconsistently made that's a tough one to quantify. I honestly think that since the RF mount is six years old and we have yet to have a definitive example of the older EF mount 20 year old lenses being better than the newer RF versions, this is probably a question that should be put to rest. The newer ones are better. Now, that doesn't mean the older ones are bad. Many of them are actually still exceptional and resolve well on the newer sensors, but when you put them side by side next to the RF and zoom in, it's obvious the newer ones are better.

[@patricioderito3722]

@@KevinDeal Hey Kevin, thanks for the reply. I honestly was just asking in general and not you in particular. I own the older ef version II and I think it's absolutely amazing, I was just wondering why no one made the comparison yet. I'm sure the newer lens performs better in all areas like you said, but what I'm trying to find out if it's worth the upgrade. There are many people who own the EF and are on the fence about upgrading to the RF version. I'm gonna rent the lens and compare myself anyway but I was just surprised no one has made a video about it. Anyway, your reviews are always great, thanks man!

[@KevinDeal]

@@patricioderito3722 being that the newer lens is $500 less than the older model, I'd be willing to bet it's worth it. The real questions is what is this new price going to do to the secondhand market of the older model? I think the price point of the new one is a huge win for buyers but might make it a huge loss for sellers of the older model. Your support of my channel is greatly appreciated!

[@lanycera]

@@KevinDeal The person was talking about upgrading. So why would it be worth upgrading if the EF version produces phenomenal results? Minus the rattling, and minus the extreme barrel distortion which only can be fixed in post to accommodate videographers / the focus breathing? Something by the way you have not shown in the video but others have. It's quite staggering for the amount of money you pay. If the autofocus is significantly better then yes maybe it'd be worth upgrading, but then again - if no one does a comparison video - unless you rent the lens yourself, it would simply not be worth it going through the hassle of selling and buying the new one.

[@KevinDeal]

I've never compared the EF35 to the RF35. This is true. But I've compared other EF L lenses to their RF counterparts and I have yet to see an EF lens that looks better. And why would they? They were designed to be used on 20MP cameras. They don't resolve as well on 40MP cameras. You mentioned you had super high standards for lenses. Does that include all technical aspects of lenses or just distortion? Because older EF L don't look flawless when you zoom in on the files like their newer RF counterparts do. And since you have such high standards for lenses, I can't see why you'd adapt any of the older EF lenses since they tend to have terrible CA and lack sharpness on the 40MP sensors.

[@stevenwaldstein2249]

Thank you for the review. I’m not sure if I will buy this yet but interested to take a look. Currently using the adapted EF 35mm f/1.4L II but almost every other lens in my R5 kit is a native RF lens even the 35/1.8. I admit I’m really just a stills shooter so the lack of a real aperture ring for stills mode is a disappointment but none of my other RF lenses have one (All my Sony GM, GMII, and most used G lenses do have one). Like the smaller size and weight so that’s a huge plus. Take care.

[@KevinDeal]

Glad you liked the review. Technically all RF lenses have a dedicated aperture ring if you decide to program the control ring to be the aperture ring. I suspect you use it for something else.

[@stevenwaldstein2249]

@@KevinDeal No I haven’t brogrammed it for aperture but as a long time Canon user with FD, EF, and now RF lenses really haven’t used it much. The programmable ring on the EF to RF adapter is close to the body like the zooms where a proper aperture ring would be. Other native lenses have it out near the end of the lens so to me it’s inconsistent. I.e. unlike Sony and Fuji lenses it’s not at a constant distance from the body mount. I’m a huge fan of consistency of ergonomics. Another misstep by Canon IMHO but just end up living with it. Do you use it? If so for what? Take care.

[@KevinDeal]

@@stevenwaldstein2249 I personally don't care about aperture rings, as I bump them and the next thing I know I'm at f/22. I love having the dial control my aperture on the R5. Works fine for me. My other system is Fuji and some of my lenses have the ring, but I tend to turn it off and assign it to a dial. On Canon RF I have programmed all the control rings to change my autofocus area. Being that I shoot portraits, I like to scroll through how I want the AF to work. I've been rolling with that since about 2021 and I've been good with it.

[@Soul_Visuals_Photography]

Bought it. Comes Wednesday.

[@KevinDeal]

Congrats! I hope it gives you years of great images!

[@Soul_Visuals_Photography]

@@KevinDeal same. Trading in my tamron 35 1.4. It's stellar. Hope I don't regret it. But my tamron is horrible for video

[@KevinDeal]

@@Soul_Visuals_Photography yeah, the Tamron is really a photography lens. The RF is superb for video.

[@McarthurBeard]

I look at this lens as a do it all prime lens and I look at the 24-70 as a do it all zoom lens and I don’t know which one I want for the r5c which is a do it all camera

[@KevinDeal]

It's the age old argument of prime vs zoom. Zooms give you versatility at the expense of light collection, isolation and (marginally less) sharpness. A prime is usually superior in all three of those areas at the expense of no ability to zoom. It all comes down to your application and needs. I use both, but mainly primes.

[@mousbleu]

Sold

[@KevinDeal]

I hope you enjoy it

[@kelb89]

I'm not sure how you can say the backlit performance is acceptable, yet the images you show are littered with flare and ghosting lol. Sure that's fine if it's your style of work, but it's fairly unacceptable in a lens like this.

[@KevinDeal]

I said the back lit performance was on par with my more expensive 1.2 lenses and whether or not that is good or bad is up to the person watching. What is good and bad is subjective. You don’t like it. That’s fine. It means you’ll hate the more expensive lenses too. I care way more about the lens not focus hunting when back lit. This lens did really well there.

[@zroeder]

I still think Canon will eventually release a 35mm 1.2 (or lower) to complement this hybrid. All lens designs are a compromise, and this one is optimized for weight, lack of focus breathing, and AF speed. I’m personally most concerned about LoCa because it is annoying to fix. Not sure how bad it will be practically, but it looks very bad for this lens in tests.

[@aron2922]

A flawed lens for 1900 euros, awesome Canon.

[@KevinDeal]

If you plug in any RF L lens into your RAW editor without lens corrections, they are all flawed. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. Maybe this one is too flawed for you, but they're all flawed.

[@Gylfaginning16]

I must agree on this one. For a wanna-be L-Series lens this one is too expensive and mainly focused on video. As a still photographer I am not very pleased with this lens. I wish there was another option, but unfortunately there is none, at least not yet. But my hopes, that there will be a 1.2 or any other 35 mm better suited for stills are very low at this point, since this 35 mm lens took aaages to come out. Also if Canon doesn't open the RF mount for third party manufacturers, then there will also be no other options left. I love my R6 and I don't wanna switch camera brands. But Canon is taking way too long on bringing out the most important lenses....

[@KevinDeal]

@@Gylfaginning16 it took 6 years to make an f1.4 for the RF mount. They've never made a 1.2 version of a 35mm before. People keep speculating that Canon is going to make a lens they've never made in the history of their company. Not saying it's impossible, but definitely improbable. Being that the lens was as sharp as my RF85 1.2 and had similar back light performance to my other L 1.2 lenses, what specifically about this lens makes it a wannabe L lens to you? Where did it fall short when you used it out in the field?

[@Gylfaginning16]

@@KevinDeal I also have not very high hopes for a 1.2 version, I just said I would hope for it. Well, I never said this lens isn't sharp. It definitely is tack sharp, fast AF and surely a nice bokeh rendering. But it also has flaws that I would not expect in such an expensive (L-Series) lens. The ghosting for example is very terrible, CAs also occure stronger than in other lenses and for my taste the vignetting is way too strong (and yeah, some people like it and thats fine). Overall, I think I would not be terribly sad having this lens. I think that it can be a lot of fun and make awesome pictures. But I also need reliability and I am unsure if this lens is. No, I did not test it out (yet), and I will try to do so. Like I said, I am just afraid to buy a 2.000 Euro lens and having it fail in situations where I need it to be absolutely accurate and reliable as a pro photographer who earns his money with this gear.

[@ER-gn8io]

​​@@Gylfaginning16Ein Fotograf der einen materiellen Gegenstand wie eine Kamera liebt und Angst hat ein Objektiv zu kaufen, was soll man davon halten? Veröffentlichte Rezensionen als absolut zutreffend zu sehen kann nicht zielführend sein. Niemand muss das Objektiv kaufen. Dafür gibt es Unternehmen die teure Objektive vermieten. Außerdem haben Sie bei einem seriösen Händler ein Wiederrufsrecht und können vom Kauf zurücktreten. Ich habe schon viel Rezensionen über das Hybridobjektiv gelesen und bin zu der Erkenntnis gekommen, das Fotografen, die gar nicht zur Zielgruppe gehören das Objektiv schlecht reden. Wer selbst keine Erfahrungen als Nutzer vorweisen kann sollte sich zurückhalten mit Kritik. Ein Objektiv und auch eine Kamera sind immer ein Kompromiss! Die einen wollen dies und die anderen das haben. Es gibt noch ein Sprichwort in Deutschland das sagt: Die einen sagen so und die anderen sagen so.

[@Makta972]

Heavy I mean HEAVY distorsion on this lens. Unacceptable from a L lense. A cheap Sigma 35 1.4 art is way better than this

[@KevinDeal]

Final results look good. That’s all I care about. Sigma lens has its issues.

[@lanycera]

@@KevinDeal See the thing is with reviews you should mention these factors for people to consider. It doesn't matter if it doesn't bother you, you always infuse your personal opinion in reviews and I understand this. But you should take about it all, and for a lens this price it is staggering. I've owned Nikon lenses, Fuji GFX lenses, the Canon zooms, and the distortion I have seen from this lens is imo unacceptable for still shooters at that price range. Again, that's a personal opinion but at least it needs to be shown and brought up in a lens review.

[@KevinDeal]

​@@lanycera By the time I released my review there were already 20 videos out about people crying about the distortion. I decided to take my review in a different direction. I literally said at the beginning of my video that I was just going to mainly focus on real world use and less on technical stuff. After hearing me say that, you still decided to complain that I didn't go in depth on technical stuff. If you want to look at closeups of dollar bills and MTF Charts, Christopher Frost and Dustin Abbott have fantastic channels for that. But if you sit through a 30 minute video where the guy says "this isn't going to be a technical review" then at the end complain that it wasn't a technical review that's your problem. If I were looking for a technical video and the guy said at the beginning that it wasn't going to be a technical video, I would have tuned out and I certainly wouldn't have left a comment complaining that it wasn't technical enough...

[@GP996_LB]

Bought it a few days ago, and I can confirm that the heavy distortion does not affect the final result at all. Its sharp af and focus extremely fast. Once you realised how small and light this F1.4 lens is, you will love it.

[@KevinDeal]

@@GP996_LB your comment is a perfect summary of the lens. It's small, light and sharp and you don't notice the distortion.