Canon RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM Definitive Review | DA

[@alanm.4298]

All lenses are a compromise in one way or another. Canon could have made a lens with little to no distortion, but larger, heavier and unable to use standard filters due to a strongly convex front element. For example, look at the Sigma 12-24mm Art lens. Canon appears to have chosen to go a different route with this lens, maximizing sharpness while keeping size, weight reasonable and allowing standard filters of a very common size to be used, but requiring software correction of complex distortion and vignetting. Unusually close focusing ability is a bonus. I disagree with some of the negative comments and think the RF 14-35 will be hugely popular with landscape photographers. Particularly those who travel and hike with their gear so really appreciate a single zoom that covers a number of very useful focal lengths quite well, who are typically stopping down to middle apertures anyway, who want to avoid needing special filters and filter holders. I agree it will be less useful for architecture... But for that Canon has choice of five adaptable EF mount tilt-shift lenses to sell you and has alluded to at least two more of those coming some day in RF mount.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think your points are fair from the perspective of a landscape photographer, but some other photographers aren't going to agree with the design decisions.

[@networm64]

While you pointing out to Sigma 12-24 the new Sony 12-24 2.8 is half the weight of that lens, incrediblly sharp but almost doesn't have any flaws of this lens!

[@networm64]

@@richrollin4867 Exactly that lens is a real bargain in wide zoom territory.

[@crawfish91]

Bought it for weight size and ability to put filters on.

[@oriwo99]

Hello Dustin, Once again an excellent review. I first had the RF 2.8/15-35mm which has always been a bit too big and heavy for me. When the RF 4/14-35mm came out, I switched to it. Assuming the right lens profile - and DXO Photolab 5 has such very good profiles - both lenses deliver very good image quality and hardly differ in practical images. I am very satisfied with the image quality on both the R6 and the R5.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You’re right. The IQ difference is negligible and may actually favor the 14-35

[@lordr9485]

thank dustin. I've been waiting for this for long time .

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

My pleasure.

[@peterebel7899]

Thank you for this great review! This lens seems to be a great option in a nature photographer's kit paired with the 25-105 f4 & 70-200 f4 or even better 100-500.

[@cjm8160]

Does the RF 100-500mm not seem unreasonably priced?

[@peterebel7899]

@@cjm8160 Yes, this lens is very high prized. But it is extremely versatile: Landscape, birds, wildlife, bigger insects, plants, ... All with brilliant performance. For me the pay off in nature photography is by far better than any ultra wide zoom (this is my personal shooting style)

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Hi Peter, I do think it is a great landscape option.

[@bl8550]

Dustin, as usually, your review is detailed and spot on. Thanks for the diligent work. I use this lens mainly for landscape photos and absolutely love its size, weight and 14mm FL (the extra 2mm of reach is great). Additionally, the ability to use a 77mm filter is fantastic! At 14mm, I was concerned about the potential for pronounced perspective distortion, but was pleasantly surprised that it isn't must different from the EF16mm and 17mm. No doubt - this lens is specifically aimed at landscape and architecture photographers. I agree that its price is STEEP.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Glad you are enjoying the lens.

[@mma171]

I don't ever use it at 14mm. I always dial it back to around 16 to 17mm. I even get slight blackening of the corners at 15mm. From 16 to 28 though landscape shot are amazingly sharp!! The size and weight of this lens makes it great for long hikes also. I would have been completely satisfied if Canon would have just made it a 15-35 f4 lens. No need to try to squeeze that extra 1mm in if it wasn't going to be a quality 1mm.

[@networm64]

The problem is you are paying some extra bucks for the 14mm while you actually have a 15mm at it's best!

[@mma171]

@@networm64 I agree. I feel a more fair price would be $1299.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think that's a solid point. The 14mm is basically just marketing.

[@nomad0714]

@mma, Good point but another way would simply be to compose at 14mm (knowing that with correction it is 15 or 16mm) and step back a step or two and then crop in the image later and still retain the 14mm (if you really need that wide). I think this could be said of the 15-35 to a certain degree.

[@adylikowski]

Thank you for the review. Question that I have…can we think of any other manufacturer that has a similar lens and see if they were able to avoid the distortion somehow?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Sigma's 14-24mm is certainly better, but it can't use screw-in filters. Canon took a chance here, and they did achieve some of their goals...but clearly not all of them

[@monsieurgeertmans]

Hi Dustin, first of all, great reviews. I feel like your reviews are (by a large margin) the most informative I can find. Having said that, it's the rather ambiguous build philosophy that really makes it difficult to know wether I want to buy it or not. I'm a real estate photographer and I'm looking to replace my EF 16-35/4 with either this one or the RF 15-35/2.8. As you mention in the review and some of your replies it is probably less useful in architecture and interiour photography. Would you say that caveat is now solved with most software having the lens profile? Or is the distortion perhaps so extreme that it's still visible after (manual/lens profile) correction? Thanks for all the hard work you put into these videos!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's tough to say. You do lose some of the wideness of the lens post correction, obviously. If real estate is your primary focus, something like the 17mm Tilt Shift might be a better investment.

[@MichalBudzik_]

Great question... Did get the RF 14-35mm? 80% of of I am planning to shoot with it would be interiors. Great review Dustin! Your content is very informative and professional. Thank you

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

In Christopher Frost's review of the RF 16mm F/2.8, he noted that that lens is designed to actually render a RAW image wider than 16mm. It has similar distortions when uncorrected. However, the R5 and R6 have an internal lens correction setting which, if used, largely removes the distortion and vignetting. It does that by stretching out the corners and cropping in, which explains the corner softness and coma that you noticed. Frost said the 14-35 is similarly designed, which explains your findings with this lens. Adobe just released a major update of Lightroom and Photoshop but I don't know if the profiles for those lenses are included. I own the EF 16-35 F4L and it's really good. Its biggest weakness for me is significant focus breathing. The RF 14-35 F4L seems to have none, from your AF test. That is very impressive, as is the lack of weight and size. But between the price and the distortion, I don't think it's going to replace my EF 16-35 any time soon. Maybe if there's a Mark II version in a couple of years.

[@davidshawe8982]

John, yes the latest Lightroom update does include a profile for this lens.

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

@@davidshawe8982 great news!

[@metphmet]

The way you describe it is a bit strange. Actually lenses used by mirrorless often show higher levels of distortion than DSlR lenses. Corrections are applied in the EVF and don’t bother. Regarding UWA and WA they can have high level of barrel distorsion . The focal distance is normally expressed after corrections. Barrel distorsion means simply that the lens captures a wider angle than needed ( and cushion distorsion a narrower angle).´It works like this.

[@networm64]

The biggest problem of this lens is not its huge barrel distortion or it's extreme vignette. The problem is it's not 14mm indeed. Compared to Samyang it's probably something around 15 to 15.5mm I think. Which is still so good but here comes the problem. Why is it priced 1700$??? Cause it's advertised as a 14-35 lens which no other brand has it yet!

[@metphmet]

Shahab Hasanzadeh You have to wait for serious measurements in order to make such statement . 14mm is an angle of field in 24x36 . Samyang 14mm is not a measurement tool. You can have focus breathing. How is it when focused on infinity? You have to align nodal points especially from such a short distance. In conclusion ....you cannot make this statement from this test.

[@raulgolfs]

Dustin! My man! I've been looking for vids about vlogging with this RF lens for my the EOS R! Great job bud!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Glad I could help!

[@billzidis2656]

When I saw this video on my subscriptions I was like : Yeah,I don't use photo cameras anymore but I wouldn't mind to watch a 30 mins video by Dustin 🤣. Great way to spend my evening and learn alot of things .

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Enjoy!

[@iheartchiropractic]

Thank you so much Dustin for taking the time to create this content. You are always so detailed, so helpful. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. 🙏

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I appreciate that!

[@Kowabrass]

19:01 The sailing ship shown on the back of the old Deutschmarks bank note (Gorch Fock) has just been overhauled for a cost of 135 Million Euros, after the first quote some years back was for 10 Million. Just as an example of how project costs can go through the roof when unexpected things get in the way. Sometimes I wonder if the new high-priced Canon lenses have the same problem.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Interesting fact.

[@DanielFazzari]

Nice review, Dustin. Do you think the uncorrected focal length is more like 12 or 13mm, then 14mm after correction? I know it looked narrower compared to the other 14mm lens, but I wonder how it looks compared to the RF 15-35 at 15mm? Is it wider than that after corrections?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's probably wider than the 15-35, but I'd say at best it is 14.5mm after correction, and probably closer to 15mm.

[@JohnMacLeanPhotography]

It’s 13mm before correction.

[@K9malinois_dog_love]

Hi Dustin, quick question. Image quality vs the ef 14mm 2.8 mark II ? For architecture?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I can't really recall the performance of the 14mm F2.8 II. I'm not sure that I ever tested it.

[@Eikenhorst]

This is probably my most desired lens of all lenses of all brands. The fact that it goes as wide as 14mm is fantastic, the sharpness is good, and the sun stars are really pretty. It is the kind of lens that makes you want to buy into the Canon RF system. Unfortunately that is where the fun stops on the RF mount, as in general I find their lens selection for my use lacking. But if they ever release something similar to a Tamron 50-400 I will jump on the Canon train tomorrow, mainly because of this fantastic lens

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's tough. Canon's RF system has been a mix of greatness and great disappointments.

[@vilson.farias]

Hello Dustin. You have been my best source when I want to try a new lens. Your reviews are outstanding.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Great to hear!

[@ButchFagan]

Which tripod did you use to display the lens/camera? I need a small tripod that will support a heavy lens such as the 24-105 f4 on my R8.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy

[@MWDAdventures]

So I am upgrading from an m-50 to an r6 and looking for my first lens. I will be using it for KZbin videos for 80 percent of the time with close up talking heads with product reviews and adventure shots well camping. I can only buy one lens to start. Would you get the 14-35 or the kit professional level 24-105 ?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's a good question. If you think 24mm is wide enough for you, the 24-105mm might be a good option. It's cheaper and has a more flexible focal range.

[@MWDAdventures]

@@DustinAbbottTWI leaning toward the 24-105. Seems like a bit more flexible. I have read a lot of KZbinrs get the 15-35 2.8. I can’t afford that but could swing the 14-35.

[@MichaelGazeley]

Does anyone know why this lens doesn’t allow multiple exposures on the Canon R5? Really strange.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Are you sure that's the case? The lens should not be the deciding factor for that.

[@MichaelGazeley]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Absolutely positive. I was told that was the case, couldn’t believe it, then tried it myself, with my own R5 + RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM, when I got home. It’s bizarre. And on Googling, there are people from Canon saying no firmware upgrade will ‘fix’ the issue, as this is how things are supposed to be. So even more bizarre.

[@infrarouge75]

the simple question is: at 14mm raw file after correction, what is the real true angle????? 16/18/20mm?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'd say about 15mm

[@tomapaunovic]

It's great that Canon is pushing the boundaries with this lens, but I still feel that Nikon has a better balanced approach with 14-30 F4. That lens is $300 cheaper and much smaller, with less of optical compromises. It's a shame than Sony does not have anything like this though, that 16-35 F4 is ancient by today's standards.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Fair enough.

[@TommyGrofcsik]

but its Nikon, ew

[@hellolau]

Today is your day 🙌😊

[@אסףליאור]

How do you think it compares with the sigma 14-24 ef version?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I actually really like the 14-24 from Sigma. I would consider using it via adapter a valid alternative.

[@אסףליאור]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you!

[@vilson.farias]

I have some questions regarding this 14-35. I do a lot of hikings and taking multiple lenses may overload me to a point that inpacts on the distance I can travel or, in the end, make me to leave some lenses at home. That's what has been happening with my Sigma 14-24 f/2.8. Although it's a great lens, it's heavy, bulky and that huge glass requires too much care. This 14-35 looks fantastic on the paper: it's small, light and the front element can be protected behind a UV filter. So now come the questions: 1- How does it compares to Sigma 14-24 2.8 in terms of sharpness? 2- Since the vignette is very visible on 14mm, is it possible to add a low profile UV filter like those B+W 77mm XS-Pro? The same question goes to circular polarizers and ND filters. Have you tried any of them?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think you'll be fine with the filter. The vignette is pre-correction, so I don't think adding a little bit of a filter will radically change anything.

[@BenMarar]

Thanks Dustin. Do you think it is actually 13mm before correction??? And after correction 15mm? Thanks again

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's probably fairly close.

[@chacmool2581]

I've got the EF 16-35 f/4 IS so I don't really need this, but i do like the reduced volume and weight. 35mm at f/4 which of the two is better?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Probably the new lens, but it isn't anything significant at all.

[@rmm9747]

HI, Excellent and exhaustive work. Thank you so much. I currently have a Tamron 17-50 dII SP F/2.8 lens on my new R7 and want to upgrade. Do you think the RF 14-35 is worth it with the R7? Or better the Sigma Art 18-35 with the EF-RF adapter? Thank you very much for your attention.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's a tough question. The RF lens is still a useful focal range, though not as dramatically wide as it would be on full frame (though still wider than either of the options you mention). I'd probably go with it over the Sigma unless you need the larger maximum aperture.

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

Hi Dustin! I have the EF 11-24mm f4 L lens. I love it but it’s so heavy. Do you have any other alternatives other than this lens to go wife for RF? Seems like some of this lenses downsides aren’t exciting to update lenses. My 11-24 is a real burden to use because of the filter issues and room in my bag. Do you also mind helping me? I have the EF 24-70 F4 L lens. Do you think it’s worth upgrading to the RF 24-105? Is it that much better with image quality? It’s purely for landscapes only. Thanks

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

hi Gary, right now I'd say the 14-35mm and 24-105 F4L are probably your best options. They have shortcomings, but they also have serious strengths.

[@vilson.farias]

One more thing, how are the correction profiles now? Do we have new profiles that have better results than the one you show on the video? I have a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 and I expect this canon have the same results at 14mm.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

There are correction profiles, and they look pretty much like the JPEG example I showed in the review.

[@earlmccowen5197]

Good thorough review, as usual, Dustin. Thanks!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

My pleasure

[@steveb013]

hi dustin , do you try the new LR with the lens correction to see what it looks like, if yes can you share the results with us, ( what it looks like about in term of mm of image that you lost compared to the 14mm etc ... ) thanks

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I have tested it, and it's within a fraction of a percent of the JPEG correction. Almost identical framing.

[@steveb013]

@@DustinAbbottTWI ok, you'te sure that without correction the lens is approx a 12-13mm ? After corrected is a 14mm

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'd say more like 13mm(ish) and ending up at something like 14.5mm(ish)

[@marknongkhlaw1674]

Can it be used for portraits ? 🤔

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

There are many better options.

[@utubewatcher486]

Great timing Dustin. I just picked mine up yesterday, and have yet to even get out on a trail with it. Do you have any thoughts after the release of the Adobe profile for this lens?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I haven't seen that profile, yet.

[@billrhea]

I am a working wedding photographer and this lens is a must have in anyones kit. It’s 5 start

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm glad you are enjoying it

[@brianbass3954]

Thanks for the reviews Dustin. If I were only going to buy 1 L lens (mostly landscapes) and hypothetically 100% of my photos were taken between 24-32 mm, which lens would you prefer between this one and the 24-105 L?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I would say the 14-35 for the scenario you describe. It is the sharper of the two, and more landscape oriented.

[@grahamtomlin319]

I just updated lightroom classic and there's a profile for this lens now, super happy is this lens should be in my bag in a few days, PS, so nice to hear someone fron your side of the world saying Autumn instead of fall, keep up the good work

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The profile definitely helps. The end result pretty much looks like the JPEG correction in camera.

[@damir10535]

Thank you Dustin for this review. Image quality compared to Samyang 14mm RF?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The Canon is better in basically every metric but vignette and distortion. It is much, much sharper.

[@Abisu987]

Excellent review and I was waiting for this review from you. I jumped to Canon r system from Nikon Z for various reason and one of them was canon RF f4 compact holly trinity. I like the Rf 70-200 f4 and 24-105 f4. I was just praying canon do not screw up the wide angle version . Last week I rented this RF 14-35 f4 and was very disappointed . I did some city scape in Singapore , landscape and some indoor. Except landscape , cityscape and indoor were totally not acceptable on the wider range. Adobe just released the profile but still it is very difficult to correct the distortion. I spent hours to get things corrected but the result was unacceptable and total waste of time. In evening landscape shoot I used low profile nisi filter but the erratic vignette on the sky was awful. I thought my lens copy was bad so I exchanged with another copy. Next day I tried on same location and now I also compared with my Nikon z7 + z 14-30 f4. Canon Rf 14-35 was a ultimate looser. I extended my rental period and tried my level best to fall in love with this Canon RF 14-35 f4 but simply not worth the range and the price. Now I am stuck. Need to wait and see what they do with the rumored RF10-24 mm f4 but it will be bulky and Canon will surely screwup on the price there.

[@infrarouge75]

and the new RF 16mm f2.8 is.....a garbage.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's unfortunate. For landscapes, this is a great lens, but not for interiors or architecture.

[@mxilplict]

I am glad I’ve held onto my EF 11-24! I will give the 14-35 a try whenever I get a hold of it, but based on the comments and Dustin’s video, I think I will keep my EF 11-24 for landscapes and architecture stills, and RF 15-35 for videos and events.

[@sonicvboom]

@@DustinAbbottTWISo for interiors/ architecture, would you recommend the *EF* F2.8 16-35mm L or *EF* F4 16-35mm L v2 IS?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Frankly there are better options than either of the Canon options. Something like the Sigma 12-24mm F4 or a tilt shift lens are far preferable for interiors.

[@meredithnz]

Hi Dustin, I have recently invested in the RF 24-105 and 70-200f4. I have an ef17-40 f4L but I am trying to sell it for either the RF16mm or this lens. But I can't bring myself to pay so much for this as it's even more expensive in New Zealand. I am thinking about the RF16mm because of its small, light size and convenience, even if there are some IQ issues. However I use Lee Filters for landscape photography so perhaps I should the old 17-40mm? Or are there other ultra wide alternatives out there for my EOS R? Thanks.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I would say that the best budget alternative is to find a copy of the 16-35mm F4L IS.

[@TommyGrofcsik]

@@DustinAbbottTWI what would you recommend between the rf 14-35 f4 or ef 16-35 f4?

[@rimtiggins6078]

35mm aside, it's very encouraging to see how sharp this is. Seems like a dream for landscapes, which is what I'd mainly be using it for. I am curious what the true widest angle of it is after correction though. Feel like we're gonna see a lot more lenses that rely on software to deliver more unusual zoom ranges.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm going to guess a little closer to 15mm

[@ayfj4572]

I just purchased a mint, one year old copy of the EF f4 IS for about US $600. The extra cost and distortion of the RF version won't make up for the extra 2mm, better IS and adapting the EF lens.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's a great price, so hard to argue with that.

[@ddolde]

I'm using the 16mm and 50mm STM lenses no zooms yet anyway considering 70-200

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Fair enough.

[@christianvolkner2028]

This is the new normal that these lenses only work nice after they get corrected. My 28-70/2 probably gets a boost in this regard as well. But as a result of this, pixels are already lost due to correction. So they get worse after applying more edits. These lenses nowadays cost a lot of money and it feels a bit like being cheated. A Zeiss representative once said it’s not the Mount making these lenses better. Making lenses bigger makes them better or in this case computer science. But still, very useful lens I guess, thank you for showing this:-)

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think Canon is under pressure to back up their claims of innovating every lens because of the wonders of the new mount. I think they may have overstated how big of an advantage this is. The Sony 50mm F1.2 GM is as good as anything I've seen on Canon RF despite the smaller mount diameter and fewer connection pins.

[@christianvolkner2028]

@@DustinAbbottTWI I can imagine Sony doing the same. It might be as soon as these contacts connect, the image gets boosted before raw. CanonRF50, the new Sony50 probably perform very similar to the Otus55, the Sony being even smaller than the Otus. On top of everything Sony and Canon have AF Motors inside the Barrels, so in theory the Zeiss should have more glass because the Otus doesn’t have a Motor. But why are Sony and Canon as good. I mean Zeiss earns around 3 Billion each year and they probably know how to build good lenses. These longer focal lengths don’t really benefit from being closer to the sensor as wide angles do and they all use super smart computers for lens design. Maybe I should ask Zeiss about that topic🙂

[@browniepinoy]

Thank you for this awesome review. You’re the first that I know to point out that this rf 14-35 is sharper than the rf 15-35.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's interesting...since that result is also right in Canon's MTF charts.

[@trevor9934]

There is apparently a lens correction algorithm from Adobe so RAW images should be corrected as they are imported into LR and PS.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That’s true, though as I demonstrate, there’s a lot of correction that has to take place and it does come at a bit of a cost to image quality.

[@trevor9934]

@AbbottTWI Two years on, and having used this lens with the corrections from Adobe applied to RAW images, I am pretty happy with the results. I think this is the beginning of a trend (e.g. with the RF 24-240) , where dedicated camera and lens makers are finally starting to use some of the computational algorithms and AI (touted to come with the R5II), that have long been used for cell phones, to work with pure optics to boost performance and solve some of the issues we have habitually seen them labour to resolve optically - it's been a long time coming IMHO. I expect to see more of this in the future TBH. I would love to see you visit the issue of such corrections, perhaps with an updated review of the two RF lenses I mentioned?

[@NoRegret08]

Another interesting point is that R5 does not have accurate auto white balance. Between, R5, R6 and EOS R, EOS R has the best auto white balance , especially for skin tones. I get this info from various posts on line, it's not from my own testing . I wonder if it is true. I like accurate auto white balance (RAW stills ) out of the camera . Less work in post. Thank you for your videos !

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's funny, because in most situations the white balance is okay, but my test charts are terrible.

[@NoRegret08]

@@DustinAbbottTWI You said it yourself that you get a terrible white balance on your tests charts with the R5 and you don't get it with any other camera. Logic tells me that there might be something wrong with the way R5 interprets white balance, which is consistent with what I read on-line in other posts. Makes me feel better that I got the R and not the R5 and chose to invest in RF glass instead.

[@박춘배-k3j]

How is the sharpness of this lens compared to other companies' wide-angle zoom lenses?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

This is perhaps the sharpest wide angle zoom I've tested.

[@FlatWaterFilms]

Personally I like the 17-40 f/4. For one, new it was $500 and I prefer 40mm reach. 17mm is wide enough.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Fair enough

[@hunglemed]

great review! thanks

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Glad it was helpful!

[@NoRegret08]

I suppose for landscape photography on a tripod (RAW) RF 14-35 is better than RF 15-35 in terms of sharpness , across the vocal range, particularly at the corners. It's interesting to compare the same images side by side at different focal lengths / apertures . Thank you for great videos !

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's correct. The 14-35 is definitely sharper.

[@NoRegret08]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you. I am sorry, I forgot to ask in the previous post - Is RF 14-35 better than RF 15-35 in terms of color accuracy and contrast as well? This is for landscapes that is.

[@haraldselke]

Thank you for your review - which is great and detailed as always! I have read in other reviews as well that the lens is somewhat soft at 35mm. However, everywhere I read or heard that, people used the lens at very close distances. In my test shots where I took images at distances of 5 meters or more (as that resembles my usage scenarios) I couldn‘t find that softness at all. It definitely isn‘t as sharp as my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, of course - which is a pretty sharp lens -, but it seems pretty decent to me. Oh, and by the way: Lightroom has a profile for the lens since yesterday‘s update.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Hi Harald, I still saw some softness in the corners at 35mm at infinity on my test copy.

[@yifanqiao5043]

It’s weird but if you use the profile of 24-105 4-7.1, you can get a noticeable wider view than the jpeg at 14mm.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It probably doesn't correct it as completely.

[@yifanqiao5043]

@@DustinAbbottTWI I thought so. But the correction result looks pretty decent.

[@rajshekharkhandeparkar352]

Better to invest in ef 16-35 f4 with ef- r adapter

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That really depends on your priorities. The 14-35 is definitely the sharper lens.

[@Simon-SBL]

It seems like they tried to push it too far and it should possibly have been a 15 or 16-35mm as that is what you seem to get once you dial in the corections, I', never that concerned nty f4 lenses, the one stop you gain with an f2.8 [for me] isn't worth the extra cost, I'd rather use a prime if I am looking for untimale low light performance. I'm still a little in the nwbce if it is worth thew upograd from the adapted EF16-35 f4 L, although the better sharpness and reduced weight and length by eliminating the adapter may be worthwhile.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think you still get the full 14mm, but they had to make it extra wide to allow for all that correction.

[@Simon-SBL]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Yeah on further investigation it seems marginally wider than the 15-35, still, if you have a scene with dark corners, as I often have, it probably won't matter.

[@billx4266]

A lot of my country immigrated to canada, is this true? Im from belgium.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I can't say that I've run into a lot of Belgians, but perhaps they've immigrated to some other province.

[@youuuuuuuuuuutube]

The lens at 14mm seems to become 15mm after correcting the distortion... I wonder if Canon shouldn't have called it 15-35 instead?

[@rimtiggins6078]

It's somewhere between 14 and 15mm

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think RimTiggins is right.

[@scottdevitte4209]

Having just bought the incredibly dexterous R5 and owning the great ef 14-35 F4 and wanting to make use of the R5's ability to 1.6 crop for stills and 4k video, rather than invest in this rf lens and getting at most a 15mm usable on video and a soft 35, I am purchasing the .71 ef-rf adapter that will give me f2.8 in crop mode and will also work with all my ef f4 quaternity- 8-15 (where I have 15mm as good as the 15 on the 14-35 rf), 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200, and have the ability to use behind the lens filtration when in full frame mode, the only big bucks zoom Rf that I am considering is the 28-70 f2. The ef f4's give me so much added dexterity over their rf versions that no way will I "upgrade" to rf f4's and if I was to go 2.8 rf's on the holy trinity it would cost me more than just adding the 28-70 f2, even selling off my f4's, and I would lose the ability to have .71 2.8 equivalent in crop mode.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I hope that works out for you. I've seen hit and miss with those type adapters and how they impact lens performance.

[@scottdevitte4209]

@@DustinAbbottTWI It is a Canon product, with Canon glass and attention to compatibility, not a "those type of adapters".

[@jaylistudios]

The 16mm F2.8 STM is even worse in terms of digital correction. I did the correction manually in LR and compared the raw file to the JPG from the camera. There is an outrategous 29% pixel loss as a resolve of cropping and warping the image. That lens is essentially an uncorrected 13 or 14mm cropped into a 16mm. It's interesting to see Canon is taking such an approach now to make compact lenses. I do not agree with this approach and will not buy another cheap wide-angle lens from them that has the same issue.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Wow - that's really bad!

[@ngekseng]

how can canon create a lens with mechanical vignette.or basically obstruction..not really good

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Not something I'm crazy about, for sure.

[@alihamiad7849]

25:32

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

???

[@bsant7]

Just got mine in the mail from B&H

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Enjoy

[@bsant7]

@@DustinAbbottTWI great review! Keep up the awesome work, was looking forward to seeing this and it answered so many questions I had about it, was specially surprised to know the 14 is sharper than the 15,2.8

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

...and to the degree that it was pretty obvious in my real world results.

[@oscarshen6855]

Not really impressed. I never consider F4 ultra wide zoom to be too usefull because for outdoor landscape, a standard zoom can usually cover it. Where ultra wide really shine is indoor. Any one used a F4 lens in indoor knows how painful it is, even when you feel it's quite bright, you are dealing with ISO 3200 or above, at that point how sharp your lens is really doesn't matter anymore because you will loss sharpness with high ISO. I usually consider an F4 ultra wide zoom as an beginer's, it need to be compact, affordable so people who are not really into ultra wide can have some fun with it, like the old EF 17-40 F4L. At 1700$, I don't see it to be too popular.

[@cjm8160]

Canon is pricing this like the old 16-35 F2.8 II and III lenses. Strange, considering the F4 aperature.

[@acouragefann]

Focal length is not just about squeezing everything you want in - it's about the perspective distortion that an ultra wide angle can afford you. Getting close to foreground objects with 16mm and below gives a very dramatic effect. That aside, if we consider this a landscape and architecture lens, two things which tend not to run around all that much if it's not a particularly windy day, shutter speed of 1/5 or lower can be used (yes, even handheld, I remember being able to consistently get a decent keeper rate at 1/4th of a second with a lens stabilized 45mm) so I don't really see when you'd need any ISO as high as 3200.

[@justesmond]

I don’t agree. Much of my indoor architecture work is typically at F7.1 - F8. An F4 is well faster than the brightest aperture for indoor architecture work.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

To be fair, there aren't standard zooms that are going to give you this level of sharpness.

[@bl8550]

Absolutely disagree. As others have mentioned the 14 to 16mm range wide angle lenses serve exceptionally well for landscape and architectural photography and is definitely not subpar as you imply. These F4 wide angle lenses are not commonly used handheld in low-light interior scenarios.

[@geoffreyspencer4052]

Prefer not to have ads when I am watching a review, exited at 2:52.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I understand, but those ads are how I'm compensated for all the work I do.

[@EugeneMaynard]

🙏🏾

[@billjohnsonseattle]

This lens is a huge disappointment. I bought it primarily for real estate, to get wide angle shots when needed. Unfortunately at 14 to 16mm when stopped down to around F14 to get a wide depth of field & shooting bracketed shots you get really dark vignetting at the corners, which forces you to either crop it a lot or zoom in to 17mm or greater to eliminate that…. Not happy, especially after paying 1699.00 USD for it. Anyone have any recommendations for an RF lens that will do better than this?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

This is definitely not a great real estate choice. If you don't mind manual focus, this is a good choice: bhpho.to/2KSKBTE

[@billjohnsonseattle]

@@DustinAbbottTWI. Thanks, do you recommend the Venus Optics Shift Lens Support accessory for Laowa 15mm to go along with it too, or is that not necessary? It looks like some sort of mount for the lens, not really sure what it does but it shows up as a recommended accessory for that lens. Please let me know. Thanks

[@MichalBudzik_]

Hi, is it really that bad for real estate and architectural? Even after the lens profile were released. Maybe not necceserily at 14mm but 15, 16, 17mm at f8. Would the RF 15-35mm 2.8 be better?

[@johnziarko4451]

So at F4 at 14mm, this lens because of its vignetting with corrections becomes a 16mm lens?

[@JohnMacLeanPhotography]

No, it’s a 13mm without correction.

[@johnziarko4451]

@@JohnMacLeanPhotography So then with correction it becomes a 14mm?

[@JohnMacLeanPhotography]

@@johnziarko4451 I only tested it before the Adobe profile came out. I was comparing the angle of view to my EF 11-24mm and it equated to 13mm before the correction. I'll have to do a comparison test again with the 14-35 profile, and my EF 16-35 f/4. I remember the EF 16-35 f/2.8 Mark II was slightly wider than the f/4 too. But of course those don't need digital correction to fix a shy image circle. I have to say though that the 14-35 is the sharpest of the bunch. It's really great paired with the R5.

[@johnziarko4451]

@@JohnMacLeanPhotography Thanks for your reply. I have the R6 with the 16-35mm f4 and they work great together and am just thinking of moving on up to the RF 14-35 but will wait to see how it plays out with its realistic specs. Please let me know what you come up with the Adobe profile test. Thanks again.

[@JohnMacLeanPhotography]

@@johnziarko4451 I would suggest renting one to try before you buy. So far since having the Adobe lens profile, I have no complaints about the IQ. It’s stellar, but as the video points out the focus ring isn’t as apparent as the EF lens. I’m usually in AF, then switch to MF if I need to lock in focus. I’ve had almost every Canon EF L UWA glass back to the 17-35 f/2.8, and this is by far my favorite for sharpness.

[@momchilyordanov8190]

After watching several reviews, I'm getting the impression all new RF lenses are between very good and excellent and their prices are between very high and untouchable... :-/

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's fair.

[@billx4266]

Im so jealous, you are surrounded by beautiful nature

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I do live in a beautiful natural environment.

[@petersvan7880]

Great review of a disappointing lens. Seems Canon can learn a thing or two from Samyang these days...

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm not entirely disappointed by it, but I do think the extreme distortion and vignette makes the choice of stretching the zoom range to 14mm questionable.

[@dannyli9424]

Really sharp lens, useful focal range, but horrible out of this world Vignette. i call this a 14-35 F8 lens.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The vignette and distortion are pretty terrible for an L series lens.

[@mralexlex]

As a primarily architectural photographer on Canon 5dm4 with EF 16-35 f4, RF version is huge disappointment for me. Just don't understand Canon anymore...

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

This is definitely not a top pick for architecture.

[@networm64]

1700$ for a f4 lens! If that's not robbery then what is that? Nikon 14-30 f4 is 1300$ and Sony Zeiss 16-35 f4 is 1100$! Sony is increasing it's body prices recently ( A7iv got 500$ more than A7iii ) but Canon has made the most profitable decision! While you may can buy a camera body relatively cheaper than the competition (the body which you probably won't change for years) then you have to buy lenses like this one for about 500$ more than the competition rivals! What if you buy 3 or 4 or 5 lenses?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's definitely true that Canon is charging a premium for its RF lenses.

[@sulev111]

So it's a 15-35

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Essentially.

[@steveb013]

with a lot more image quality than the 15-35 F 2.8 I made my comparison on a tripod comparing the same shots or the 15.35 F 2.8 and the 14-35 F4 and the F4 is a lot sharper than the 15-35

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I definitely found it noticeably sharper in real world testing.

[@steveb013]

@@DustinAbbottTWI than the 15-35 ?

[@wldktz1]

I was considering switching back to Canon. After seeing the disappointing results from these new RF lenses I will probably stick with Sony. It seems their quality is suffering badly with this transition.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

They've made a few head-scratching decisions, to be sure.

[@johnjon1823]

Seems like this lens is a total POS based on actual real performance as opposed to "fixed in the computer". Even if I wanted that lens for R mount I think I would be reluctant to spend so much money on such an obviously compromised lens. The new RF lens prices have prevented me from going in the R direction, perhaps permanently. Which is too bad since I was waiting for the mirrorless replacement of the 5d4 and was hoping the 5D4 itself was going to be mirrorless, which shows you how long I have waited. Fuji got a ton of my money in the interim and may get even more in future, although there are worms there. Now, I consider the 5DSR as more desirable to me instead of the R5 for landscapes. Why drop all that money on marginal improvements, at least for my purposes. If you shoot other things a lot then you may feel differently but I can't help but note Canon is quite more undesirable to me due to lens prices mostly. Body prices for R are only mildly to moderately over priced to me. If I "upgrade" to say an R5, I am not sure I will ever buy R glass, there should be a ton of lower priced quite good L glass to choose from for decades to come. The 5Dsr is looking better, sure you need a more careful and slow technique to get the most out of it, it can suck a lot of disc space, but, I think for many it may be a better landscape solution, if you are a Canon shooter. Really some of these prices and such make one think about Fuji medium format. I hear you can even adapt Canon tilt shift to them. Perhaps in the end 3rd party lenses will save the day for Canon? Wouldn't that be interesting? I mean you would think Canon is Leica the way there lenses are going but they are making generally excellent performing stuff, albeit, only after it gets fixed in the computer. Kind of like turning turds into gold. A Midas touch

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think this is probably an overstatement, but I have been somewhat disappointed by some of the RF lenses relative to their prices.

[@evemitchellanderson]

Its a bad lens. For that much money the lens shouldn't be that bad

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I disagree that it is a bad lens, but agree that the flaws of this lens are somewhat unacceptable at this price point.

[@patlecat]

Totally overpriced like most lenses by Canon, hope 3rd party makers will jump in soon. Also it's useless for video.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm not sure why you say it is useless for video (I disagree in a big way), but there's no question that Canon's pricing on RF has been steep.