Jman13 wrote:
I'm holding off on the EF version of the Sigma 14-24 in hopes that sometime in the next year or two, Sigma will port over their mirrorless redesign of that lens to RF. I own it on Sony, and it is quite simply the best UWA lens I've ever used. Sharp to the corners at all focal lengths from wide open, even on the 60MP A7R IV, and considerably smaller than the EF version with an adapter, though I hear the EF version is fairly close optically.
I opted to NOT wait on a Sigma 14-24 f2.8 DG HSM Art. It's turned out to be a outstanding addition to my lenses. I use it for my professional Real Estate work and it has become indispensable. Sharp wide open, no significant distortion eliminating my post processing needs. Great color rendition and no bad habits. Love the solid build. It feels like a Rolls Royce in my hands and it's output is commensurate. I use it with a basic Canon EF-R adapter and it's still fast and accurate to focus. I see no need to wait or pay more for some updated model. It came with the latest firmware on it as well. And I have the Sigma firmware update module just in case.
The balance point for this lens with an R5 attached is
1: At the center of the image stabilizer mode switch set to 2 when the lens is at 70mm.
2: At the number markings for focal length when zoomed to 200mm.
In comparison to the RF 15-35 f/2.8, the two share the same balance point if at 70 and 35 respectfully. However, when the 15-35 is set to 15mm the balance point is about 1cm forward of the number markings.
This lens weighs 695g and is back heavy. A tripod collar would be a complete waste of matter.
However, my copy, like the copy of Digital Camera world, has bad corner smearing for the two right corners. I was holding off on returning my copy till I saw some reviews, but Gordon’s Camera Labs review has convinced me I have to return mine, as his corner wide open, even tho he showed only 1, is far sharper than any corner of my copy even when stopped down to f/8-11.
Pretty sad because the center and edges are excellent, and the lens is otherwise fantastic. For the record, this is the first Canon lens I have purchased in 18 years of Canon lens purchases with corners bad enough to cause me to return it.
EB-1 wrote:
The lens is crippled by the lack of both TC compatibility and tripod mount, so I'd say versatility is quite less than the past three 70-200/4 lenses.
If the lens is really good, I might have to figure out a tripod collar. There should be third party TCs at some point.
EBH
For me the more significant concern would be TC compatibility issue. When I put together a lighter backcountry kit I use the EF 70-200mm f/4L with the 1.4X TC for a bit more reach... rather than carrying the much larger and heavier 100-400. While the small packed size of the RF version is quite appealing, that appeal is somewhat negated by the potential to not have a TC.
The collar issue is, for me, a non-issue with these smaller lenses. I also have the f/2.8 EF version of the lens and the collar seems pretty darned important for tripod-based use of that lens, but I find it less so with the f/4... to the point that I never use a collar on my EF 70-200mm f/4 and would likely not use it with the RF version.
There are so many pieces in motion with the move the R system that I'm going slowly, continuing with my current equipment until things shake out a bit more.
httivals wrote:
Really? No tripod collar? Wow, what a disappointment. Otherwise, it seemed like the perfect landscape 70-200mm zoom to me. . . . However, this is the first "print" review I've found of the lens, not the greatest optically but I don't know that site, and it sounds like the reviewer thinks that his particular sample may have had an issue: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-70-200mm-f4l-is-usm-review
I hope Lensrentals tests it. Let's see what they find both optically and mechanically.
$1600 is too costly for optical mediocrity.
Jesse Evans wrote:
You do not need a tripod collar for this lens.
The balance point for this lens with an R5 attached is
1: At the center of the image stabilizer mode switch set to 2 when the lens is at 70mm.
2: At the number markings for focal length when zoomed to 200mm.
In comparison to the RF 15-35 f/2.8, the two share the same balance point if at 70 and 35 respectfully. However, when the 15-35 is set to 15mm the balance point is about 1cm forward of the number markings.
This lens weighs 695g and is back heavy. A tripod collar would be a complete waste of matter.
However, my copy, like the copy of Digital Camera world, has bad corner smearing for the two right corners. I was holding off on returning my copy till I saw some reviews, but Gordon’s Camera Labs review has convinced me I have to return mine, as his corner wide open, even tho he showed only 1, is far sharper than any corner of my copy even when stopped down to f/8-11.
Pretty sad because the center and edges are excellent, and the lens is otherwise fantastic. For the record, this is the first Canon lens I have purchased in 18 years of Canon lens purchases with corners bad enough to cause me to return it. ...Show more →
Just to follow up here: I suspected that what I was seeing was actually caused by my having not aligned the camera with the wall I was shooting perfectly.
Today while out on a hike / doing landscape photography I did a proper test while placing all four corners and manual focusing for each corner. The results were much better. I will post them when I get home next week. Currently I am working from an iPad and composing such a post from an iPad would take ages.
dcisive wrote:
I opted to NOT wait on a Sigma 14-24 f2.8 DG HSM Art. It's turned out to be a outstanding addition to my lenses. I use it for my professional Real Estate work and it has become indispensable. Sharp wide open, no significant distortion eliminating my post processing needs. Great color rendition and no bad habits. Love the solid build. It feels like a Rolls Royce in my hands and it's output is commensurate. I use it with a basic Canon EF-R adapter and it's still fast and accurate to focus. I see no need to wait or pay more for some updated model. It came with the latest firmware on it as well. And I have the Sigma firmware update module just in case. ...Show more →
I recently bought a Sigma 14-24 for use on my R5 and I'm also thrilled with it. It's huge, but it delivers. I had been using the EF14mm L II that I bought when it came out in 2008 along with the 16-35 f4 IS. The R5 really shows their weaknesses. The 14 just has too much CA for the 45mp sensor of the R5. The Sigma blows it away in every way. The Sigma is also noticeably sharper in the extreme corners than the 16-35 f4 is in the 16-20mm range. It's a bargain at the current price from Amazon. I was able to sell my 14mm for what the Sigma costs.
Thank you for the comparison.
I must say that these are disappointing results. I expected the F4 to be much better in the corners.
My EF 70-200 F4 IS II is sharper than that (except at 70mm due to astigmatism) and doesn't have that much field curvature.
At 135mm that lens has prime level sharpness across the frame. Not so with this RF version. I expected it to be even better than the EF version, also because it's a lot more expensive.
A bummer, because that tiny size of the RF F4 is fantastic.
Let's hope it performs much better at longer focus distances.
Jochenb wrote:
Thank you for the comparison.
I must say that these are disappointing results. I expected the F4 to be much better in the corners.
My EF 70-200 F4 IS II is sharper than that (except at 70mm due to astigmatism) and doesn't have that much field curvature.
At 135mm that lens has prime level sharpness across the frame. Not so with this RF version. I expected it to be even better than the EF version, also because it's a lot more expensive.
A bummer, because that tiny size of the RF F4 is fantastic.
Let's hope it performs much better at longer focus distances. ...Show more →
Indeed. I was curious about the field curvature, and ran a second test this morning real quick at 3m, as opposed to the 1.25m of the first test, and have updated the article with these findings at the end of the resolution comparison. In short, field curvature is still a small issue at 3m, but it's pretty minor, with only minor softening as a result, and both lenses are pretty close to each other in the corner at that focus distance. I think for most subjects, this is going to be a non issue, as most closer field subjects are not going to be full flat subjects at long zoom and close focus, but generally spot focus situations, so I think you will almost never actually see this issue in practice. Still have to shoot at infinity, but that will have to wait at least a while since we're snowed in at the moment.
Jman13 wrote:
Indeed. I was curious about the field curvature, and ran a second test this morning real quick at 3m, as opposed to the 1.25m of the first test, and have updated the article with these findings at the end of the resolution comparison. In short, field curvature is still a small issue at 3m, but it's pretty minor, with only minor softening as a result, and both lenses are pretty close to each other in the corner at that focus distance. I think for most subjects, this is going to be a non issue, as most closer field subjects are not going to be full flat subjects at long zoom and close focus, but generally spot focus situations, so I think you will almost never actually see this issue in practice. Still have to shoot at infinity, but that will have to wait at least a while since we're snowed in at the moment. ...Show more →
This mirrors what I’ve seen. There is Field Curvature that appears to be affecting just the very far corners. The edges meanwhile are perfectly sharp. At landscape distances, the corners are perfectly sharp on my copy.
The more I see of the new RF lenses, the more I feel like the EF with a drop in converter will be the way I go for the forseeable future. Only exception will be 24-105 and 100-500 which represent the bulk of my photography. They need to come out with a 1.4x that can be used with these lenes pronto.
Flowernut wrote:
The more I see of the new RF lenses, the more I feel like the EF with a drop in converter will be the way I go for the forseeable future.
That's the way everyone would need to go for a 'complete' system, and the lack of adapters (especially the ones with the control ring and the ones with the filter holder) are probably holding quite a few back.
I'm looking at the EF over the RF lens for two reasons. Lack of a compatible RF 1.4x that allows the RF zooms to be used full range. This kills both of their 70-200's for me. I can accept it on the 100-500 as I doubt I'd ever want to use it with that lens. Second, the ability to use drop in filters. I've the canon drop in and I'm back ordered at breakthrough who on paper at least is offering a more complete filter selection than Canon. Particularly for short lenses that take oversize square filters and special filter holders, I'm looking at the drop in adapter as the way to go unless Canon and others can develop the same lenses that accept a screw in filter 82mm or less.
Shows how versatile the Canon lens options are, and also everyone's different priorities. For me, the lens that tempts me to buy a Canon is one of the RF 70-200mm Ls, given their portability, low weight, and high image quality. We're spoiled with many good choices.
Personally, I use the Canon 70-300mm L on a Sony body with an adapter. I'd also prefer to be using it on a Canon R body given that autofocus is, as I understand it, much better on the Canon R than the Sony bodies, albeit not as good as the RF lenses. The Canon EF 70-300mm is a great lens, btw, fantastic image quality. You may want to consider it. It's more compact the the EF 70-200mm f4s and has excellent image quality, even at 300mm, and no 1.4x needed! (It has better image quality than the EF 70-200mm f4 II L IS at 70mm.) I've found the main issue with image quality at 300mm is ensuring there's no camera shake -- i.e., use electronic shutter and a tripod whenever possible. Not the lens's limitation, the photographer's.
Flowernut wrote:
I'm looking at the EF over the RF lens for two reasons. Lack of a compatible RF 1.4x that allows the RF zooms to be used full range. This kills both of their 70-200's for me. I can accept it on the 100-500 as I doubt I'd ever want to use it with that lens. Second, the ability to use drop in filters. I've the canon drop in and I'm back ordered at breakthrough who on paper at least is offering a more complete filter selection than Canon. Particularly for short lenses that take oversize square filters and special filter holders, I'm looking at the drop in adapter as the way to go unless Canon and others can develop the same lenses that accept a screw in filter 82mm or less.
I only need one drop in adapter for each body....Show more →
gdanmitchell wrote:
For me the more significant concern would be TC compatibility issue. When I put together a lighter backcountry kit I use the EF 70-200mm f/4L with the 1.4X TC for a bit more reach... rather than carrying the much larger and heavier 100-400. While the small packed size of the RF version is quite appealing, that appeal is somewhat negated by the potential to not have a TC.
The collar issue is, for me, a non-issue with these smaller lenses. I also have the f/2.8 EF version of the lens and the collar seems pretty darned important for tripod-based use of that lens, but I find it less so with the f/4... to the point that I never use a collar on my EF 70-200mm f/4 and would likely not use it with the RF version.
There are so many pieces in motion with the move the R system that I'm going slowly, continuing with my current equipment until things shake out a bit more....Show more →
The RF 100-500 is only 1365g (versus 70-200 + 1.4x @ 1005g), so to me that's worth the extra 360g to get 500mm and not have to use a TC. And the 100-500 is only 0.14" longer than the 70-200 + 1.4x together, so they are basically the same length.
Something else to consider is it's already the same IQ to crop and enlarge versus the 1.4x on the R5 with the 100-500 – so one might use that to consider just cropping with the 70-200 and never need a 1.4x. Aren't you waiting to see how the R5S turns out? At ~90mp, surely cropping and never needing the 1.4x will be the way to go.
I'm mainly addressing backcountry photography here, where minimizing gear size and weight overall is pretty critical. (Its the old "watch the ounces and the pounds take care of themselves" business.)
So, I never carry the big 100-400 into the backcountry on my back. (I'd consider it on pack-animal supported trips if I was otherwise well within my weight allotment.) I like the 70-200 focal length a lot for landscape photography, so I use the EF 70-200mm f/4L, which is shorter than the f/2.8 version and thinner than that or the 100-400. With the 1.4x TC, which is pretty small, I get a bit more reach, and that comes in handy at times.
So the loss of the ability to use a TC with a small 70-200mm f/4 lens is a negative for me. The small packed size of the RF 70-200mm f/4 is a plus, but enough of a plus to cancel out the negative of the TC? Not sure.
Weight and bulk become more significant factors when traveling on foot, and especially if you are out for more than an overnight. I've gone with just one or two lenses on occasion, though it is hard for me to go with fewer than three. On two occasions I went with only one zoom lens, and in one case I relied on a cropped sensor camera.
One of my backcountry photography buddies does like the 100-400, which he combines with a 24-105. (Of course, he's also notorious among Sierra photographers for a few things, including the fact that for a while he went into the backcountry carrying a FF digital system, AND both MF and LF (!) film gear. His pack tends to be... large. Larger than I've carried in decades.
I continue to use the 5DsR for most stuff at this point. It does a great job, so I'm in no hurry to move to something else. I'll move, but there's no urgency.
Dan
highdesertmesa wrote:
The RF 100-500 is only 1365g (versus 70-200 + 1.4x @ 1005g), so to me that's worth the extra 360g to get 500mm and not have to use a TC. And the 100-500 is only 0.14" longer than the 70-200 + 1.4x together, so they are basically the same length.
Something else to consider is it's already the same IQ to crop and enlarge versus the 1.4x on the R5 with the 100-500 – so one might use that to consider just cropping with the 70-200 and never need a 1.4x. Aren't you waiting to see how the R5S turns out? At ~90mp, surely cropping and never needing the 1.4x will be the way to go....Show more →
Also piggybacking on backcountry photography. I just picked up the lens today and the size and weight made me giddy. This along with the 24-105 f4 cover all my general use while backpacking (not wide angle portraits. Bring a Tamron 35 1.4 for that). What makes this lens perfect for my use case of shoot and scoot is that the lens is small/light enough to be on my camera while it sits on a capture clip on the shoulder strap AND still fit in my side pouch with the lens hood on when not in active use. This way I can remain comfortable and switch between lenses without taking my pack off.
I fully intend on these two lenses being my standard kit for overnight hikes up to 50 miles and (should I get the time off) a Colorado Trail thru hike.
The 2lb difference between this Canon lens and my Tamron 70-200 makes a world of difference in comfort at the end of a long day.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm mainly addressing backcountry photography here, where minimizing gear size and weight overall is pretty critical. (Its the told "watch the ounces and the pounds take care of themselves" business.)
So, I never carry the big 100-400 into the backcountry on my back. (I'd consider it on pack-animal supported trips if I was otherwise well within my weight allotment.) I like the 70-200 focal length a lot for landscape photography, so I use the EF 70-200mm f/4L, which is shorter than the f/2.8 version and thinner than that or the 100-400. With the 1.4x TC, which is pretty small, I get a bit more reach, and that comes in handy at times.
So the loss of the ability to use a TC with a small 70-200mm f/4 lens is a negative for me. The small packed size of the RF 70-200mm f/4 is a plus, but enough of a plus to cancel out the negative of the TC? Not sure.
Weight and bulk become more significant factors when traveling on foot, and especially if you are out for more than an overnight. I've gone with just one or two lenses on occasion, though it is hard for me to go with fewer than three. On two occasions I went with only one zoom lens, and in one case I relied on a cropped sensor camera.
One of my backcountry photography buddies does like the 100-400, which he combines with a 24-105. (Of course, he's also notorious among Sierra photographers for a few things, including the fact that for a while he went into the backcountry carrying a FF digital system, and both MF and LF (!) film gear. His pack tends to be... large. Larger than I've carried in decades.
I continue to use the 5DsR for most stuff at this point. It does a great job, so I'm in no hurry to move to something else. I'll move, but there's no urgency.
