Thanks! If not I’ll just play around with DPP to see what I get for corrections.
Right now I’m hoping more for decent weather and light! Kids are older now as well - and they consider my camera gear as step brothers/sisters, so my main shooting will be when I get out for sunrise.
Jesse Evans wrote:
Good luck on your trip! I hope there is a lens profile for this in Lightroom by the time you get back 🤣
ketang wrote:
Once I fully edit my Spain images I will start or contribute to an image thread for this lens. Until then, here are some non-final edits for those interested in samples:
Impressive sleuthing. Thanks for sharing this info and generating discussion. I was interested in this lens when it was announced, but the price put me off a bit. Not as big of a difference to the 15-35 2.8 as I had expected. Some people here seem to really love it, however. The examples are helpful to review.
Has anyone used this in low light situations? My wife and I do photo/video primarily for dance and performance. That means a lot of movement in poorly lit areas, which makes for a difficult balancing act between sharp images of a dancer mid-jump (usually requires a fast shutter speed) while maintaining proper exposure, etc. It's tough to get the entire ensemble in frame for larger productions, too, which is why we'd been beginning to research and save for an ultra-wide lens. I'd love to hear a comparison between the 14-35 and, say, a Samyang 14mm F2.8, if anyone has used third-party glass.
Nice examples - thanks.
I knew that there was a reason that I grabbed the 14-35 2 days ago - I was planning on tentatively getting hold of it in a year or so, and selling my 16-35 f/4 EF lens. But I saw it in stock in the store and the force of the gear-head overcame me! I'm impressed with it so far, but I have a ton of experimenting to do with it in the near term.
Caveat - seems like I need to use the in-camera lens correction to deal with some dark corners at 14 mm, but that's Ok.
The 14-35/4 doesn´t offer image stabilisation on my EOS R5. At least the menu entry doesn´t exist. But the icon in the viewfinder does work and shows, wether it´s on or off.
I can also hear and actually see in the viewfinder that it does work.
However, each and every image that I tried was noticably better without IS and had more shake blur with IS on. I tested with 1/10-1sec. shutter speed.
stevenskl wrote:
The 14-35/4 doesn´t offer image stabilisation on my EOS R5. At least the menu entry doesn´t exist. But the icon in the viewfinder does work and shows, wether it´s on or off.
I can also hear and actually see in the viewfinder that it does work.
However, each and every image that I tried was noticably better without IS and had more shake blur with IS on. I tested with 1/10-1sec. shutter speed.
On lenses with IS, the switch on the lens controls IS for both the lens and the IBIS. So the menu option to enable or disable IS is unavailable.
Are you shooting on a tripod or handheld? I have experienced issues with IS causing a floating motion in the viewfinder and image blurring but that was with a very long lens on a tripod. I'm not sure if such a short lens would exhibit the same behavior but it's worth looking into. This didn't happen on my older cameras without IBIS so I've gone back to the old practice of disabling IS on a tripod.
I was shooting handheld. I did some more testshots and this time the stabilized ones were better than the non-stabilized ones, although my settings were the same. I guess I have to do more testing.
Tom_W wrote:
Are those handheld?
Great shots regardless - just wondering what the IS can do, if that's what you utilized.
No these where on a tripod with 20 sec exposures in Bulb mode. Today I did a couple handheld today at a different location but did not review them yet, looked decent on the camera.
Hi Rob: What was your exposure time? That's what most interests me about the 14-35mm IS lens, the ability to get tack sharp images at long exposure times. I'm hoping that I can handhold it pretty consistently as long as 1/4 second at 20mm and wider if I take multiple images using ES and put it on a monopod (vs. tripod) for travel and low light?
httivals wrote:
Hi Rob: What was your exposure time? That's what most interests me about the 14-35mm IS lens, the ability to get tack sharp images at long exposure times. I'm hoping that I can handhold it pretty consistently as long as 1/4 second at 20mm and wider if I take multiple images using ES and put it on a monopod (vs. tripod) for travel and low light?
I can do 1s at 17mm with an ef Lens with no IS so I would say definitely you can make it with this one.
httivals wrote:
Hi Rob: What was your exposure time? That's what most interests me about the 14-35mm IS lens, the ability to get tack sharp images at long exposure times. I'm hoping that I can handhold it pretty consistently as long as 1/4 second at 20mm and wider if I take multiple images using ES and put it on a monopod (vs. tripod) for travel and low light?
I haven't done extensive testing, but 1/4s handheld with this lens is definitely doable if you take a few shots. My slowest so far from my trip images according to EXIF is 16mm and 1/3s. I reject photos that are sharp in the center but with blurry corners where the IS hasn't been able to fully stabilize the image, so if you have steady hands then 1/4s should be fine. My skills are pretty average when it comes to holding the camera still in case that helps.
httivals wrote:
Hi Rob: What was your exposure time? That's what most interests me about the 14-35mm IS lens, the ability to get tack sharp images at long exposure times. I'm hoping that I can handhold it pretty consistently as long as 1/4 second at 20mm and wider if I take multiple images using ES and put it on a monopod (vs. tripod) for travel and low light?
Since I have this lens in hand, I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring with some quick testing samples for you to discuss. Though there is no profile yet for this lens, I wanted to share some interesting findings that may shed some light...
The below link has a series of images taken in my office from my research.
They are all labeled to easily understand what I was doing. lol
Images 1-4 are images shot with my iPhone from behind the camera so you can see my process and my findings.
Image 1 is just my proof of the lens/camera combo. Canon R5 + RF 14-35 f/4.
Images 2 and 3 (this is where it gets interesting) if you noticed to the right of my lcd screen I circled in red...there is my office door hinge. Well, half the hinge, the part that is screwed to the door itself.
Image 4 just show both the hinge and lcd in the same shot for reference.
Now when looking in my lcd, I can only see the door hinge that's screwed to the door and the extreme right of the lcd is the space between the door and door frame.
In reviewing the RAW and JPG images...you'll see in the JPG that this is still true because of the lens correction that the camera is doing.
When looking at that same RAW file, the extreme right is no longer the space between the door and frame but now you can see the door frame, which you couldn't in the JPG.
To me, looking at the RAW images, these RAWs look wider than 14mm, and the applied lens correction we see with the JPG is a "truer" 14mm. I may be wrong with this theory but I've shot on a few 14mm, and it just seems...wider? Idk. I may be wrong.
I don't know if this makes sense or if I'm onto anything here, but I hope this help in the conversation until we get a profile.
Since I have this lens in hand, I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring with some quick testing samples for you to discuss. Though there is no profile yet for this lens, I wanted to share some interesting findings that may shed some light...
The below link has a series of images taken in my office from my research.
They are all labeled to easily understand what I was doing. lol
Images 1-4 are images shot with my iPhone from behind the camera so you can see my process and my findings.
Image 1 is just my proof of the lens/camera combo. Canon R5 + RF 14-35 f/4.
Images 2 and 3 (this is where it gets interesting) if you noticed to the right of my lcd screen I circled in red...there is my office door hinge. Well, half the hinge, the part that is screwed to the door itself.
Image 4 just show both the hinge and lcd in the same shot for reference.
Now when looking in my lcd, I can only see the door hinge that's screwed to the door and the extreme right of the lcd is the space between the door and door frame.
In reviewing the RAW and JPG images...you'll see in the JPG that this is still true because of the lens correction that the camera is doing.
When looking at that same RAW file, the extreme right is no longer the space between the door and frame but now you can see the door frame, which you couldn't in the JPG.
To me, looking at the RAW images, these RAWs look wider than 14mm, and the applied lens correction we see with the JPG is a "truer" 14mm. I may be wrong with this theory but I've shot on a few 14mm, and it just seems...wider? Idk. I may be wrong.
I don't know if this makes sense or if I'm onto anything here, but I hope this help in the conversation until we get a profile.
Thanks for adding more info. The drive folder you're sharing is locked down unfortunately. The 14-35 is most definitely wider than 14mm when zoomed out to its widest setting before applying distortion correction. Nice to see more confirmation based on your findings.
