I liked how this one at 24mm turned out. I had my RF 24-70 on hand and switched back and forth and to me the 14-35 looked less distorted and possibly sharper. I shot this at f/11. One of the advantages with this lens is that even at the "longer" focal lengths I see multiple apertures viable from f/8 through f/16. That allowed me here to keep the shutter speed I wanted by changing the aperture without a big effect on IQ. Sunstars are pretty underwhelming, unfortunately.
My rented copy of the 14-35mm came in today, and I just shot with it for a bit and did a quick comparison to my Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8.
First impressions: man is this thing a joy to handle. Small, lightweight, tight tolerances...just feels perfect on the camera and a perfect size for travel. It's very wide. It's a wider 14mm (even after distortion corrections) than my Sigma, though the difference is probably only a half a degree.
It's a very versatile range, from very wide to moderate, and the close focus distance at 35mm allows you to get extremely close. Nice!
Image quality: Well, here is where all that excitement is tempered a bit. At the wide end, central sharpness (and sharpness over about 85% of the frame) is very good, and the edges are...ok. There's what appears to be a fair bit of astigmatism at the edges, limiting sharpness somewhat. Need to shoot a lot more.
Distortion is of course extremely high at the wide end, and no profile as of yet from Adobe, which is unfortunate, as it is a complex distortion. Sun stars are nice and pleasing. Overall, my Sigma 14-24mm looks to be a bit better, but will have to use the lens more.
I will continue to shoot with it in a variety of situations and continue to look at its real world performance, though.
Not that it should matter to anyone else, but I decided to send my copy of the lens back to B&H rather than taking it out to continue testing. This lens was not what I was looking for, unfortunately, that basically means I am out of options for a lightweight uwa RF mount lens unless Sigma brings their DG DN offerings over.
Jesse Evans wrote:
Not that it should matter to anyone else, but I decided to send my copy of the lens back to B&H rather than taking it out to continue testing. This lens was not what I was looking for, unfortunately, that basically means I am out of options for a lightweight uwa RF mount lens unless Sigma brings their DG DN offerings over.
As you have had a chance to actually use this lens, I would appreciate hearing your reasons for returning it. Thanks.
brad-man wrote:
As you have had a chance to actually use this lens, I would appreciate hearing your reasons for returning it. Thanks.
I don't have a lot to add to the conversation that I hadn't already outlined in my first few posts (I started this thread). I believe the lens is fine for anybody that understands the tradeoffs.
This lens is very disappointing to me. If I were in charge of the lens design I would have dropped IS, given up 2-3mm on the long end, focused more on optical correction and weight shedding.
Nevertheless, if you are sticking with the RF mount and want RF lenses, this is going to be your only game in town for a reasonably light UWA, and it's not that bad.
Jman13: It would be very helpful if after you've used the 14-35m RF, you provide a comparison between it and the Tamron 17-35mm that you use, within the 17-35mm range, please. Thanks! Howard
Jman13 wrote:
My rented copy of the 14-35mm came in today, and I just shot with it for a bit and did a quick comparison to my Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8.
First impressions: man is this thing a joy to handle. Small, lightweight, tight tolerances...just feels perfect on the camera and a perfect size for travel. It's very wide. It's a wider 14mm (even after distortion corrections) than my Sigma, though the difference is probably only a half a degree.
It's a very versatile range, from very wide to moderate, and the close focus distance at 35mm allows you to get extremely close. Nice!
Image quality: Well, here is where all that excitement is tempered a bit. At the wide end, central sharpness (and sharpness over about 85% of the frame) is very good, and the edges are...ok. There's what appears to be a fair bit of astigmatism at the edges, limiting sharpness somewhat. Need to shoot a lot more.
Distortion is of course extremely high at the wide end, and no profile as of yet from Adobe, which is unfortunate, as it is a complex distortion. Sun stars are nice and pleasing. Overall, my Sigma 14-24mm looks to be a bit better, but will have to use the lens more.
I will continue to shoot with it in a variety of situations and continue to look at its real world performance, though.
One of the benefits of having it wider than 14mm is that I can apply geometric corrections like upright in ACR and end up with a 14-15mm image. These corrections hurt image quality with all lenses, but for me these results are fine. Here is an example from tonight:
Alas, I do not have the 17-35mm any more, having swapped it for the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8. My first impression is that in the 17-24mm range, the Tamron was better, and from 24-35mm they're pretty close. But I need to shoot a lot more with the Canon. httivals wrote:
Jman13: It would be very helpful if after you've used the 14-35m RF, you provide a comparison between it and the Tamron 17-35mm that you use, within the 17-35mm range, please. Thanks! Howard
ketang wrote:
One of the benefits of having it wider than 14mm is that I can apply geometric corrections like upright in ACR and end up with a 14-15mm image. These corrections hurt image quality with all lenses, but for me these results are fine.
Like you, I'm fine with correcting various geometric issues in post.
As to the "hurt to image quality," I long accepted that gospel, too. Then I began testing images pre- and post-correction and discovered that in the vast majority of the cases any degradation is so minor as to be literally invisible, even in rather large prints or when viewed at 100%.
I think that because there is a logic to expecting image degradation with post-processing corrections that many people simply accept as gospel that such corrections will make their photographs worse. I urge people to actually test this before making assumptions.
IBIS is wonderful after the latest update. With my previous Sony and this lens, for this level of quality the lowest I could go was 1/4s. Sometimes I did 1/3s and even 1/2s but already noticed much worse edges. Yesterday with the Canon I even tried 4s and it is acceptable but worse than this.
I think Canon needs to really prioritize getting a lens profile into the hands of Adobe and Capture One, and do so as soon as possible. When corrected properly for distortion (and the too-small image circle at 14mm as a result), the image quality is actually quite good. It's not quite on the level of my Sigma 14-24mm, but it's still very nice. But loading up your RAW software and seeing enormous black corners is very offputting, even if the final image looks good. It's also nearly impossible to properly correct without a profile.
That said, the lens handles like a dream in the field. So light and small, and extra reach can be very nice. I really enjoy using the lens. I think if this lens was priced in the $1,400 range, it would really be a winner: good image quality, compact size, and reasonable given its performance and handling prowess. But at $1,700, it's so much harder to forgive those little optical deficiencies.
Jman13 wrote:
Took the lens out to shoot a little this morning.
I think Canon needs to really prioritize getting a lens profile into the hands of Adobe and Capture One, and do so as soon as possible. When corrected properly for distortion (and the too-small image circle at 14mm as a result), the image quality is actually quite good. It's not quite on the level of my Sigma 14-24mm, but it's still very nice. But loading up your RAW software and seeing enormous black corners is very offputting, even if the final image looks good. It's also nearly impossible to properly correct without a profile.
That said, the lens handles like a dream in the field. So light and small, and extra reach can be very nice. I really enjoy using the lens. I think if this lens was priced in the $1,400 range, it would really be a winner: good image quality, compact size, and reasonable given its performance and handling prowess. But at $1,700, it's so much harder to forgive those little optical deficiencies.
What I'm looking forward to seeing straight-on shots with detail across the frame (like the images above from "numbertwo") once the digital optimization profiles are available and can be applied in Adobe software. I'm especially interested in what corners look like at 14mm (which seems like a plus if it works OK) and at 16mm, which is the widest I now shoot with the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS.
Patience, I know!
(For me, all of this relates to the question of how — and when — I make a move from my 5DsR system with EF lenses. It works very well, so I'm not in a white heat to get new gear, which gives me the luxury of taking my time a bit. Because the R system brings a whole new system of lenses, it is also a time to consider a wider range of options, not all of which might be Canon nor FF. Buying a new body that works will with old lenses — without adapters — is one thing, but when there is a sea-change in lens options the changes can end up being a lot more costly and long-lasting.)
Great thread. Thanks for all the work guys! Looks like a pretty nice option. I bet it would feel pretty good on an R6 (size wise). I don't use UWA a lot, but was thinking about this lens vs. the 17-40 F4L I have (yeah, I know, everyone hates it, but I don't find it objectionable). I'm sure this is a huge upgrade IQ wise. I was also wondering if I'd be better off with the 16mm 2.8 that is coming. I don't use UWA often. I have a 14mm Rokinon MF lens for the EF mount too. I could probably stick with just that, even though I mainly bought it for astro use. I feel like my eyes aren't good enough to nail focus in the day time. The infinity stop helps me a ton at night!
Its good to have options. It will be interesting to see how that 16mm prime compares to this 14-35F4L.
I got the lens a few days ago. I am typically a sooc photographer, occasional cRAW via DPP and benefit from lens correction (in camera and DPP). Lens is fantastic in its entire range. Light optimizer takes care of vignette very well wide open at 14 mm. Thank you for the beautiful pics above!
quantumloop wrote:
Those shots look great. I especially like the first one, with those very noticeable swirls in the water. Just superb.
Thanks! The swirls shot is definitely my favorite from the day as well. I tried several shots with different shutter speeds, including one of around 2 minutes earlier in the morning, but this length looked best to me, with a nice balance of the motion and texture.
For three decades I have been walking around with a bag full of primes. My knees aren't getting any better, and I have been following the development of mirrorless systems with interest. Recently I decided to buy an R6, the 14-35 f/4, and a 70-200 f/4 as a relatively lightweight hiking and travel kit. I still have a few fast primes that I use with an adapter, but not on longer tours.
So far so good. The 14-35 arrived last week, and initially I was very disappointed. Images were not really sharp and not reproducible. The blur degree could vary over the frame, and differed between shots. This lens was a dog.
It took me two days to figure out that the lens is actually not that bad. The erratic behavior was caused by the mechanical shutter. I changed it to electronic first curtain, and suddenly all images were sharp (as far as permitted by the glass) and reproducible. Handheld or tripod. I don't know why the mechanical shutter would specifically affect the 14-35; I haven't noticed a problem with other lenses.
Anyway, I have been studying the image quality for landscapes and overall I think this is the quality that can be expected from a zoom lens with these specifications. It peaks halfway the zoom range (25 mm tested) with excellent image quality across the frame. Peripheral regions degrade toward 14 mm, but I suppose they can still be called decent. Toward 35 mm there is also a degradation, but here it is cured by stopping down the lens by one or two stops. At the wider end of the zoom, it is surprisingly hard to detect any improvement of stopping down from f/4.
People who are considering this lens for landscapes can grab this zip file with jpegs for inspection. I let DPP do its job with the lens profile correction, and applied mild sharpening with my own software. Exif data got lost, but the essential information is in the file name.
It is stressed that this is not a lens test, but a system test which includes post processing. The area of interest is the upper half of the frame. The lower half is my balcony, which I did not want to tear down for this occasion.
Toothwalker wrote:
For three decades I have been walking around with a bag full of primes. My knees aren't getting any better, and I have been following the development of mirrorless systems with interest. Recently I decided to buy an R6, the 14-35 f/4, and a 70-200 f/4 as a relatively lightweight hiking and travel kit. I still have a few fast primes that I use with an adapter, but not on longer tours.
So far so good. The 14-35 arrived last week, and initially I was very disappointed. Images were not really sharp and not reproducible. The blur degree could vary over the frame, and differed between shots. This lens was a dog.
It took me two days to figure out that the lens is actually not that bad. The erratic behavior was caused by the mechanical shutter. I changed it to electronic first curtain, and suddenly all images were sharp (as far as permitted by the glass) and reproducible. Handheld or tripod. I don't know why the mechanical shutter would specifically affect the 14-35; I haven't noticed a problem with other lenses.
Anyway, I have been studying the image quality for landscapes and overall I think this is the quality that can be expected from a zoom lens with these specifications. It peaks halfway the zoom range (25 mm tested) with excellent image quality across the frame. Peripheral regions degrade toward 14 mm, but I suppose they can still be called decent. Toward 35 mm there is also a degradation, but here it is cured by stopping down the lens by one or two stops. At the wider end of the zoom, it is surprisingly hard to detect any improvement of stopping down from f/4.
People who are considering this lens for landscapes can grab this zip file with jpegs for inspection. I let DPP do its job with the lens profile correction, and applied mild sharpening with my own software. Exif data got lost, but the essential information is in the file name.
It is stressed that this is not a lens test, but a system test which includes post processing. The area of interest is the upper half of the frame. The lower half is my balcony, which I did not want to tear down for this occasion. ...Show more →
Nice to see you again, Paul, and thanks for the report!
