Those look great! I went to Yellowstone this year. I brought almost every zoom I had....but I used the 24-105 the most. Followed by the 100-400. That place is wonderful. I could have carried two or three bodies set up for different things. But made do with one.
Brian
aaronlam wrote:
I went to Yellowstone with only an R5 + 14-35mm and a 50mm. Probably not the wisest decision but this is heavily cropped on the 35mm range. Couldn't get the 50mm out fast enough.
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, I also found the 24-105 STM profile to do the best job in the interim.
I missed the fact that LR hasn't a profile for it yet when I bought the lens. Even the profile for the RF 70-200mm f4 is still not available in LR, although the lens is at least a year on the market. This was really bad news for me, because I intended to use both lenses primarily for architecture and I'm a perfectionist when it comes to straight lines. For landscapes and other applications I could have lived with the 24-105 STM-workaround (although, after many tests, it's only useful for 14mm and no other focal lenghts), but for architecture the missing profiles made both lenses almost unusable for me.
I thought that Canons DPP might be okay for a while, but it really isn't. The workflow is a real pain and it doesn't integrate in anything else I do with the images.
Therefore I looked out each day for upcoming LR-profile updates, which didn't happen. Today I tried out DxO PureRaw, a Raw-Converter with profile applications to be used before importing the photos into LR. Although the 14-35L isn't listed as an available profile on their website, at least the RF 70-200 it.
And then, to my surprise, not even the 70-200mm worked very well, the 14-35L distortion correction worked too. They seem to have developed a profile, but haven't listed it yet. That's really great news for me! DxO also don't crop the 14mm as tight as Canon do, hence the cropped image seems to be a bit wider than 14mm.
They have a 30-days trial-version which I intend to use during the next month, still hoping that LR will update their profiles in the near future. But PureRaw is way easier to integrate in a workflow with LR, PS or CaptureOne than a DPP-solution would be. Two disadvantages are the file sizes of the DNG -files and the time it takes to process the files with the Deep-Prime-Algorithm, although I have to admit that the algorithm does an impressive job with noise-reduction and sharpening.
Just received my copy of this lens a couple days ago, and had some time today to test it. Just took a few test shots to test sharpness. Took shots at 14, 20, 24, 28 and 35mm at f/4, f/5.6 and f/8. Only looked at OOC JPEG.
Overall it's pretty sharp across the frame, especially when stopped down all the way to f/8 (which is how I'll often use it). Just the lower right corner is a touch softer than all the other corners. But looks like I got a good copy otherwise.
I like how compact and lightweight this lens is. And I now have a pretty complete kit with the 14-35, 24-105 and 100-500, as well as 35 and 50 f/1.8 primes (though I'm hoping for f/1.4 L primes to come out at some time). Maybe one day I'll add the 70-200 f/2.8, but it's not high on my list right now as I otherwise have that focal range covered.
sakete wrote:
Just received my copy of this lens a couple days ago, and had some time today to test it. Just took a few test shots to test sharpness. Took shots at 14, 20, 24, 28 and 35mm at f/4, f/5.6 and f/8. Only looked at OOC JPEG.
Overall it's pretty sharp across the frame, especially when stopped down all the way to f/8 (which is how I'll often use it). Just the lower right corner is a touch softer than all the other corners. But looks like I got a good copy otherwise.
I like how compact and lightweight this lens is. And I now have a pretty complete kit with the 14-35, 24-105 and 100-500, as well as 35 and 50 f/1.8 primes (though I'm hoping for f/1.4 L primes to come out at some time). Maybe one day I'll add the 70-200 f/2.8, but it's not high on my list right now as I otherwise have that focal range covered....Show more →
You should add a 135/2 to your collection. Cheap, compact, lightweight, and amazing.
artsupreme wrote:
You should add a 135/2 to your collection. Cheap, compact, lightweight, and amazing.
Not sure what I'd use that lens for, might be too niche. And either way I'd probably spring for the RF 100mm macro first anyway. I don't do a lot of macro, but it would double as a very nice portrait lens. I don't think I'd need faster than f/2.8 at 100mm for portraits anyway, as otherwise too many parts of the face would be blurry.
What I'm really hoping for is a 50mm f/1.4L prime either from Canon, or from Sigma (but it's looking less and less likely 3rd party lenses are coming to the RF mount).
Ulff wrote:
I missed the fact that LR hasn't a profile for it yet when I bought the lens. Even the profile for the RF 70-200mm f4 is still not available in LR, although the lens is at least a year on the market. This was really bad news for me, because I intended to use both lenses primarily for architecture and I'm a perfectionist when it comes to straight lines. For landscapes and other applications I could have lived with the 24-105 STM-workaround (although, after many tests, it's only useful for 14mm and no other focal lenghts), but for architecture the missing profiles made both lenses almost unusable for me.
I thought that Canons DPP might be okay for a while, but it really isn't. The workflow is a real pain and it doesn't integrate in anything else I do with the images.
Therefore I looked out each day for upcoming LR-profile updates, which didn't happen. Today I tried out DxO PureRaw, a Raw-Converter with profile applications to be used before importing the photos into LR. Although the 14-35L isn't listed as an available profile on their website, at least the RF 70-200 it.
And then, to my surprise, not even the 70-200mm worked very well, the 14-35L distortion correction worked too. They seem to have developed a profile, but haven't listed it yet. That's really great news for me! DxO also don't crop the 14mm as tight as Canon do, hence the cropped image seems to be a bit wider than 14mm.
They have a 30-days trial-version which I intend to use during the next month, still hoping that LR will update their profiles in the near future. But PureRaw is way easier to integrate in a workflow with LR, PS or CaptureOne than a DPP-solution would be. Two disadvantages are the file sizes of the DNG -files and the time it takes to process the files with the Deep-Prime-Algorithm, although I have to admit that the algorithm does an impressive job with noise-reduction and sharpening. ...Show more →
Yeah DPP is a pain. I use DxO PL4 (which contains PureRaw) with PS and only use LR for cataloging. However, now that Topaz DeNoise AI does RAWs I am futzing with that too. So far, it seems the Topaz RAW work equals Deep Prime for noise, but since you can't do it from edit-in in LR, the workflow is nearly as bad as using DPP.
sakete wrote:
Not sure what I'd use that lens for, might be too niche. And either way I'd probably spring for the RF 100mm macro first anyway. I don't do a lot of macro, but it would double as a very nice portrait lens. I don't think I'd need faster than f/2.8 at 100mm for portraits anyway, as otherwise too many parts of the face would be blurry.
What I'm really hoping for is a 50mm f/1.4L prime either from Canon, or from Sigma (but it's looking less and less likely 3rd party lenses are coming to the RF mount).
135/2 is a great portrait lens. I shoot it mostly wide open and I use it for all sorts of other stuff. Its cheap and if you didn’t like it for some reason you could sell it for what you paid for it. I own nearly every lens out there and the 135 is one of the very few lenses I promote due to its amazing value. Give it a go.
I agree with you on the 50 1.4. An updated RF version would be great.
artsupreme wrote:
135/2 is a great portrait lens. I shoot it mostly wide open and I use it for all sorts of other stuff. Its cheap and if you didn’t like it for some reason you could sell it for what you paid for it. I own nearly every lens out there and the 135 is one of the very few lenses I promote due to its amazing value. Give it a go.
I agree with you on the 50 1.4. An updated RF version would be great.
Ah, I see it's an EF lens. I'm trying to go all RF, and I don't even have an EF-RF adapter (mostly because they're impossible to find). I switched back to Canon after trying Nikon Z, and I just don't want to adapt any lenses. And that's why I've been buying a bunch of RF lenses (I sold all my EF stuff a few years ago), as I never plan on leaving Canon again
sakete wrote:
Just received my copy of this lens a couple days ago, and had some time today to test it. Just took a few test shots to test sharpness. Took shots at 14, 20, 24, 28 and 35mm at f/4, f/5.6 and f/8. Only looked at OOC JPEG.
Overall it's pretty sharp across the frame, especially when stopped down all the way to f/8 (which is how I'll often use it). Just the lower right corner is a touch softer than all the other corners. But looks like I got a good copy otherwise.
At the wide end I don't notice any improvement when stopping down from f/4. Vignetting is reduced of course, but in terms of sharpness I may as well use f/4. At 35 mm, on the other hand, f/8 is the way to go for the best sharpness across the frame.
I'm very curious when this profile will be supported in Lightroom. I accidentally packed it as my primary lens for a listing shoot this week and used the lens at 14mm and 20mm only. Correcting the lens at 14mm using the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 profile and a manual correction profile for the 20mm shots worked out actually nearly perfect. The RF 24-105 profile corrects vertical lines to near perfection and performs the proper "flattening" of the corners - so I highly suggest this. I am still seeing a lot of people are just cropping and adding their own manual corrections, I consider that to be less than ideal versus just using the aforementioned profile. I'll try to share some images over the next week or two as I use it more...still not enough time or photos shot to really get a great feel for it. But it's overall a very positive experience coming from the EF 16-35 f/2.8L III USM.
After just using the lens for a couple of weeks, I have decided that it is good enough for the job it is supposed to do. It is not Otus material, but on the other hand this lens is better than most wide angle prime lenses from the previous century. Here are a few snapshots:
Toothwalker wrote:
After just using the lens for a couple of weeks, I have decided that it is good enough for the job it is supposed to do. It is not Otus material, but on the other hand this lens is better than most wide angle prime lenses from the previous century. Here are a few snapshots:
Got my 14-35 today. May be my copy is not as sharp but my 16-35 f4 is still sharper. Processed using Dxo Photolab 5 and Lightroom. Did anybody else have the same experience?
I've tried to reach out to Adobe to figure out when the profile for this lens is coming, and no reply. Hopefully everyone waiting the profile is reminding Adobe to speed things up!
Photoshop 2022 and Camera raw 14.0 are popping up today in Creative Cloud updates. the Adobe lens profile for RF 14-35mm f4 L is incorporated in the update along with camera matching colour profiles for all CR3 raw files.
My experience is different than yours. My new 14-35 is very sharp, using it with DXO Photolab 4 and Capture One. I don't have the EF 16-35mm f4 lens to compare it to. I am especially surprised at how sharp the 14-35mm is at 35mm setting at infinity focus. I wasn't expecting that at all.
There are a lot of settings you can fiddle with in PhotoLab 4 (and 5, I'm sure) if you want sharper. I decrease noise reduction from the default of 40 to 10, if I'm concerned about detail and the image is at low ISOs. You can increase global sharpness from 0 to 0.50 (1.00 is too much for my tastes; it goes up to 3.00) and you can increase detail from 50 to 100 and decrease bokeh from 50 to 0 in the lens sharpness tab. Also, pretty obvious, if you don't correct for distortion then you will have sharper corners and edges for the widest settings especially.
My first impression is that it's an extremely versatile and compact, and high quality ultra wide zoom. Hard to beat for my purposes - primarily landscapes and travel. I expect if you're willing to put up with 1.5 to 2 times the size and weight you can beat the corners at 14mmm, but who wants twice the size and weight?
sbc86 wrote:
Got my 14-35 today. May be my copy is not as sharp but my 16-35 f4 is still sharper. Processed using Dxo Photolab 5 and Lightroom. Did anybody else have the same experience?
DxO also don't crop the 14mm as tight as Canon do, hence the cropped image seems to be a bit wider than 14mm.
