Other than the obvious slow aperture of f4.0, what are your thoughts and experiences with the Canon EF 14-35mm f4.0L?
How does it perform in terms of distortion, vignetting, corner sharpness at all focal lengths?
I currently have an R6 (ancient, version 1 from many months ago), and two wide angle zooms; EF 17-40mm f4.0L and EF 16-35mm f4.0L. Both of these lenses perform well on my R6, but the EF to RF adapter makes the whole setup longer than I care for. I would be using it mostly fir travel, and I prefer shooting from wide to normal.
Not intending to start any kind of flame war, but I currently use my Sony A7c with Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 for travel. My recent 8 day trip to Spain left me wanting a wider lens, and I kicked myself for not taking my R6 with adapted 17-40mm f4.0L or 16-35mm f4.0L. Those wider 3 or 4 millimeters would have helped while capturing images inside ornate cathedrals. Also, the AF on my A7c is not as reliable as it is on my R6.
Coming from adapting EF 24-70 f/4 and the EF 16-35 f/4 on the R5, I think the image quality is maybe a little better on the RF 14-35. There is more hard vignette @14mm when you first open the files in LR but once you apply lens corrections it's gone. I think this is because it's actually capturing a 13mm image that then becomes 14mm once corrections are made.
I haven't used either of the previously mentioned EF lenses since I picked up the RF 14-35 f/4 Land RF 24-105 f/4 L. I need to get them sold one of these days.
I didn't mind adapting my EF lenses and the extra length was no big deal at all to me. But once I got my first RF lens after over 2 years of adapting EF glass, I made a swift transition over to almost all RF glass because that's when using an adapter became a PITA.
Either needing the adapter or not when shooting landscapes was not ideal to me, which I knew would be the case before I bought my first RF lens so I anticipated switching quickly once it began for those lenses.
Here are a few sample images I've taken with the RF 14-35 at various focal lengths. Oddly enough, it seems I either shoot fully wide or at max focal most of the time, but I did find a 29mm shot to show.
Canon EOS R5
RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM
ƒ/11.0 14.0 mm 1/160 100 Dinner with a view
Here are a few sample images I've taken with the RF 14-35 at various focal lengths. Oddly enough, it seems I either shoot fully wide or at max focal most of the time, but I did find a 29mm shot to show.
Dang, Makes me want to go out and buy the RF14-35! Great shots Dave!
It is still $400 off at B&H. I like its close focus ability. It can focus much closer at 35 mm than the RF 24-105 which gives it added use partnered with that lens. It has a roughly 21-56 mm focal range on the R7.
EDIT: I'll add that the enhanced stabilization of the RF IS lenses with IBIS R bodies really helps with hand held static scenes.
@OP
you mentioned being and hassle the deal with the ef2Rf adapter, but if you only have ef lenses, it really should not be an issue, right? adapter says on
Now, one option is to try the cheaper adapters and get one to each ef lens - maybe to economical viable
I had the 17-40, and indeed a bit soft in the corners. The 16-35f/4 still have it and it's a good performer. With latest camera's iso ability and performance, the "slow" f/4 is a lesser problem, even for shooting indoor events - sure f2/8 is better, but for landscape and even interior architectural, it's unlikely you will be shooting wide open anyway.
So, it happens I have the 14-35mm too - my wife too over the 16-35, and I need another uwa aside the 11-24 beast.
Took it to Iceland last summer and I am very happy with the results.
In truth I prefer the ef lenses because I use the adapter with filter - saves me to carry multiple cpls and even nds (note that the nd filter in the rf adapter is not the best ever)
In sum, if you have already a few RF lenses, and are moving totally to the RF mount, than yes, sell the both and get the 14-35 - only you can tell if the 2.8 aperture it's a must, but read Dustin Abbots reviews for instance
If planning to stick with the ef mount till it breaks (sort of) I would sell the 17-40 to offset the cost of the ef2rf with filter adapter and keep on shooting
After the initial outcry and outrage because it's software corrected that's "not worthy of an L lens," many people realized that for a lens half the size of the 15-35, it's actually pretty darn good It's my favorite UWA lens, and I've had them all, starting with the 20-35L in the 80s.
Canon EOS R5RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM lens14mmf/8.01/500s200 ISO-0.3 EV
Canon EOS R5RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM lens14mmf/8.01/160s400 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM lens14mmf/8.01/160s250 ISO-2.3 EV
Canon EOS R5RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM lens14mmf/8.01/640s1250 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM lens14mmf/16.01/2s50 ISO+0.3 EV
Canon EOS R5RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM lens19mmf/8.01/60s2000 ISO-0.3 EV
Jeff Nolten wrote:
OT, but what do you think of the 20-35 L by today's standards? I borrowed one for an Aurora trip with the 5D3 and got some nice images.
It's really hard to say because I can't fit the FD 20-35L on any current body. The last time I shot with that lens was in 1999 on my T90 and Agfa Ultra 50. I still have the T90 and the lens and even some Ultra 50 in the freezer, but I have a feeling that neither component can hold up to today's levels. I mean the 17-35 isn't great by today's standards, the 16-35 (at least mk1 and mk2) aren't that great by today's standards, so I feel pretty confident that the 20-35 won't blow anyone's socks off. The fact that people have nostalgic memories of their equipment greatness doesn't mean it would hold up the same today. There's progress, and that's a good thing, there's no shame in that. And (back on topic) the 14-35 is a symbol of the progress - it requires software correction, so what? Demanding that even a decade ago would have been problematic, if for no other reason than the optical viewfinder.
On the minus side, just look how big the lenses have become.
Canon EOS RRF28-70mm F2 L USM lens63mmf/4.51/160s2000 ISO0.0 EV
The last photo I ever took with the FD 20-35L, July 23, 1999
It is not a perfect lens, with a bit of edge softness due to the distortion correction, but I have loved it since I picked one up a few months ago. Sharp enough everywhere, lovely color and contrast, outstanding range, and amazingly compact for the focal range. The Sigma 14-24 I had before was slightly better at the edges, but the size and weight advantage makes the switch to the 14-35L well worth it for me.
stanj wrote:
It's really hard to say because I can't fit the FD 20-35L on any current body. ...
Thanks! Naive me, I thought you were referring to the EF 20-35 L, first EF L lens I believe. That is what I used. It's coma was noticeable for the aurora work but overall I liked it. Pretty compact for a wide f2.8. For daytime travel I have a Voightlander 20 pancake that I like, quite compact almost pancake. On my copy the corners aren't bad at f5.6 and above. I recently bought the 16 f2.8 to replace its functionality. I have the 14-35 to replace the EF 16-35 f4. Both these new wides are quite nice in my use so far. Both correct well in Lightroom.
---------------------------------------------
Jman13 wrote:
...
Jordan, I like your lighthouse images. How do you like the f4 for night sky work? I have an upcoming Morocco trip where we will be spending a couple nights in tents in the Sahara. Great night sky opportunity. I see you exposed for 30 sec at ISO 3200 and don't see star trails. I'm trying to decide between the 16 f2.8 or the 14-35 for this trip.
Bacalhau wrote:
@OP
you mentioned being and hassle the deal with the ef2Rf adapter, but if you only have ef lenses, it really should not be an issue, right? adapter says on
Now, one option is to try the cheaper adapters and get one to each ef lens - maybe to economical viable
I had the 17-40, and indeed a bit soft in the corners. The 16-35f/4 still have it and it's a good performer. With latest camera's iso ability and performance, the "slow" f/4 is a lesser problem, even for shooting indoor events - sure f2/8 is better, but for landscape and even interior architectural, it's unlikely you will be shooting wide open anyway.
So, it happens I have the 14-35mm too - my wife too over the 16-35, and I need another uwa aside the 11-24 beast.
Took it to Iceland last summer and I am very happy with the results.
In truth I prefer the ef lenses because I use the adapter with filter - saves me to carry multiple cpls and even nds (note that the nd filter in the rf adapter is not the best ever)
In sum, if you have already a few RF lenses, and are moving totally to the RF mount, than yes, sell the both and get the 14-35 - only you can tell if the 2.8 aperture it's a must, but read Dustin Abbots reviews for instance
If planning to stick with the ef mount till it breaks (sort of) I would sell the 17-40 to offset the cost of the ef2rf with filter adapter and keep on shooting ...Show more →
It's not really a hassle for me to use the EF to RF adapter; it's more of an inconvenience because it makes any EF longer in length, so it takes away from the lightweight portability of a travel camera.
While I really like my EF 16-35 f/4L, I found it cumbersome on the R5. Fortunately I was able to try a 14-35 one day and ordered one that night, after verifying that Capture One Pro had pretty decent corrections for it (as mentioned above, the uncorrected FoV is greater, and the extra field's definitely needed for corrections). The savings in size and weight, along with the lens' very good optical properties have made it one of my favorites. In addition to balancing better on the R5 and weighing less, I no longer need to also carry a 12-24 to get the wider images I sometimes like to have. It sure is nice to not have to carry both the 16-35 and 12-24 to get a 14mm FoV!
I read reviews before trying the lens; they're pretty much right on as far as they go. However, I've discovered that adding a circular gradient (again, in C1) and applying a bit of sharpening, structure, and brightness makes edge softness and vignetting virtually disappear.
lighthound wrote:
Coming from adapting EF 24-70 f/4 and the EF 16-35 f/4 on the R5, I think the image quality is maybe a little better on the RF 14-35. There is more hard vignette @14mm@ when you first open the files in LR but once you apply lens corrections it's gone. I think this is because it's actually capturing a 13mm image that then becomes 14mm once corrections are made.
The focal length at the wide end is 14.4 mm before and after corrections. It shows a wider field of view before distortion correction because of the strong barrel distortion.
That is just a detail. In my opinion this lens is versatile, fun to use, and a good travel companion. Optically it does a lot of things well, while not excelling at any one thing. It performs best in the middle of the zoom range, with the image corners deteriorating towards the wide end. At the long end, the edges appear a bit weak. This is pixel peeping of course. Under normal viewing conditions everything looks fine.
I’ve shot with the 20-35 (EF), 17-35L, 16 35L v1, 16-35L v2, 16-35 F4L, 11-24- F4L.
Each successive series was better than the last one. So despite not being able to do back to back comparisons, I’d say the 14-35 is considerably better AFTER corrections ,
This is by far my favourite lens.
For OP, I tried the adapter with EF lenses after switching, and hated the size of a he lens/adapter combo. The rear drop in filters were great and the ND were much better than my old Lee’s. I still use ND grads, even with the drop in rear filters, I still needed front filters. The switch to RF and Kase filters (excellent ND to 15 stops that blew away the Lee big/little stoppers) has been a terrific combo.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
OT, but what do you think of the 20-35 L by today's standards? I borrowed one for an Aurora trip with the 5D3 and got some nice images.
snegron7 wrote:
It's not really a hassle for me to use the EF to RF adapter; it's more of an inconvenience because it makes any EF longer in length, so it takes away from the lightweight portability of a travel camera.
I understand - if you get the regular adapter, it's not much than one inch or so (& 4 ounces); the one with filter is indeed a bit longer, BUT then you only carry one ND and one cpl for all your ef lenses. For me it's a big deal as I have a few UWA and others lenses above 82mm and heavy types.
At the moment I am leaning on 15-35mm due to the versatility of 2.8 as I do Northern Lights but that only appears to be over the Winter period. Other than that, I am fine with F4L. The cost difference isn't that great either, in the UK the difference is just over £200 in the grey market so I am in favour of the 15-35mm. But possibly suffer the weight if I wanted to go lightweight, such as hiking and wild camping.
The weight difference between Canon counterparts is around 300gm. I am sure I can handle that but I think I should have a proper look at a nearby camera shop between those two lenses before making my final decision.
If I were to go to 14-35mm, I would need another wide angle for nightscapes. Maybe a Samyang 14mm 2.4SP?
snegron7 wrote:
Other than the obvious slow aperture of f4.0, what are your thoughts and experiences with the Canon EF 14-35mm f4.0L?
How does it perform in terms of distortion, vignetting, corner sharpness at all focal lengths?
I currently have an R6 (ancient, version 1 from many months ago), and two wide angle zooms; EF 17-40mm f4.0L and EF 16-35mm f4.0L. Both of these lenses perform well on my R6, but the EF to RF adapter makes the whole setup longer than I care for. I would be using it mostly fir travel, and I prefer shooting from wide to normal.
Not intending to start any kind of flame war, but I currently use my Sony A7c with Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 for travel. My recent 8 day trip to Spain left me wanting a wider lens, and I kicked myself for not taking my R6 with adapted 17-40mm f4.0L or 16-35mm f4.0L. Those wider 3 or 4 millimeters would have helped while capturing images inside ornate cathedrals. Also, the AF on my A7c is not as reliable as it is on my R6.
I looked over Dustin Abbott's lens test and review. Very comprehensive, I'd recommend taking a look if you are considering this lens.
It looks like it has mechanical vignetting at 14mm. Probably gone by 16mm, though. So you get 14mm to some degree, and the same vs 16-35 more or less. Distortion looks kinda bad, but 3-4% is pretty normal on similar zooms , and it's correctable using lens corrections. I think the MTF is better on the 14-35 vs 16-35/4 ef. Dustin Abbott said about 40% sharp, 0.6 sec 35mm, so IS/IBIS very effective, it sounds like.
You'd just have to decide whether you are comfortable using the computational imaging, especially at 14mm.
Went from the EF 16-35 f4 to the 14-35/4; compared it to the 15-35/2.8 but couldn't a strong advantage of the faster and bigger and more expensive lens since I rarely shoot wide open in a WA lens. It's quite sharp and I'm happy with the results I'm getting.
I love this lens, it replaced the EF 16-35 f:4 which was good but bulky. By adding the 14-16mm range I gave up the 11-24mm, a rather heavy and bulky lens for travel. I was pleasantly surprised to see that ON-1 Raw 2022 and now 2023 automatically applies lens corrections to RAW files, mimicking the in-camera corrections that are performed for the JPG and HEIF files. The only alternative if you find the sticker price to be high (which it isn't right now with the steep rebate on this lens) would be to use the RF 16mm f2.8 alongside e.g. the 24-105 or 24-70. But if your type of photography is landscape / city / travel the whole zoom range is interesting. Another lens set I have travelled with included just the 14-35 and 70-200 f:4, to which you could add the 50 1.8.
I like its close focus ability. It can focus much closer at 35 mm than the RF 24-105 which gives it added use partnered with that lens. It has a roughly 21-56 mm focal range on the R7.
