I was just wondering if anyone had feelings about how the RF 35/1.4 draws/renders images (i.e., the artistic side, not sharpness or technical considerations) versus the Tamron SP 35/1.4? Some of the posted images look great, but it'd be really helpful to me to hear someone with working experience between those two lenses.
Odd that a new lens thread for a generally popular prime focal length has had so little chatter and image shares from users. Would really love to get more images and thoughts.
I think many of us are hesitant to drop $1500 on a lens with so much negative feedback. Not to say there isn't positive feedback too and beautiful sample images. It just isn't the lens many were hoping for. I still think I'll end up with it because it's still better than any other (unadapted) choice on my R5II and it's solid for video. I don't see any great alternatives besides the Sony 35mm f1.4 GM but I don't have a Sony body anymore. If Nikon finally release their 35mm f1.2 S from their roadmap that might be tempting. I imagine they won't release it until/unless it's fantastic. If it was a Plena it'd be my dream lens.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Odd that a new lens thread for a generally popular prime focal length has had so little chatter and image shares from users. Would really love to get more images and thoughts.
AlphaPhotography wrote:
I think many of us are hesitant to drop $1500 on a lens with so much negative feedback. ...
In defense of the RF, its release has made me look really hard at the EF. The version II is available all day off eBay for $1K. I can hit 35mm with any number of zooms on my shelf, plus I own the classic EF 35/2, several Summicron M, Sigma Art 35, and a few film P&S with 35/2.8. Only the EF 35 (II) has virtually perfect linearity, top-tier CA correction, and the godly build quality revealed by Roger Cicala. I frankly see little attraction to this RF 35 even if you're locked into one platform (Canon R).
rico wrote:
In defense of the RF, its release has made me look really hard at the EF. The version II is available all day off eBay for $1K. I can hit 35mm with any number of zooms on my shelf, plus I own the classic EF 35/2, several Summicron M, Sigma Art 35, and a few film P&S with 35/2.8. Only the EF 35 (II) has virtually perfect linearity, top-tier CA correction, and the godly build quality revealed by Roger Cicala. I frankly see little attraction to this RF 35 even if you're locked into one platform (Canon R).
Every lens is a compromise, and in practice the RF has some, chiefly LoCA and (intentional) barrel distortion (which arguably is not a practical barrier if using corrections as intended). Yet the RF measures at least as well as the highly regarded EF II, while being less expensive, smaller, and lighter (and discounting the hybrid video features of the new lens altogether, which will be attractive to some). Compare them yourself here:
I've stated this elsewhere, but the digital corrections should be seen as a part of the lens design. These would otherwise have to addressed by additional elements, which themselves could cause compromises elsewhere.
garyvot wrote:
Every lens is a compromise, and in practice the RF has some, chiefly LoCA and (intentional) barrel distortion (which arguably is not a practical barrier if using corrections as intended). Yet the RF measures at least as well as the highly regarded EF II, while being less expensive, smaller, and lighter (and discounting the hybrid video features of the new lens altogether, which will be attractive to some). Compare them yourself here:
The RF is even noticeably better than the EF II in the Gordon Laing review, in spite of the required corrections. I don't know what people were expecting, except those who wanted a f/1.2 design.I have read nothing but praise about the EF II, and here we have something that delivers 110 % of that performance in a smaller package.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Odd that a new lens thread for a generally popular prime focal length has had so little chatter and image shares from users. Would really love to get more images and thoughts.
Nice work! Any chance you have some more candid and/or walk-around/street stuff? More curious to see the types of stuff that doesn't involve crafted/controlled lighting scenarios. TIA
---------------------------------------------
I don't believe anyone is upset, more so disappointed. Also, they are not equal in IQ according to various sources. They might be closer after profile corrections, but the RF supposedly leans much more heavily into them (which is fine if you're good with that).
mb126 wrote:
Wait so the RF 35 has equal IQ to the 35L II in a smaller package and people are upset?
Folks, that's a great lens.
For me, this concept begs a significant question though. Where does the line get drawn for what is still considered an acceptable threshold for the amount of baked-in computing in an image? It isn’t unfathomable that we can reach a point in the (not so distant) future where things like bokeh will also be automatically improved/correctable with a “profile correction.” Would that still be considered acceptable by most of us? I tend to believe many would find it off putting to pay a premium price tag for a lens that in and of itself, has terrible bokeh that is redrawn in software to look more pleasant.
I don’t inherently have a problem with lenses relying on profile corrections. I just think that it is a slippery slope for manufacturers to eventually profiteer even more off the software end, versus hardware. What we are really saying when we accept a value proposition like the RF 35/1.4 is, we are willing to pay for a required software pairing for a lens to be what it’s supposed to be via ones and zeros in code. The only way this works for me is if the lenses correspondingly come down in price. garyvot wrote:
I've stated this elsewhere, but the digital corrections should be seen as a part of the lens design. These would otherwise have to addressed by additional elements, which themselves could cause compromises elsewhere.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
I just think that it is a slippery slope for manufacturers to eventually profiteer... off the... required software pairing for a lens to be what it’s supposed to be via ones and zeros in code.
If by "required software" you are talking about software necessary to process RAW images on your PC, that software is either free (DPP) or we already pay for it (Adobe, Capture One, DXO). None of these software vendors are charging extra for lens profile corrections.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
The only way this works for me is if the lenses correspondingly come down in price.
Well, this lens is cheaper than its EF counterpart, no?
garyvot wrote:
What "required software" are you talking about? Do you mean software necessary to process RAW images on your PC? That software is either free (DPP) or we already pay for it (Adobe, Capture One, DXO). None of these software vendors are charging extra for lens profile corrections.
Well, this lens is cheaper than its EF counterpart, no?
garyvot wrote:
If by "required software" you are talking about software necessary to process RAW images on your PC, that software is either free (DPP) or we already pay for it (Adobe, Capture One, DXO). None of these software vendors are charging extra for lens profile corrections.
Well, this lens is cheaper than its EF counterpart, no?
No. Not referring to post processing necessarily, although it does play a role when you choose to apply or not apply the profile correction in whichever software you're using. I was specifically referring to the need for software in general, which is the in-camera profile.
I should have been more clear. My concern has nothing to do with the cost of post processing software. My issue centers around how heavily a piece of hardware should have to rely on software (camera/lens profiles from the manufacturer) and to what extent it is still considered acceptable.
Again, with some of the chatter about AI being the next frontier for cameras, it isn't inconceivable that they will be able to bake in much more extensive or heavy-handed profile corrections. Understanding how many lens traits we can alter with software whether in-camera or in post, to what extent should we be accepting the hardware flaws of a lens simply because it can be modified with a software based profile?
Why not just take the reins completely off and make even more significantly flawed lenses that can just be improved with the lens profile? Perhaps they could get even smaller and lighter to a point where they'll actually be compact and light. This is what I was referring to as the slippery slope. When would it no longer be okay to just compensate a lens' shortcomings with manufacturer software modifications?
With regard to being cheaper than its counterpart, that is correct. The EF version was a few hundred more at release, if I remember correctly. However, it is still no bargain at 1500 if you take into account the hefty amount of software help it needs.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
No. Not referring to post processing necessarily, although it does play a role when you choose to apply or not apply the profile correction in whichever software you're using. I was specifically referring to the need for software in general, which is the in-camera profile.
I should have been more clear. My concern has nothing to do with the cost of post processing software. My issue centers around how heavily a piece of hardware should have to rely on software (camera/lens profiles from the manufacturer) and to what extent it is still considered acceptable.
Again, with some of the chatter about AI being the next frontier for cameras, it isn't inconceivable that they will be able to bake in much more extensive or heavy-handed profile corrections. Understanding how many lens traits we can alter with software whether in-camera or in post, to what extent should we be accepting the hardware flaws of a lens simply because it can be modified with a software based profile?
Why not just take the reins completely off and make even more significantly flawed lenses that can just be improved with the lens profile? Perhaps they could get even smaller and lighter to a point where they'll actually be compact and light. This is what I was referring to as the slippery slope. When would it no longer be okay to just compensate a lens' shortcomings with manufacturer software modifications?
With regard to being cheaper than its counterpart, that is correct. The EF version was a few hundred more at release, if I remember correctly. However, it is still no bargain at 1500 if you take into account the hefty amount of software help it needs....Show more →
Do me a favor if you wouldn't mind-
Show me a picture where the output of the corrected lens isn't meeting your needs or doing a great job- The OUTPUT you get of the lens is what matters.
Did you have this same debate when cars stoped using V8's to generate horspower and started using turbo's in V4's? Engineering and lens design is progressing to make smaller, blistering fast AF lenses that can be corrected for beautiful output in multiple ways.
Get off Youtube and shoot this lens and its awesome.
The same nonsense discussion is happening with the new Leica that was just announced- There is obviously merit to designing away simple distortion with mathmetics but here we are, arguing on why the engineers at Sony, Leica, Fuji, Panasonic, and every other camera manufacturer is wrong.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
My issue centers around how heavily a piece of hardware should have to rely on software (camera/lens profiles from the manufacturer) and to what extent it is still considered acceptable.
In other words, you really do "inherenty have a problem with software corrections", though you stated earlier that you did not.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
However, it is still no bargain at 1500 if you take into account the hefty amount of software help it needs.
Implying that the lens is somehow lesser for needing software corrections.
I don't really need to change your mind. We can agree to disagree.
Perhaps one day, Canon will make a "statement" lens that some people seem to want. Until then, I think lots of people are going to get very fine results using this one.
With the EF II, Canon introduced the blue spectrum refractive optics to reduce the CAs. This special glass is also present in the RF 85 1.2 for example.
With the RF version of the 35 1.4, despite the simpler design heavily relying on software corrections, the lens has CA problems that were not present in the EF II, as it lacks the special glass. This is why some people see the RF as a step back in quality and believe that Canon might be preparing a true 35mm flagship in the future (1.2?)
RustyRus wrote:
Do me a favor if you wouldn't mind-
Show me a picture where the output of the corrected lens isn't meeting your needs or doing a great job- The OUTPUT you get of the lens is what matters.
Did you have this same debate when cars stoped using V8's to generate horspower and started using turbo's in V4's? Engineering and lens design is progressing to make smaller, blistering fast AF lenses that can be corrected for beautiful output in multiple ways.
Get off Youtube and shoot this lens and its awesome.
The same nonsense discussion is happening with the new Leica that was just announced- There is obviously merit to designing away simple distortion with mathmetics but here we are, arguing on why the engineers at Sony, Leica, Fuji, Panasonic, and every other camera manufacturer is wrong.
For starters, I'm not one of those guys that just strokes lenses all day and oogles over stuff on the web. Anyone who knows me around these parts knows that I've made and shared countless images using numerous 35ish mm lenses. So I do get out and shoot. I'll just continue to use the multitude of lenses I have in that FL until I'm compelled to pick up the Canon version. So far, not compelled.
Secondly, I already stated earlier in the thread what amount of resolution needs to be cut from the edges on the RF 35 via the profile correction, which is not a negligible amount. It's fine that you and some other folks are fine with this, but there's hundreds of millions more folks that think the portrait mode on their new phones is perfectly fine too. Different strokes for different folks.
Make no mistake though, this is not the lens people were anxiously awaiting for in the premium 35mm from Canon after 6 years of RF. I'm happy that you're happy with your choice. Seems like a great lens for those who accept the value proposition. Not knocking you, so no need to be so triggered.
---------------------------------------------
garyvot wrote:
In other words, you really do "inherenty have a problem with software corrections", though you stated earlier that you did not.
Implying that the lens is somehow lesser for needing software corrections.
I don't really need to change your mind. We can agree to disagree.
Perhaps one day, Canon will make a "statement" lens that some people seem to want. Until then, I think lots of people are going to get very fine results using this one.
I don't inherently have a problem with software corrections, if you would take the statement into context. I have a problem with them in a lens that is supposed to be the premium lens in that particular FL where it has a corresponding price tag, but seemingly leans more heavily into the profiles than other comparable lenses. Virtually every lens from every manufacturer has an accompanying profile, I get it.
And let's not make assumptions about what I've said. I've never stated that this was a bad lens or that people couldn't make beautiful images with it (as evidenced by people like @96whiteknight). I believe you can make beautiful images with any lens, premium or not. But just like I told the other guy, this is clearly not the lens many people in the market were waiting 6 years for.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
For starters, I'm not one of those guys that just strokes lenses all day and oogles over stuff on the web. Anyone who knows me around these parts knows that I've made and shared countless images using numerous 35ish mm lenses. So I do get out and shoot. I'll just continue to use the multitude of lenses I have in that FL until I'm compelled to pick up the Canon version. So far, not compelled.
Secondly, I already stated earlier in the thread what amount of resolution needs to be cut from the edges on the RF 35 via the profile correction, which is not a negligible amount. It's fine that you and some other folks are fine with this, but there's hundreds of millions more folks that think the portrait mode on their new phones is perfectly fine too. Different strokes for different folks.
Make no mistake though, this is not the lens people were anxiously awaiting for in the premium 35mm from Canon after 6 years of RF. I'm happy that you're happy with your choice. Seems like a great lens for those who accept the value proposition. Not knocking you, so no need to be so triggered.
---------------------------------------------
I don't inherently have a problem with software corrections, if you would take the statement into context. I have a problem with them in a lens that is supposed to be the premium lens in that particular FL where it has a corresponding price tag, but seemingly leans more heavily into the profiles than other comparable lenses. Virtually every lens from every manufacturer has an accompanying profile, I get it.
And let's not make assumptions about what I've said. I've never stated that this was a bad lens or that people couldn't make beautiful images with it (as evidenced by people like @96whiteknight@). I believe you can make beautiful images with any lens, premium or not. But just like I told the other guy, this is clearly not the lens many people in the market were waiting 6 years for....Show more →
So your concern is loss of resolution?
Since we didn't design the lens or the camera, is it possible that the extra pixels outside of the effictive area of the sensor was used for this (its used for IBIS etc). Could this be the portion that is cropped so you might not loose any resolution? Are you just making assumptions you loose resolution based on the uncorrected image?
I don't know this answer here-
Also have you used the lens? Silly to argue any more if its a lens you have never even used-
Can any owners confirm if the 35mm VCM makes noise when walking with it in a backpack? Does it's orientation in the bag effect this? I saw a review mention that the VCM elements make a notable "thud" when the lens is shaken and that it can even be heard when walking with it in a backpack.
The version II is available all day off eBay for $1K. I can hit 35mm with any number of zooms on my shelf, plus I own the classic EF 35/2, several Summicron M, Sigma Art 35, and a few film P&S with 35/2.8. Only the EF 35 (II) has virtually perfect linearity, top-tier CA correction, and the godly build quality revealed by Roger Cicala. I frankly see little attraction to this RF 35 even if you're locked into one platform (Canon R).
