p.1 #2 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
I have it, and I like it. Yes, it relies on software correction, much more than the 85 1.4 VCM which I also have. But the correction is automatically applied in LR, so I don't really care much. I also have this preset for fixing the noise introduced with correcting the vignetting.
It doesn't have the same 'ooooh' or 'aaah' reaction as, for example the RF 50 1.2. But it's sharp, lightweight, and the focus is excellent (in really low light it's much better than say the 24-70 2.8). As professional (events and portraits) I value the practicality of this lens. It's not the ultimate IQ monster (I'm sure there will be a 1.2 version at some time), but I do see the appeal for a certain group of photographers.
Feb 28, 2026 at 08:13 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
campy wrote:
I am not seeing much talk about this lens. Is it not selling well? My own theory is it's 3rd party quality but at a much higher price.
3rd party isn't really a thing for Canon. It looks to be a competent lens very much in line with the f/1.4 VCM lenses, but as a wide angle has more distortion correction and vignetting correction baked in than the longer f/1.4 VCM lenses. Personally, I would rather have the EF 35 f/1.4L II, as I am willing to tolerate the bigger size and a bit worse focussing for more of the corrections being made optically, but the modern way is to make some corrections (distortion, lateral CA, and vignetting) digitally to keep the lenses smaller. It really is a solid strategy that I think many people would prefer. It just isn't my preference.
I do think the EF 35 f/1.4 II being so good is part of the lack of enthusiasm for the 35 f/1.4 VCM. At 24mm, 50mm, and 85mm the RF f/1.4 VCM are a clear step up optically from the EF lenses. The step up at 35mm, however, is much smaller and not in all categories. I think that makes it harder to be enthusiastic about the new lens.
p.1 #4 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
A 35mm f/1.4 lens is, these days, something of a specialized product, regardless of what motors it uses or whether or not it relies on software correction. My bet is that even a fine lens of this type will never be a huge seller. It doesn’t have the “portrait lens” appeal of the longer focal lengths, for example.
p.1 #7 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
campy wrote:
I am not seeing much talk about this lens. Is it not selling well?
This was the very first Canon VCM prime lens. And at introduction, it was unfairly maligned for not being quite what people were expecting (an RF 35mm f/1.2L). Also, some people (then and now) continue to mischaracterize the required digital corrections as "optical flaws" rather than as intentional elements of the lens design. With these modern lenses, optical results should always be measured and assessed *after* corrections are applied.
The Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM actually measures better than the previous gold standard EF 35mm f/1.4L II, so I think people dismissing it are acting more on emotion than anything else.
campy wrote:
My own theory is it's 3rd party quality but at a much higher price.
I'm not sure you mean by "3rd party quality", but this is every bit a Canon "L" lens, optically and mechanically (as are all the VCM primes).
p.1 #8 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
I just think it's what Sigma and Tamron would have come out with if it wasn't for the licensing situation but at a price point of around $995. I too am looking for the EF version at my price point.
p.1 #9 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
campy wrote:
I just think it's what Sigma and Tamron would have come out with if it wasn't for the licensing situation but at a price point of around $995. I too am looking for the EF version at my price point.
Maybe the new 35/1.4 it is not the best for stills, but the audience is mostly the videomongers that want the matched set and can live with the software corrections. I would not buy it either.
p.1 #10 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
EB-1 wrote:
Maybe the new 35/1.4 it is not the best for stills, but the audience is mostly the videomongers that want the matched set and can live with the software corrections. I would not buy it either.
EBH
I use it for both stills and video. And all this talk about software correction, I actually prefer it most often without software correction applied. So there’s that.
p.1 #11 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
I had mine shortly after it was released, and was generally underwhelmed.
As others have said, it relies heavily on corrections, which I would be fine with. The problem with the 35 VCM though, is that I didn’t love the look of the images with the corrections applied, but it also regularly produced significant/unacceptable issues with distortion when uncorrected.
The only way I would have kept it is if I was into video or if I didn’t shoot multiple systems with multiple other lens options at or near 35mm.
The images were fine, but it was not good enough for me to reach for it when I needed something between 30-40mm. When I need the 35 that produces my favorite look, I go with the Sigma 35/1.2 on E mount. When I want compact, I go with my Fuji system. The 35 VCM is neither truly compact or exceptional in IQ. And for that, I could not justify keeping it in the stable.
p.1 #12 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
Interesting to see such a diversity of opinions on this lens. It's been basically glued to my R5 II for the last 12 months and as I have said often on this forum, it is my favorite lens ever. I'm a huge 35 fan, so I guess you have to consider my opinion along those lines, but for my money the contrast/sharpness/focus speed/size combination cannot be beaten. If mine broke tonight I'd have another on order by tomorrow morning. I love it.
p.1 #13 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
... but it also regularly produced significant/unacceptable issues with distortion when uncorrected...
What was the regular use case for uncorrected images? Just trying to widen my views here having nothing against corrections myself - but using the Milvus 35/1.4 on a 5DsR for my critical 35mm work.
p.1 #14 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
nightnight wrote:
Interesting to see such a diversity of opinions on this lens. It's been basically glued to my R5 II for the last 12 months and as I have said often on this forum, it is my favorite lens ever. I'm a huge 35 fan, so I guess you have to consider my opinion along those lines, but for my money the contrast/sharpness/focus speed/size combination cannot be beaten. If mine broke tonight I'd have another on order by tomorrow morning. I love it.
Same here, I've always had a 35 glued to one of my bodies in a minimum 2 body system for the last 25yrs. With that said I've owned all the "hot" 35's everyone speaks of, and, they are all gone now. I don't miss any of them.
p.1 #16 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
I expected a lot, wanted it earlier, wanted it to be a f1.2 lens, was disappointed by all the negativity in the reviews, and found it too expensive for what it is.
It took me almost 2 years to realise that it is way better than the reviews suggested. I bought it used and couldn't be happier with it: small, light, very fast AF, lovely bokeh, sharp into the corners wide open, almost no CA, great lens. The corrected distortion is a no-issue for me. It does not have the magic of the RF 50 f1.2, but I don't have any need to replace it, even when a f1.2 appears on the horizon.
p.1 #17 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
I have and love the 20mm and 35mm VCM. I traded in my RF 24-70 2.8L to fund most of it (I had the 50mm covered by my 1.2L and the 70mm end is the start of my 70-200 2.8L).
I realize I haven't posted much on those two lenses simply because 1) my "real" (read: non photography) job has taken up way more of my time in the last year, and 2) what stills and video I have shot with them have been for friends and family and are private.
But I can say that at their respective focal lengths they outperformed the 24-70 for stills by a decent margin...yes they rely on profile correction but if that's what is stopping you, nothing I say will change your mind.
But where they truly shine are for video, where the AF performance far surpasses the older L zoom. Fast, accurate, smooth and silent. I would never charge my friends for the videos I took of their kids birthday parties...but lets just say they always insist on picking up the tab every time we go out to dinner. The joy I've given them and their families are payment enough, and have more than justified the cost of these VCM lenses.
p.1 #18 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
This was the very first Canon VCM prime lens. And at introduction, it was unfairly maligned for not being quite what people were expecting (an RF 35mm f/1.2L). Also, some people (then and now) continue to mischaracterize the required digital corrections as "optical flaws" rather than as intentional elements of the lens design. With these modern lenses, optical results should always be measured and assessed *after* corrections are applied.
The Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM actually measures better than the previous gold standard EF 35mm f/1.4L II, so I think people dismissing it are acting more on emotion than anything else.
I'm not sure you mean by "3rd party quality", but this is every bit a Canon "L" lens, optically and mechanically (as are all the VCM primes)....Show more →
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.
p.1 #19 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
TomSchriefer wrote:
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.
Nothing is "wrong" if this is an intentional part of the lens design. Quibbling with the word "corrections" is playing semantics.
It may help if you consider that the digital corrections take the place of one or more physical lens elements that would otherwise need to be included in the design. These additional elements would make the lens physically larger, more complex and expensive, and would introduce their own aberrations that may need to be corrected for elsewhere.
Love it or hate it, this approach is a part of modern lens design, and all the major brands have examples in both consumer and pro-grade lenses.
What matters in the end is the results. I've already pointed out that the RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM outperforms the EF 35mm f/1.4L II in the corners (based on Bryan's tests at thedigitalpicture), so it does not seem to suffer much from needing software corrections.
p.1 #20 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
This is my outsider's perspective;
While of course 3rd party lenses are very scarce on RF and it has no direct competition with AF, the 35mm f1.4 L VCM doesn't exist in a vacuum. Going purely on optics its came out among some very strong counterparts from Sony and Sigma. Now that has increased massively with updates from Sigma and new options from Zeiss, Nikon and Viltrox plus Canon users have the DSLR lenses to adapt as an option. Based on the few reviews I have seen the lens is good but nothing more hence why for some its underwhelming.
