Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
p.2 #1Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
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...Show more →
Maybe all the guys who still own the EF 35II can get the corrections made for it to try and match the 35VCM then? Someday they'll try out this lens and wonder WTF they didn't buy it sooner.
As for corners, I've never cared about a corner in 30 yrs of shooting. I shoot street life, travel, portraits, sports, etc and never once have a shot something where a corner mattered to me, or the subject. I guess it's the landscapers or people who shoot brick walls who care.
TomSchriefer wrote
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.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...Show more →
Maybe all the guys who still own the EF 35II can get the corrections made for it to try and match the 35VCM then? Someday they'll try out this lens and wonder WTF they didn't buy it sooner.
As for corners, I've never cared about a corner in 30 yrs of shooting. I shoot street life, travel, portraits, sports, etc and never once have a shot something where a corner mattered to me, or the subject. I guess it's the landscapers or people who shoot brick walls who care.
Mar 04, 2026 at 10:57 AM
p.2 #2Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
Maybe not the far corners, but I certainly want good IQ at r=20mm for macros (not applicable to 35mm) and landscapes. Most likely as the number of camera pixels increases and AI remapping improves it is less and less of an issue.
I'm not a landscaper. Those are the guys that work with the grass, shrubs and trees, etc.
EBH
I'm not a landscaper. Those are the guys that work with the grass, shrubs and trees, etc.
EBH
Mar 04, 2026 at 02:01 PM
p.2 #3Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
EB-1 wrote:
Maybe not the far corners, but I certainly want good IQ at r=20mm for macros (not applicable to 35mm) and landscapes. Most likely as the number of camera pixels increases and AI remapping improves it is less and less of an issue.
I'm not a landscaper. Those are the guys that work with the grass, shrubs and trees, etc.
EBH
Yeah I'm definitely not a macro guy. I'm often in the grass/shrubs/trees but never taking closeups of it. But if you are a macro shooter, is this really the right choice of lens?
Maybe not the far corners, but I certainly want good IQ at r=20mm for macros (not applicable to 35mm) and landscapes. Most likely as the number of camera pixels increases and AI remapping improves it is less and less of an issue.
I'm not a landscaper. Those are the guys that work with the grass, shrubs and trees, etc.
EBH
Yeah I'm definitely not a macro guy. I'm often in the grass/shrubs/trees but never taking closeups of it. But if you are a macro shooter, is this really the right choice of lens?
Mar 04, 2026 at 02:59 PM
p.2 #4Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
artsupreme wrote:
As for corners, I've never cared about a corner in 30 yrs of shooting.
Haha, yeah. For most of my work the far corners are meaningless as well.
I just used this as a proof point that a lens designed to use digital corrections can still be quite good across the frame, but it certainly not something I obsess over
In fact, it strikes me as odd that today reviewers nitpick lens sharpness in the far corners at wide open apertures. Anyone who needs sharpness edge to edge is almost certainly also going to want significant depth of field, and consequently will not be will shooting wide open.
But all comparisons have to have winners and losers I guess.
As for corners, I've never cared about a corner in 30 yrs of shooting.
Haha, yeah. For most of my work the far corners are meaningless as well.
I just used this as a proof point that a lens designed to use digital corrections can still be quite good across the frame, but it certainly not something I obsess over
In fact, it strikes me as odd that today reviewers nitpick lens sharpness in the far corners at wide open apertures. Anyone who needs sharpness edge to edge is almost certainly also going to want significant depth of field, and consequently will not be will shooting wide open.
But all comparisons have to have winners and losers I guess.
Mar 04, 2026 at 05:56 PM
p.2 #5Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
artsupreme wrote
As for corners, I've never cared about a corner in 30 yrs of shooting.I just used this as a proof point that a lens designed to use digital corrections can still be quite good across the frame, but it certainly not something I obsess over
In fact, it strikes me as odd that today reviewers nitpick lens sharpness in the far corners at wide open apertures. Anyone who needs sharpness edge to edge is almost certainly also going to want significant depth of field, and consequently will not be will shooting wide open.
But all comparisons have to have winners and...Show more →
Astro-landscape photography requires good corner performance at the widest apertures which is why its mentioned so often in reviews these days. It must be said many of those types of images are taken with much wider focal lengths but on occasion a tighter FOV is needed.
Mar 05, 2026 at 12:46 AM
p.2 #6Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
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...Show more →
Knock the price down $500 and I will agree with everything you said.
TomSchriefer wrote
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.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...Show more →
Knock the price down $500 and I will agree with everything you said.
Mar 05, 2026 at 04:30 AM
p.2 #7Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
campy wrote:
Knock the price down $500 ….
Are you dreaming right now?
Knock the price down $500 ….
Are you dreaming right now?
Mar 05, 2026 at 05:50 AM
p.2 #8Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
campy wrote:
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.Knock the price down $500 and I will agree with everything you said.
For an L-series lens? Come on.
In any case, these debates are pointless. The people for whom these lenses were designed (hybrid video shooters) will likely find nothing better on the market. The fact that they are also great for still photography is just a bonus for the rest of us.
garyvot wrote
TomSchriefer wrote
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.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.
For an L-series lens? Come on.
In any case, these debates are pointless. The people for whom these lenses were designed (hybrid video shooters) will likely find nothing better on the market. The fact that they are also great for still photography is just a bonus for the rest of us.
Mar 05, 2026 at 08:51 AM
p.2 #9Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
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.Knock the price down $500 and I will agree with everything you said.For an L-series lens? Come on.
In any case, these debates are pointless. The people for whom these lenses were designed (hybrid video shooters) will likely find nothing better on the market. The fact that they are also great for still photography is just a bonus for the rest of us.
I do expect that in time Canon will make a more stills oriented 35 f/1.2L more like the 50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.2L, but that will cost north of $2,000. It will be the lens some will want, however. For me, however, it is not a lens I am likely to get. My major lens near this focal length is the Voigtlander 40 f/1.2, which I like both for its performance and size. In time I might pick up the EF 35 f/1.4 II for when I want AF, but if I do that it will be in a few years. If I were willing to spend the money for a 35 f/1.2L, if they make it, I would get the Zeiss Otus ML 35 f/1.4 instead, but that is just me.
campy wrote
garyvot wrote
TomSchriefer wrote
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.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.
In any case, these debates are pointless. The people for whom these lenses were designed (hybrid video shooters) will likely find nothing better on the market. The fact that they are also great for still photography is just a bonus for the rest of us.
I do expect that in time Canon will make a more stills oriented 35 f/1.2L more like the 50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.2L, but that will cost north of $2,000. It will be the lens some will want, however. For me, however, it is not a lens I am likely to get. My major lens near this focal length is the Voigtlander 40 f/1.2, which I like both for its performance and size. In time I might pick up the EF 35 f/1.4 II for when I want AF, but if I do that it will be in a few years. If I were willing to spend the money for a 35 f/1.2L, if they make it, I would get the Zeiss Otus ML 35 f/1.4 instead, but that is just me.
Mar 05, 2026 at 09:39 AM
p.2 #10Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
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.Knock the price down $500 and I will agree with everything you said.For an L-series lens? Come on.
In any case, these debates are pointless. The people for whom these lenses were designed (hybrid video shooters) will likely find nothing better on the market. The fact that they are also great for still photography is just a bonus for the rest of us.
I don't consider it an L series, it's a cheap lens with software to correct it's cheapness and they threw a red ring on it. Sigma and Tamron can do the same thing and it would be a lot cheaper if they were allowed to make the RF mount.
campy wrote
garyvot wrote
TomSchriefer wrote
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.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.
In any case, these debates are pointless. The people for whom these lenses were designed (hybrid video shooters) will likely find nothing better on the market. The fact that they are also great for still photography is just a bonus for the rest of us.
I don't consider it an L series, it's a cheap lens with software to correct it's cheapness and they threw a red ring on it. Sigma and Tamron can do the same thing and it would be a lot cheaper if they were allowed to make the RF mount.
Mar 05, 2026 at 10:16 AM
|
p.2 #11Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
campy wrote:
I don't consider it an L series, it's a cheap lens with software to correct it's cheapness and they threw a red ring on it.
I think that is objectively and demonstrably not the case. But if you want the last word, go for it; I will bow out of this conversation.
I don't consider it an L series, it's a cheap lens with software to correct it's cheapness and they threw a red ring on it.
I think that is objectively and demonstrably not the case. But if you want the last word, go for it; I will bow out of this conversation.
Mar 05, 2026 at 10:29 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #12Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
campy wrote
I am not seeing much talk about this lens. Is it not selling well?I think that's the conclusion I came to reading the optical limits tests on 35/1.4 II and the VCM.
Mar 05, 2026 at 11:18 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #13Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
campy wrote:
garyvot wrote
campy wrote
garyvot wrote
TomSchriefer wrote
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.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.
In any case, these debates are pointless. The people for whom these lenses were designed (hybrid video shooters) will likely find nothing better on the market. The fact that they are also great for still photography is just a bonus for the rest of us.
Baloney. Can't figure out why people are so upset over 3-4% distortion, that amount has been around for years and is correctable.
Mar 05, 2026 at 11:23 AM
p.2 #14Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
I can't speak for the 35 specifically but I do own the 20 1.4vcm. I was very hesitant to purchase the lens due to the digital distortion correction but I gave it an honest chance. The lens is wonderful! The larger image circle it produces not only allows for distortion correction but for vertical (and horizontal) corrections in PS with little to no additional cropping. It was not long before I sold off my 24TS-e lens as the VCM was just that much better of a lens to use. With focus stacking and digital corrections I don't think we will see TS-e lenses in an R mount. If you are shooting film I hear ya but as a digital shooter I have learned to embrace all the things digital can do.
Mar 05, 2026 at 11:44 AM
p.2 #15Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
campy wrote:
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.Knock the price down $500 and I will agree with everything you said.For an L-series lens? Come on.
In any case, these debates are pointless. The people for whom these lenses were designed (hybrid video shooters) will likely find nothing better on the market. The fact that they are also great for still photography is just a bonus for the rest of us.I don't consider it an L series, it's a cheap lens with software to correct it's cheapness and they threw a red ring on it. Sigma and Tamron can do the same thing and it would be a lot cheaper if they were allowed to make the RF mount.
At launch I was thinking it was about $500 overpriced too (base on how it looked) so I hesitated on buying it for a couple months. But then I bought it and used it....
And I learned, why would I keep my 35II, Sigma Art, or Tamron SP when they became big fat pigs on an RF body with adapter (compared to tiny/lightweight VCM) when they did nothing better than my VCM? There is nothing to gain with any of the EF lenses for me, in fact there's less performance from all of them when it comes to AF for stills, and none of them are in the same universe for video. VCM sharpness and contrast is on par with all of them where I need it in the center, not to mention its small 67mm filter size matches all my other VCMs.
Canon EF 35II was $1799 at launch and the RF 35VCM was $1499 at launch. I got mine for a $1350 OTD and having now used it, it's worth every penny.
If I were to really split hairs and could have my ultimate 35 it would be the Tamron optics with 35II rendering and VCM AF/size/weight. But that's just dreaming and unrealistic.
garyvot wrote
campy wrote
garyvot wrote
TomSchriefer wrote
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.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.
In any case, these debates are pointless. The people for whom these lenses were designed (hybrid video shooters) will likely find nothing better on the market. The fact that they are also great for still photography is just a bonus for the rest of us.
At launch I was thinking it was about $500 overpriced too (base on how it looked) so I hesitated on buying it for a couple months. But then I bought it and used it....
And I learned, why would I keep my 35II, Sigma Art, or Tamron SP when they became big fat pigs on an RF body with adapter (compared to tiny/lightweight VCM) when they did nothing better than my VCM? There is nothing to gain with any of the EF lenses for me, in fact there's less performance from all of them when it comes to AF for stills, and none of them are in the same universe for video. VCM sharpness and contrast is on par with all of them where I need it in the center, not to mention its small 67mm filter size matches all my other VCMs.
Canon EF 35II was $1799 at launch and the RF 35VCM was $1499 at launch. I got mine for a $1350 OTD and having now used it, it's worth every penny.
If I were to really split hairs and could have my ultimate 35 it would be the Tamron optics with 35II rendering and VCM AF/size/weight. But that's just dreaming and unrealistic.
Mar 05, 2026 at 12:01 PM
p.2 #16Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
Pete73 wrote:
If you are shooting film I hear ya but as a digital shooter I have learned to embrace all the things digital can do.
Yes, and I think this is the real reason we are seeing these types of lens designs now--no mirrorless lenses will ever be used on a film camera. Digital processing is simply a part of the workflow, and manufacturers are embracing it.
If you are shooting film I hear ya but as a digital shooter I have learned to embrace all the things digital can do.
Yes, and I think this is the real reason we are seeing these types of lens designs now--no mirrorless lenses will ever be used on a film camera. Digital processing is simply a part of the workflow, and manufacturers are embracing it.
Mar 05, 2026 at 01:09 PM
p.2 #17Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
Canon RF 35mm 1.4L VCM and all the other VCM lenses are L-lenses. Period.
Mar 05, 2026 at 06:59 PM
p.2 #18Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
artsupreme wrote:
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.Maybe all the guys who still own the EF 35II can get the corrections made for it to try and match the 35VCM then? Someday they'll try out this lens and wonder WTF they didn't buy it sooner.
As for corners, I've never cared about a corner in 30 yrs of shooting. I shoot street life, travel, portraits, sports, etc and never once have a shot something where a corner mattered to me, or the subject. I guess it's the landscapers or people who shoot brick walls who care.
Sorry I haven’t made the transition from my EF 35mm f/1,4 II L so I use an EF to RF adapter when I consider shooting with it on my R5 Mark II. Although that is rear since I will either use ny RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L or the RF 50mm f/1.2 L.
I also decided to keep it and some other EF glass to use with my 1DX Mark II.
garyvot wrote
TomSchriefer wrote
By definition, if corrections are required, something must be wrong in the first place. English, not photography.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.
As for corners, I've never cared about a corner in 30 yrs of shooting. I shoot street life, travel, portraits, sports, etc and never once have a shot something where a corner mattered to me, or the subject. I guess it's the landscapers or people who shoot brick walls who care.
Sorry I haven’t made the transition from my EF 35mm f/1,4 II L so I use an EF to RF adapter when I consider shooting with it on my R5 Mark II. Although that is rear since I will either use ny RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L or the RF 50mm f/1.2 L.
I also decided to keep it and some other EF glass to use with my 1DX Mark II.
Mar 11, 2026 at 08:15 AM
p.2 #19Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
I’m waiting on the 1.2 Version
May 24, 2026 at 08:31 AM
p.2 #20Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
There's not that much talk about the other VCM lenses, either, yet they are fantastic. Have them all, they're great.
May 24, 2026 at 09:49 AM