p.2 #1 · Why 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. ...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.
p.2 #2 · Why 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.
p.2 #3 · Why 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?
p.2 #4 · Why 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.
p.2 #5 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
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....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.
p.2 #6 · Why 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. ...Show more →
Knock the price down $500 and I will agree with everything you said.
p.2 #8 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
campy wrote:
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.
Mar 05, 2026 at 09:51 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
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.
p.2 #10 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
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.
p.2 #11 · Why 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.
Mar 05, 2026 at 11:29 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #12 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
garyvot wrote:
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 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 12:18 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #13 · Why 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.
Baloney. Can't figure out why people are so upset over 3-4% distortion, that amount has been around for years and is correctable.
p.2 #14 · Why 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.
p.2 #15 · Why 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. 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.
p.2 #16 · Why 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.
p.2 #18 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
artsupreme wrote:
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.
