fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell
1       2      
3
       4       5       end
   

Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
  
 
burningheart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


stanj wrote:
There's not that much talk about the other VCM lenses, either, yet they are fantastic. Have them all, they're great.

I'm with you Stan, one of my best decisions was to have all of them. Light, easy to pair with other lenses VCM or non VCM. I like how I can easily put one in my jacket pocket if I want to travel light on a short walk about without taking a camera bag.

I think that some reasons there is not much talk is

1. Many reviews are focused more on video use and less on stills thus it is often perceived as video lenses and not a stills lens.

2. A lot of focus on the lenses is centred on digital correction and for some they are fixated on what an image looks like without correction applied rather than what it looks like after correction. For myself it is only the final image I care about.

3. As to the 35 there was a lot of disappointment that the 35/1.2 was not released and the 35 VCM was released instead.

My sales rep Dave joked with me the other day asking if I wanted a six pack holder for my VCM's.


May 24, 2026 at 11:12 AM
jojib
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


Uarctos wrote:
Too many options out there. I still have the original 35L and love it.

Same here and I don’t see any reason for upgrading it. It’s sharp and the bokeh is silky smooth!
May 24, 2026 at 12:21 PM
stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


burningheart wrote:
My sales rep Dave joked with me the other day asking if I wanted a six pack holder for my VCM's.

Haha, the 85 and 14 had to be booted into a different drawer because I ran out of space in this one.
May 24, 2026 at 01:00 PM
campy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


burningheart wrote:
I'm with you Stan, one of my best decisions was to have all of them. Light, easy to pair with other lenses VCM or non VCM. I like how I can easily put one in my jacket pocket if I want to travel light on a short walk about without taking a camera bag.

I think that some reasons there is not much talk is

1. Many reviews are focused more on video use and less on stills thus it is often perceived as video lenses and not a stills lens.

2. A lot of focus on the lenses is centred on digital...Show more →

I think most would not be fixated at a $999 price point and not $1550. At $1550 I would expect very little correction to be needed.
May 25, 2026 at 06:23 AM
stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


campy wrote:
I think most would not be fixated at a $999 price point and not $1550. At $1550 I would expect very little correction to be needed.

I suspect you will be disappointed by the 24-105 2.8 L Z, too - and probably most other modern day lenses on the wide end, regardless of price tag.




  Canon EOS R5m2    RF24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z lens    24mm    f/8.0    1/160s    100 ISO    -0.7 EV  
May 25, 2026 at 09:32 AM
JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


stanj wrote:
I suspect you will be disappointed by the 24-105 2.8 L Z, too - and probably most other modern day lenses on the wide end, regardless of price tag.

Precisely why I’ve bought and sold a few. The uncorrected image you shared is one of the exact reasons I dumped them. To me, regardless of whether the final corrected raw is at the correct FL, the wider end of VCM all seem to require clipping around the images to do it which equates to clipping sensor data. They are pretty solid lenses at everything they do, but I didn’t like the feeling of being signed up for sensor size reduction via lens correction profiles. The salt on the wound is the fact that they’ve somehow managed to still modify the EXIF data to reflect full resolution/image size which is logically physically impossible. This is actually verifiable when you turn off profile correction and do manual corrections to match up the images.

For me, the logic just didn’t jive. I was curious what we would all be saying if this type of tom foolery was being done on the telephoto end a la cropping some in correction profiles in order to be able to claim 600mm when it requires some level of sensor cropping to get there from 575mm. Then the next question begged for me is to what extent/threshold of this type of correction we would all find acceptable before it becomes too much?
May 25, 2026 at 09:50 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


stanj wrote:
I suspect you will be disappointed by the 24-105 2.8 L Z, too - and probably most other modern day lenses on the wide end, regardless of price tag.

Posting the uncorrected image is a bit misleading without a note pointing out that normally the images are corrected by default. This is more about the issue of whether “lens optimization” is a valid approach or not.

As someone who has been a photographer since back when we had to rely on the native lens quality entirely, I share you bias. As someone who has done a whole lot of work in the digital era that embraced post-processing including corrections for some of the “faults” of lenses, I’m not so sure.
May 25, 2026 at 09:59 AM
JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


gdanmitchell wrote:
Posting the uncorrected image is a bit misleading without a note pointing out that normally the images are corrected by default. This is more about the issue of whether “lens optimization” is a valid approach or not.

As someone who has been a photographer since back when we had to rely on the native lens quality entirely, I share you bias. As someone who has done a whole lot of work in the digital era that embraced post-processing including corrections for some of the “faults” of lenses, I’m not so sure.


I imagined you would definitely take issue with this approach to wide-end lens correction since it’s essentially forcing shooters into what I imagined you’d refer to as miniFF.
May 25, 2026 at 10:14 AM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


Wouldn't the valid evaluation be: if after software corrections it's as good or better than the in-lens correction of competing options?

I added the 20 VCM as my first acquisition of the VCM primes series. Overall I'm very happy with it. When I pixel peep, I suspect that peripheral image quality is slightly compromised by software-based image correction. But it's still better than what I generally got out of Canon's EF UWA zooms, such as the various 16-35s, which required much less post-capture distortion correction. Sure, that's comparing a prime against much slower zooms, but the Canon EF 20mm/2.8 from ~30 years ago is not even close to VCM.
May 25, 2026 at 10:14 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Precisely why I’ve bought and sold a few. The uncorrected image you shared is one of the exact reasons I dumped them. To me, regardless of whether the final corrected raw is at the correct FL, the wider end of VCM all seem to require clipping around the images to do it which equates to clipping sensor data. They are pretty solid lenses at everything they do, but I didn’t like the feeling of being signed up for sensor size reduction via lens correction profiles. The salt on the wound is the fact that they’ve somehow managed to still modify...Show more →

John there is one big difference between what modern lenses do at the wide end and what they could do at the long end. What we typically see these days with digital correction is that lenses are actually wider than what they report. They shoot at a wider angle and then purposedly correct for distortion and crop the image just a bit, but the lens is actually wider than what is reported. For example, in Stan's uncorrected example that is probably 22 to 23mm even though it reports 24mm because the camera is going to crop as part of the built-in digital correction. Whether you like it or not, the same thing would work quite differently at the telephoto end. Cropping always makes the apparent resulting focal length longer. You could make the focal length longer and crop some of the image but that wouldn't bring you back to the reported focal length, it would make the lens seem longer yet. To me a lens that is actually 22mm and calling it 24mm is not cheating in the same way that calling a lens that is actually 540mm, 600mm would be.
May 25, 2026 at 10:25 AM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


gdanmitchell wrote:
Posting the uncorrected image is a bit misleading without a note pointing out that normally the images are corrected by default. This is more about the issue of whether “lens optimization” is a valid approach or not.

As someone who has been a photographer since back when we had to rely on the native lens quality entirely, I share you bias. As someone who has done a whole lot of work in the digital era that embraced post-processing including corrections for some of the “faults” of lenses, I’m not so sure.


Firstly: I don't think it's misleading in any way - I was replying directly to campy's post re: very little correction needing to be applied on a $1500 lens, showing what a lens twice the cost looks like uncorrected. Based on his response, he understood my post just fine. We may have a different opinion, but he understood mine and vice versa.

Second: Given that I own every VCM lens (as stated earlier) and obviously the 24-105Z, which requires quite some correction, one may assume I do _not_ have a bias against software correction, but rather fully embrace it. Thus I am unsure which bias you're referring to as sharing with me. I have a feeling your and my biases are rather disjoint, even beyond lenses.
May 25, 2026 at 10:31 AM
JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


Steve Spencer wrote:
John there is one big difference between what modern lenses do at the wide end and what they could do at the long end. What we typically see these days with digital correction is that lenses are actually wider than what they report. They shoot at a wider angle and then purposedly correct for distortion and crop the image just a bit, but the lens is actually wider than what is reported. For example, in Stan's uncorrected example that is probably 22 to 23mm even though it reports 24mm because the camera is going to crop as part of...Show more →

Agreed that they’re not identical. My specific point/parallel was that both result in some cropping of the sensor. Also, it raises a bigger question for me in how far we’re willing to accept cropping at any end to achieve the equivalent/stated FL.


May 25, 2026 at 10:37 AM
campy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


It appears most people don't mind the digital corrections, so let's take it a step further and have the camera post process it so well that my photos will look like Imagemasters photos.


May 25, 2026 at 05:32 PM
stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


campy wrote:
It appears most people don't mind the digital corrections, so let's take it a step further and have the camera post process it so well that my photos will look like Imagemasters photos.

I am sure that just like today's digital processing, when they build it, it will sell well, although some puritans will prefer film.
May 25, 2026 at 06:05 PM
Carlo_M
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


campy wrote:
It appears most people don't mind the digital corrections, so let's take it a step further and have the camera post process it so well that my photos will look like Imagemasters photos.

To me there is a difference between distortion and vignette correction, both relatively simple and basic corrections (we can all agree when lines are straight and when corners are about as bright as the central part of the image), vs post processing which is completely personal to the taste of the photographer (color temp, skin smoothing, noise reduction, lifting shadows, taming highlights, etc.) so that's a false equivalency.

In-camera corrections have been around for years. The vaunted RF 50 f/1.2L and RF 85 f/1.2L...both had in camera correction profiles. Check out James Reader's reviews when he compares 50s and 85s across the Canon EF/RF ecosystem. There's a section on in camera profile corrections and both of those highly respected lenses use profile correction (and not significantly more than their VCM counterparts).
May 25, 2026 at 08:40 PM
patotts
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


As a former Canon-shooter: I still think that Canon makes the best bodies on the market (R5 II, R6 III, etc) but this is the very reason I don't shoot Canon anymore. It is the lazy profiteering going on at Canon over the last years.

A) The refuse to open the lens mount because they want to squeeze very cent of profit out of the userbase.

B) We all know they can make optically superior lenses, but they chose not to in order to cut down production cost in favor of simply relying of software correction.

C) They all do this while charging optical perfection pricing?! The 35 VCM is 1749 EUR in here Europe, over 2,000 USD. I can accept the software correction design decision, but then don't charge premium pricing.

Take the new Sigma 35/1.4 II ART, it is arguably as good (or better in some aspects) than Canon 35 VCM or Sony 35 GM, and it is 999 EUR (before any discounts) - that is almost 43% cheaper than the 35 VCM.

The Canon brand tax is simply too high.


May 26, 2026 at 03:07 AM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


patotts wrote:
As a former Canon-shooter: I still think that Canon makes the best bodies on the market (R5 II, R6 III, etc) but this is the very reason I don't shoot Canon anymore. It is the lazy profiteering going on at Canon over the last years.

A) The refuse to open the lens mount because they want to squeeze very cent of profit out of the userbase.

B) We all know they can make optically superior lenses, but they chose not to in order to cut down production cost in favor of simply relying of software correction.

C) They all do this while...Show more →

I don't believe cost savings is the primary motivating factor for the VCM primes line. There is a clear design goal with this series that requires each lens to be very similar in size and to a lesser degree, weight.

From Canon's perspective the software correction is a value add not value subtraction. It allows features that some in the user base may prioritize over uncompromised SOOC image quality. With the VCM primes being 'hybrid' designs, there is a huge range of potential users to satisfy.

From what I've gotten out of my one VCM prime lens, the compromises are balanced the way I would like them to be. If utmost image quality was my priority, and if I had the budget, I'd own the full set of Leica APO-Summicron-SL-ASPH lenses (the current going rate for optical perfection - the VCM lenses are cheap in comparison). But there is in-camera lens correction even with Leica's SL series. And with every other mirrorless system.

Canon's optically superior lenses, such as the RF 85/1.2L, are huge and heavy. It is a significant reason why I don't have that lens. I had the EF 85/1.2L and 85/1.4L IS and would instead replace those with the VCM because of size and weight considerations.


May 26, 2026 at 03:44 AM
melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


rscheffler wrote:
Canon's optically superior lenses, such as the RF 85/1.2L, are huge and heavy. It is a significant reason why I don't have that lens. I had the EF 85/1.2L and 85/1.4L IS and would instead replace those with the VCM because of size and weight considerations.

I have the 85mm f/1.4 VCM for the same reasons. From my reading of reviews, it’s slightly sharper than the f/1.2 and has somewhat worse bokeh. Indeed I do still see some longitudinal chromatic aberration if I go looking for it, but much less than from the Zeiss 100mm f/2 I was previously using, and I regard it as a worthwhile tradeoff for the lack of focus breathing (which, as a stills shooter, has always annoyed me). It’s an excellent lens and comparable in quality to the Sony.

The lens does annoy me cosmetically with its single button and iris ring, although I understand their purposes for video.

But the 85mm is an exception among the VCMs in not requiring a lot of in-camera correction. Maybe it’s the Dutch and Scottish ancestry, but I find it hard to see the value in the other VCMs as a stills shooter, when other manufacturers do better. Whether they are objectively good enough doesn’t matter, it’s a question of appropriate price.

I do have an upcoming video project where a 35mm f/1.4 could be useful, but according to my tests the EF 35mm f/1.4 (the first version) should be good enough for what I want to do. So I suppose if I didn’t happen to already own that lens I’d be a potential buyer of the 35mm VCM on the basis that it would be good enough for video. For stills, I know they can do better, because they did with the second EF version. Unfortunately, modern zooms and the popularity of high-end compacts like the Leica Q3 have probably destroyed most of the market for a stills-oriented 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2.
May 26, 2026 at 04:50 AM
patotts
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


The real question, to me, is "Was the RF mount design a good decision?"

The RF mount, when it was released in 2018, with its 54mm diameter and 20mm flange distance, was touted as having big benefits. The mount specs where going to unlock a new era of compact, optically great and affordable lenses - things that would be impossible on e.g. Sony's 46.1mm E-mount. I would argue that the last 8 years have proven something else.

Nikon's 16mm flange distance has allowed them to use Sony and many other lenses on the Z mount. Sony has an "open" lens mount (still with some restrictions and licensing), but both have proven more flexible and offering more choices for users. Canon has, on the other hand, produced lenses that are - most times - bigger, heavier and more expensive than the competition. Opposite of what they said was the point of the RF mount.

Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for Canon and I do really like their gear, the AF system, the ergs, the color science (and as I said, they actually make my favorite camera bodies, e.g. Canon R5 II and R6 III) etc, etc, etc - I just wish they solve their lens selection and pricing/value equation.

(Yes, I do understand the design brief of the VCM line-up as being a hybrid video/photo offering, uniform in design, weight, and size)
May 26, 2026 at 06:14 AM
Carlo_M
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC


patotts wrote:
The real question, to me, is "Was the RF mount design a good decision?"

The RF mount, when it was released in 2018, with its 54mm diameter and 20mm flange distance, was touted as having big benefits. The mount specs where going to unlock a new era of compact, optically great and affordable lenses - things that would be impossible on e.g. Sony's 46.1mm E-mount. I would argue that the last 8 years have proven something else.

Full disclosure, I was on my photography hiatus when Canon went from EF to RF (shot in earnest 2008-2013 then picked it up again in 2023-current) so I totally missed the justification as to why the RF mount was adopted.

You mentioned that they touted the RF would "unlock a new era of compact, optically great, affordable..." which kind of flies against the "you can have 2 out of 3" engineering principle. If everything could easily be small, optically great, and affordable, then someone would have done it by now and dominated the camera world. But right now Canon, Nikon and Sony all have their solid fanbases.

I went on an admittedly shallow dive to try and find any press release or article from the 2018 era that might indicate where Canon promised those three things, and couldn't really find it (if you have a link feel free to post).

I did come across this:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/0967290858/canon-full-frame-mirrorless-system-launches-with-four-rf-mount-lenses

This was a September 2018 coverage of the first four RF lenses released. The MSRPs are higher now, but even then they were not inexpensive (save the non L lens). From the official Canon press release located further down the DP Review article:
The Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L USM will be available in October 2018 for an estimated retail price of $2299. The Canon RF 28-70mm F2 L USM, RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM and RF 35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM will all be available for purchase in December 2018 for an estimated retail price of $2999, $1099 and $499.99 respectively.

And even the top of that Canon Press release, where they do tout the benefits of the RF line, I don't see a mention of lowered costs/affordability:
MELVILLE, N.Y., September 5, 2018 – Helping to rewrite the rules of visual expression, Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today introduced a variety of new RF lenses and accessories to accompany the newly announced EOS R Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera System. The four new RF lenses are built around Canon’s new RF mount, which features a large 54mm diameter and shorter back focus distance than on current EOS DSLR cameras. The new RF mount enables new possibilities in optical design and lens formulation, allowing for faster and lighter lenses with higher performing optics.

The four new lenses, the Canon...Show more →

Look, I'm also not thrilled at paying more for camera gear overall. But I can't find evidence of Canon saying that the change to RF would make their lenses more affordable. If they were touting that, I'd be right alongside you calling them on that fallacy.
May 26, 2026 at 02:48 PM
1       2      
3
       4       5       end
FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account
Reset passwordNo account? Register