Canon Launches RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Wide-angle Zoom Lens

[Tim Mayo]

Canon has just launched their latest RF lens and this time it's the RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM wide-angle zoom lens.



The lens is scheduled to be available in August 2021 with a lofty price tag of $1,699.00 (US) or £1,749.00 (UK). What do you think to the price? Is this reasonable for an F4 lens?

Pre-orders have already started (affiliate links)

• B&H Photo (US)
• Adorama (US)
• Wex Photo (UK)
• Park Cameras (UK)

A few YouTube videos worth watching:

Canon's product page for the lens:
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...m/rf14-35mm-f4-l-is-usm/rf14-35mm-f4-l-is-usm


Full Specs:

• Focal Length: 14-35mm
• Maximum and Minimum Aperture: F4-F22 (at all zoom settings)
• Lens Mount Type: RF Mount; Metal Mount
• Minimum Focusing Distance: 7.9 in. (0.2m), at all zoom settings
• Maximum Magnification: 0.38x, at 35mm zoom setting
• Angle of View (Diagonal): 114°00' – 63°00'
• Lens Construction: 16 elements in 12 groups Special Elements: Three UD-glass elements, three Aspherical elements, includes one UD Aspherical lens element Lens Coating: Canon SSC (Super Spectra Coating), Canon SWC (Sub-wavelength Structure Coating), Canon ASC (Air Sphere Coating), Fluorine coating on front surface of front element
• Filter Size Diameter: Ø77mm
• Aperture Blades: 9; circular shape
• Lens Switches: AF/MF switch, Stabilizer ON/OFF switch
• Dust/Water Resistance: Weather-resistant seals at lens mount, switches, zoom ring, focus ring, and Control Ring Focusing System: Nano USM; rear focusing system
• Dual Pixel CMOS AF Coverage: EOS R5, R6 - approx. 100% horizontal and vertical. EOS R, RP - approx. 88% (horizontal) x 100% (vertical)
• Full-time Manual Focusing: Yes (One-Shot AF only)
• Control Ring: Yes. Click-stops provided (60 clicks/full revolution). Click stops can be removed by Canon service facility, for a service fee.
• IS Mode Selection: None (automatic panning detection provided)
• Optical Image Stabilization: Provided. 5.5 stops optical IS correction with EOS R and RP. Conforms to CIPA test standards, using EOS R Coordinated IS (with EOS R5, R6): Up to 7 stops Coordinated IS correction. Conforms to CIPA test standards, using EOS R5
• Maximum Outer Diameter x Length: Approx. ø3.3 in. x 3.9 in. (approx. ø84.1mm x 99.8mm). Minimum length at approx. 22mm zoom position. Maximum length at 35mm zoom position - approx. 4.25 in. / 107.9mm
• Weight: Approx. 1.2 lb. (approx. 19.0 oz. / 540g)

 

[GordonM]

Still not sure how the price differential between $1699 (£1231) & £1749 is justified?

 

[Tim Mayo]

Still not sure how the price differential between $1699 (£1231) & £1749 is justified?

The US prices are always without local taxes added. If you take the 20% VAT off £1749 you are now down to £1399. But yep we do still always seem to pay a little more.

 

[Hali]

I'm pretty excited about that, when I got out a lot to do astro I wouldn't have been interested in an f/4 lens like that. Now that I've gotten lazy I might add that to my RF collection, if there isn't a bad infrared hot spot, which many of the f/4 lenses don't. In the US for $1699.00 and the 2.8 version is $2168.00 Not a huge difference but with tax it adds up.

 

[dmiller68]

Well I would have thought it would have been around $1000, but it is a $1000 cheaper then the 2.8 version. This allows them to release a 4.0-7.1 14-35 version in the $800 price range.

 

[GordonM]

The US prices are always without local taxes added. If you take the 20% VAT off £1749 you are now down to £1399. But yep we do still always seem to pay a little more.

Equally if you add 20% to £1231 (the US $ price without tax) it’s still around £400 higher…

 

[Ed Cordes]

Seems like a lot of $$ to me. Is it that much better than my adapted 16-35 F4 L?

 

[edt]

Seems like a lot of $$ to me. Is it that much better than my adapted 16-35 F4 L?

Ed,
yes, if you buy it--it's much better for Canon, lol! I have an EF16-35 too, and I'm thinking if I keep it it's much better for me! the RF does have a wider field of view but my EF16-35 is excellent too...at least that's my current thinking. subject to change any time GAS strikes!
Ed

 

[DrQandil]

Well I would have thought it would have been around $1000, but it is a $1000 cheaper then the 2.8 version. This allows them to release a 4.0-7.1 14-35 version in the $800 price range.

You are right, i expected a lower price, an much lower price, no more than a $1000! Disappointed and a little sad.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Just received mine yesterday evening. Was it expensive? Yes. But considering that I'm a recent convert after a decade of shooting Nikon, when I consider the sum total of what I've spent to have an effective 14-700mm focal distance range in a footprint that fits in a messenger bag, I'm quite happy. If I wanted 14mm with Nikon I had to use rear-loaded filters, which would be fine if I had that option for others. Yet here my 77mm Lee set works just fine.

I'll post some images as I get things worth sharing, but I'm completely happy with the edge to edge, corner to corner sharpness I'm seeing on my R5.

 

[EarthShadow]

Looks like a good, compact lens. But, price is high. It is the prices of the lenses and bodies that will likely push me to Nikon when I go mirrorless.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Canon’s L series glass is expensive, sure, but it appears (like with the upcoming 100-400mm) that they also plan on releasing more affordable options, and it’s sharp as heck. Look, I paid $1100 for Nikon’s 16-35mm f4 back in the day as an alternative to the 14-28mm f2.8 which makes the Canon look affordable. Mirrorless is still shaking out and chip shortages are making the rollout of new options seem like an eternity, and while we have a Nikon lens roadmap we don’t have prices there either. No arm twisting here, but I think we’re going to see both “are you kidding me?!” and affordable options from both sides when it shakes out. And from recent history I expect Canon to shake out first.

 

[minskerm]

It's also 300g lighter than the RF 16-35 F/2.8

 

[BruceW]

I’m keeping my EF16-35 f2.8 III version lens. I’d like to have the 14mm, but I prefer f2.8 and I’ve got my eye on a few other RF lens (I don’t have a single RF lens yet).