Thanks for this fair review. I think I'll hold onto my EF 16-35 F4L for awhile longer. I don't shoot that wide often enough to justify it, especially at the price.
I got it for $1100 USD, new. No other wide in my full frame repertoire before this, so I've been very happy with it. It's a delight. Thank you for your reviews, Chris!
The prices Canon is charging for its native mirrorless glass totally deters me from seriously thinking about mirrorless. Not sure what market Canon have in mind, other than a shrinking one! Will remain with my not new,but perfectly adequate for my needs, 6D and L glass etc. Good review thanks Chris.
You can always put EF glass on an R body. Although I wish Sigma and Tamron would start making RF lenses, so that they can drive prices down. I now own two RF lenses: a 28-70 f/2.0, and a 100-500. And I could only justify the price by the fact that they can basically replace multiple other lenses put together. But even then, I still wouldn't call them good value for money, and wouldn't recommend them to most people just because of the price. For good value for money alternatives, I'd probably tell people to buy a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2, and one of the 100-400's instead.
I agree with you. I could get the RF holy trinity lineup in a heartbeat but I won't do it. It's really expensive. Not to mention the new Flashgun for the EOS R(x) lineup that costs over €1100 (yikes!). I dare to say that my EF 16-35 F4.0 is sharper than this lens for half the price I paid for it back when it was released. Although, I have to say the AF with the RF adapter on my EOS R is faster in comparison to my old 5D3. I sold my 5D3 to partially finance my EOS R back in 2019. Even the Tamron fixed focal length lenses I have + one old Sigma 85 EX DG HSM work very well with my EOS R + adapter. However, I have to tweak the exposure compensation (+1.5) with my old Sigma 85mm 1.4 slapped on, and disable in-camera lens corrections to get match-to-scenery results.
Great review as always. It so happens that I broke my piggy bank and bought this 2 days ago, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm using the more forgiving R6 and on that body it's flawless. I was also very suprised to see very pronounced sunstars at f4 and I can happily report that even with a NiSi v7 filter holder with 10 stop filter + soft grad I suffer from no vignetting after applying the default lens profile correction in Lightroom. What a time to be alive with all this "next-gen" technology!
I subscribed to this channel a while back when I realized that this was my “go to” channel whenever I wanted to learn about a particular lens. With this video, I also watched the one on the RF 15-30 (non L). It was quite interesting to realize that the cheaper lens performed almost as well as the L series lens. In fact, it performs even better at the widest angle (vignetting and distortion). So, unless you absolutely need a constant f4, weather sealing and a more rugged construction, the RF 15-30 is a no brainer, as far as I’m concerned. Great video as always and many thanks for this amazing work, Christopher!
Canon got so comfortable relying on digital correction to compensate the flaws of its cheaper lenses, that started moving the practice to the L line. The high price that Canon charges for its glass should be delivered as high performance glass, and not as the camera ability to correct its lower points.
@@JeanV1986 Agreed. It's a similar change than Sigma made going from the 85 DG (DSLR) to the 85 DG DN (mirrorless). The lens is almost half as heavy and large, but requires correction. If image quality is good in the end, fine with me, I'll take the smaller lens as long as the end result is still good.
Honestly it doesn't bother me as much, as long as the final image looks good. Digital correction is a powerful tool when utilised correctly, and allows the lens designing to focus on certain other areas without compromising on the final product. Sure I'd love a lens that looks good without any corrections, but with budget in mind I can stomach digital correction.
So compared to the Nikon Z equivalent, it seems the differences are: - 5mm at the long end, obviously - Nikon is a bit smaller and lighter - Nikon clearly wins for sharpness at the wide end across the frame - The Canon does seem to edge it out wide open at the long end, though - A little less distortion than the Nikon, though both are pretty brutal at the wide end. Nikon also flips into significant pincushion distortion at the long end. - Vignetting is pretty bad on both, though Canon recovers a bit at the long end - Close-focusing capabilities of the Canon far outstrip the Nikon - Better against bright lights than the Nikon - Bokeh similar on both, though the Canon might have a slight edge - But that price difference: in my country it's about $700USD! Seems kind of hard to recommend Canon RF over Nikon Z to landscape photographers at this point, given this and the price advantage the Z7 has over the R5.
Seems kind of hard to recommend changing to Nikon over Canon over some minor differences in one zoom lens. If I own the Canon ecosystem why would I care about Nikon lenses?
@@johncottrell7901 this is true, however I was thinking more along the lines of people moving from systems like Micro Four Thirds or maybe Pentax K. Obviously if you're already invested in one, then you should probably stick with it since they're both good.
These lenses like all UWA mirrorless zooms are explicitly designed to be used with the lens corrections . They are uncorrected a little wider than the focal length suggests and the corrected results give the focal length labelled. We can complain about this but it is the way of pretty much all uwa mirrorless lenses and it is really folly to disable them
Canon's strategy on lens design and pricing is discouraging for hobbyists and enthusiast shooters. Prices are just out of affordability range. Luckily, sony and nikon have not abandoned this group.
I got this lens on special, since inception Canon has rarely had any real special prices on their RF lenses like Nikon . But I wanted the more compact size over the f2.8
Canon was very late on the mirrorless market, they needed to show some muscles and make clear who is the leader of the market - hence the L lenses. The more affordable ones will come later, as was with the Ef system. It’s a precise marketing move, it paid years ago and will probably pay again. Let’s see…
The more digital doctoring the lower the resolution and this lens needs a lot at the wider half. I predict this will be the first "L" series zoom to get a "II" version.
I purchased this lens as a replacement to my landscape workhorse EF 17-40 f/4 L, the RF 14-35 f/4 IS L has been an excellent tool allowing me so much versatility and it produces incredible images for its size and weight. I love it. Also no more EF-RF adapter which is fantastic! I will be converting all my lenses eventually, thanks for the review.
It's a nice lens but i feel like it's very overpriced. Would have been amazing if it was 50mm on the long end, making it a truly versatile everyday and travel lens.
Clearly Canon is charging very high for this, if I have to buy an ultrawide lens today I will chose the 15-35 rf f2.8 over this. Expected it to be priced below 1200$
That's what I did. f2.8 being an older lens goes on sale sometimes, and I was able to picked it up for only $500 more than this f4. I think a full stop is well worth the extra.
Optically seems worse than Nikon's z 14-30 especially given the price. One can say it has 35mm on the long end, but for the price of this lens you can almost buy Nikon's 14-30z and 24-70 f4 together.
And to have this range plus autofocus that's useful for anything outside of landscapes, you'd need a Z9. The cost of a Z9 and the 14-30 f/4 is just about the same (in the US) as an R5 and the more expensive 15-35 f/2.8. The wide end distortion and vignetting on this lens is _completely_ unacceptable though. I'll give you that one.
@@RealRaynedance complete nonsense. I've been earning a living from my Z6 and Z6ii for over two years. Don't believe the exaggerated garbage you see on the internet, especially from the tumbleweed head and the $outhrups, and any other wannabe iNfLueNcErS who try to make a name for themselves by peddling the hate Nikon line. The DSLRs were great, the Z mirrorless are really good, and the Z lenses are phenomenal for their price point.
@@bencollins7684 Thank you for the completely unnecessary attacks toward people and your anecdotal evidence. The Nikon Z cameras have failed me in every scenario I've tried using them in outside of street photography and manual focus. I bought an a7III for a reason. Begone, fanboy.
@@RealRaynedance lol do you really think that me saying "complete nonsense" is a personal attack? I wasn't trying to be a prick, just stating the facts that I (and many others) use the Z cameras to earn an income, and to do so, we have to rely on the AF. By the way, your "Nikon Z cameras have failed me" is... also anecdotal evidence. I think that you really can't go wrong buying a modern camera, whichever brand you choose. Just don't believe the nonsense you hear from the influenzas.
Thanks for the review. I’m considering in buying an UWA-lens for my R6, but this one is to expensive for me. Canon released recently the cheaper RF 15-30 lens. Can we expect a review of this new lens too?
Just purchased this Lens from onestopdigital , used them before never had issue , the lens was a little over £900 with a one year warranty . Nice to see my hometown of Ramsgate in the review !!
Another great review, please is the CANON RF 14 - 15mm F.4 better than the CANON RF 15 - 35 F. 2.8 ? Which one do you recommend if money is not a problem ?
If money's no object, then the 15-35 will give you better image quality. However, you should take the weight into consideration if you plan to go hiking. A lot of landscape photographers use F4 lenses for that reason. It's better to use an inferior (though still good) lens and get the shot than to have a great lens that you don't take anywhere because of the weight. If you plan on doing a lot of astrophotography, the f2.8 aperture will be a significant advantage, though.
I got this lens discounted, so far I’m very happy with it , I wanted the more compact size over the 2.8 , the 14-35 range is more practical than 14-24. Canon has rarely gone in for discounts since the RF mount inception. All manufacturers these days are relying more & more on software correction, so I consider the criticisms of Canon to be a little unfair in comparison to other brands. All lenses are a trade off this for that. Very keen to seen the new Nikon z 24-120 f/4 review !
Surprising "high recommended ". Absolutely a convenient lens for its range and stabilization, but a terrible performance to price ratio. The Nikkor Z 14-30/4 seems much better in that regard. Anyway appreciate your reviews, there awesome 🤗
I think canon did it better then Nikon by keeping 77mm filter treat on trinity F4 lens. Also this baby got image stabilization what with body stabilization you can get away tripod and do 1s expose handheld. That mind-blowing, so it's excellent hiking lens 🤠
@@KGi4 I disagree, I believe among many others that 82 mm gives less room for vigneting and distortion to appear, and you always buy the biggest filter that you can and that also eliminates the need for step up rings.
@@Willymaze it's still be vignetting no matter what diameter your lens front element is. It's how lens desiged. My point is that 77mmnis cheaper and since Canon kept same size for F4 Trinity lens, just shows how convenient it is and how smart Canon does this job. Also VR for this wide range lens is excellent even if lens is F4, so VR basic can compensate for not being f2.8 making this lens more practice in handheld shooting 🥳✊ price is high cuz lens it's made of high quality for future proof. It's an investment 🤑
So it's fourth canon RF lens with this cut corners on wide end. If I were reviewing this lens, I would just stop at this point. I fundamentally do not accept such a phenomenon and consider it a critical design defect. I am not satisfied with the excuse that it is a "cheap lens", or a "kit lens" - there's no such things on EF 24-105 4-5.6 stm, or even ef-s 18-55. Not even close ! But when it appears on "L" lens....
Not particularly impressed with the minuscule improvement stopping down has on corner sharpness at either extremes of the focal length range, even at f8 it is not very sharp.
great video as always - i noticed you compare to a 14-24 from other brands (not as good as these you mention) - can you elaborate on which lenses you referring to?
Hi Chris, New sub here. Nice video. I have this lens coming in the next couple of weeks since I’m traveling and won’t be back until then. I’m reading through the comment section and can understand the frustration of the expensive RF zooms lenses at 2.8, but for this particular one, I see it different: - you can add filters in the front - you don’t need to buy another 14mm lens to carry around with you - it’s lighter and compact for long hikes and travels - the size and balance when you change the focal length makes it easier to balance on gimbal without having to rebalance it - if you don’t need to shoot in lowlight and save $600+. I shoot landscape and need sharp images at f8 and above so this works perfect I do agree that the sweet spot is $1200-$1500 but that would cannibalize the 15-35/2.8 so from Canon’s perspective, why would they do that. If you want to get these prices, wait when other RF lenses are released and there will be aftermarket sellers going for the latest or better IQ and/or 3rd parties. I got mine for $1400 on Ebay and my copy was used once and person decided to switch system. I also have the EF 16-35/4 with a metabones adapter that I will keep as it will give me f2.8 when I ever need lowlight shooting. -
Hi, another great review! How would you compare its performance against the RF 15-35? Your review on that was with R so not 100% the same to compare. I am torn in my choice between those 2...
Another excellent review. Some time ago I was watching some old videos about weird lenses and I saw your review of the Canon 24-85... and it was great! What do you think about the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5? Is it as sharp as the 24-85?
Hi, Thanks for the great reviews over the years. I am a Canon fan and for many years I built up my collection of EF - L Series lens, having the 16-35 f 2.8, 24-70 f 2.8, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f 2.8 and f4 (weight manners) and 100-400 mark I. Now after 2 years, I decided to migrate to Canon R5. Question? Is it worth migrate all my EF- Lens L series to RF L series? or should I stick with the adapter, wich so far, seems to be working fine. I don't see much loss of auto focus and quality. The problem is that RF L series lens price hurt the pocket.....Thanks for all the heads up, I never buy any lens without looking to your reviews.
I think a lot of Canon photographers are asking the same question, and I feel it's not an easy question to answer unless money is of no issue. Also I feel it depends if your a professional and make money from your photography. Personally as a amateur photographer like myself I would keep using the adapter and the EF lenses then slowly purchase RF lenses at a rate that is acceptable to you and your pocket book. So far I have purchased one lens the Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM and the journey begins, good luck👍
The extending barrel makes this lens feeling like the EF-S 10-18 lens... not necessarily 'L'-like in my eyes. I see why they did this, perhaps to save some space and weight - however, that is a tedious decision.
I always check out these reviews when considering a lens purchase and I must say that this one in particular was the deciding factor in my upgrading my EF 16-35mm F4L on and adapter for the RF 14-35mm F4L for my EOS R body. I got the EF version initially for use on my M50 with benefit of it also being usable on my EOS R. But the improved image quality combined with the size and weight advantages were enough to persuade me to make the change. I should mention that I use this class of lens mainly for real estate and landscape so I am always on a tripod so the slower f4 is not a problem and the wider field of view is a big plus.
How can you say that this rf 14-35 f/4 L is sharper than the older ef 16-35 f/4L IS lens? The CF review of the ef lens has much sharper corner to corner sharpness. I'm hanging on to my old ef 16-35 and using it with an adapter on my r5 with great results.
The part that NOBODY MENTIONS is that even after correction the corners look just as good or even better than other lenses that are not relying on corrections.
Canon is smart by launching excellent value 16stm and this 14-35L at the same time. $299 vs $1699 both reply on digital correction. They are going to sell tonnes loads of 16stm. On the other hand, Nikon 6 glasses 4 group 40mm F2 sounds smells looks so vintage, also at $299. People are spoiled with choices.
I would have liked to see a comparison of angles. Firstly to get a grip on how wide 14mm are and secondly because apparently the in-camera-corrections lead to you not getting "real" 14mm. Otherwise a super great show of the lens. I never buy before watching your video on any lens!
Canon recent design philosophy seems to rely less on correcting distortion and engineer "to the edge" regarding vignetting and later solve it via in-camera correction.
All manufacturers do that now, not just Canon. It has advantages too, making lenses smaller and less complex. Unfortunately does not reduce the prices seems like.
Canon just released (for pre-order) a budget 16mm f2.8 RF lens which you have reviewed earlier. I wonder how this one performs compared to the similarly priced Samyang 14mm f2.8 AF RF lens which you have not reviewed (if you did I can't find it) ?
I'm definitely keeping my EF 16-35 f/4L IS after seeing this review... I would prefer to have the lens do the work of distortion compensation instead of the camera body.
I just got this lens sort of brand new in the United States at a big box store for $650. I say "sort of brand new" because it was the display model behind glass and was in mint shape. I couldn't pass up the price.
Thanks for the GREAT review 🙏 I am looking for a Canon RF lens for video walks (probably to couple with the Canon R5C). The FOV should be ~90 degrees which is around 20 to 21mm. Any cheaper option from Canon? Thanks!
@@jbag7641 Yes, it is perfect for me because I already had the 7d M II and I have no problem with the perception of the aps-c crop against gull frame. Maybe, if you are used to FF, you will find it annoying.
@@rmm9747 appreciate the answer! I’ve got an R7 as my only experience with a quality cameras and snagging this lens now for an elope trip to Iceland for us to take our own wedding photos with. Thanks a ton!
I bought this lens early November and this review made me hate it. I bought because I will be starting a new career in real estate appraisal next year and wanted to have a good lens for it but that distortion at 14mm is insane. I haven't really had a chance to take it out yet and see, I only shot it in 35mm. Why didn't you shoot any 15mm shots to compare withe the 15-35mm? **edit** I love your channel and appreciate the honest review. Not bashing you or anything but ugh I feel distressed after watching this.
Very good review, really like your channel. As for this lens, as many others similar in aperture, they show the overall trend on the market towards slower and smaller lenses. And this trend in full frame actually confirms my decision to stay with MFT. Going to FF for the supposed increase in performance (which is a valid argument), to end up pairing the camera bodies with slower lenses than you can get in MFT for cheaper and smaller, sort of DEFEATS the PURPOSE.
Keep in mind that since the MFT sensor has a 2x crop factor compared to a full-frame sensor, it lets in 1/4 of the light, so you'd need an f/2 lens on an MFT camera to have the same light gathering as an f/4 on a full-frame camera.
Yeah it's much worse than Sony 16-35 f4 ( a 7yrs old lens! ) and about the same as Nikon Z 14-30 f4 while it is a real 14mm not like this lens which is about 15mm compared to Samyang 14mm in Dustin Abbott's review.
@@rimtiggins6078 It's advertised as 14mm and it's not for sure. Being wider than 15 is the least they had to do. You can also check out Gordon Laing review to see it by your own eyes!
@@networm64 The final angle of view depends on the amount of correction applied. Out of camera JPEGs are somewhere between 14 and 15mm, but you can go wider with RAW files. Is it a perfect solution? No, but with a zoom range this broad you're always gonna encounter compromises. With the Nikon, you lose 5mm at the long end, which isn't ideal either.
Nikon Z 14-30 is sharper if I remember correctly. But 35mm is very useful. Best thing is the 77mm filter thread where you can probybly use 82mm filters without vignetting. For the Z 14-30 you need 95mm filters ...
I have this lens & love it.. I use it for real estate photography & videos for various things.. It's stabilization is top notch & it works well with both my R5 & R6
Wow I'm just shocked how you could highly recommend this lens considering it's extraordinary price! Wasn't you a little too nice to Canon? Claiming it has best AF in the world while no other multi brand reviewer which I follow haven't said that. I had to watch again your review of the Sony 16-35 f4 and that video had rather more complaint about the price and that lens was not highly recommended even though it's 1000£ compared to the 1500£ in this case!
I'm hoping that Sony, or one of its third-party manufacturers, design a similar lens in FE. I'd seriously consider it as a "do-it-all" UWA instead of having to combine (or choose between) the so-so Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (which is heavy and only gives you 1 focal length for 500 GBP), Sony's own 16-35mm f/4 (which I have, but is showing its age), and Sigma's or Sony's 14- or 12-24mm f/4s (which lack the very useful 24-35 bit). This does cover so much it's very compelling even at a high-ish price.
Am planning to get the R7 with the 14-35/4 as the 18-150/3.5 6.3 is ot in stock. Other than lens will not go as wide angle, are there any issues? Will it be ok as a travel lens?
I opened parallel this review and the one of Nikon 14-30 on the same channel. Watching on my 32-inch PC monitor, the Nikon lens is way sharper @ 14 and equal at other focal lengths when wide open. When stopped down, Nikon lens is sharper across the board. In my country it's also about €500 cheaper. I rarely see such big difference in 1st party lenses. Impressive.
I'm a bit surprised at your recommendation, but I do get how versatile it is. I wonder how it performs on an APSC sensor, since 14mm is really very wide, and going to an effective 21mm would still be fine, but the 35mm would be an effective 55mm .... almost shooting an 18-55mm "kit" lens for full frame.
I still own my old EF 16-35 f4 and use it with an adaptor on my R6. Looking at its performance, i dont know what canon did to it... but im dissapointed. I guess ill stick with my adapted 16-35 f4 EF. I eyed at the f2.8 version but that is super expensive and with me wanting to get the 100-500RF if its ever available again, ill skip this. Plus the old EF version doesnt have a huge change in center of mass with the adaptor. (e.g. the old 70-200 f2.8 IS ii, due to its length and weight, is VERY front heavy with the adapter, and thus i got the new one, since its also much more compact - ideal for hiking)
I have an Olympus 8-25mm f4 lens, the focal length is 16 to 50mm, it's pretty much my ideal landscape lens. These new lenses by Canon and Nikon are definitely not making me regret doubling down on micro 4/3.
Oof. Way too expensive. I much prefer the offerings from the Sony and Nikon systems. Canon lenses either seem really ghetto and small aperture or super expensive.
Hope you are doing well Here is what i see without scientific experiment. An issue of both of my two R6s but have observed this in all r6 that i have seen!! Please take a look at your body. Take 2 photos with... 1/8000 in a uniform background One shot with mechanical shutter and one with 1C-E shutter mode. In my bodies, the one with mechanical mode shutter, appears more bright in the lower half of the image and darker on the other half. In contrast, the one with 1C-e shutter mode (which the default shutter mode) appears normally exposured. This difference happens on shutter speeds more than 1/1000 and it most exaggerated in 1/8000. This is a major canon r6 and r5 flaw because the two images should look identical. Thank you
14mm is terrible IMO. 24mm is good, 35mm is passable. But 14mm is the most important part of this lens. Canon really charging through the nose for mediocrity these days. I'll have the Fuji 8-16 thanks. How Canon dares to charge *more* than an APS-C lens for another system that is WAY better in every way is mind boggling.
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for this fair review. I think I'll hold onto my EF 16-35 F4L for awhile longer. I don't shoot that wide often enough to justify it, especially at the price.
The price is the killer.
I got it for $1100 USD, new. No other wide in my full frame repertoire before this, so I've been very happy with it. It's a delight.
Thank you for your reviews, Chris!
The prices Canon is charging for its native mirrorless glass totally deters me from seriously thinking about mirrorless.
Not sure what market Canon have in mind, other than a shrinking one!
Will remain with my not new,but perfectly adequate for my needs, 6D and L glass etc.
Good review thanks Chris.
You can always put EF glass on an R body. Although I wish Sigma and Tamron would start making RF lenses, so that they can drive prices down.
I now own two RF lenses: a 28-70 f/2.0, and a 100-500. And I could only justify the price by the fact that they can basically replace multiple other lenses put together.
But even then, I still wouldn't call them good value for money, and wouldn't recommend them to most people just because of the price.
For good value for money alternatives, I'd probably tell people to buy a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2, and one of the 100-400's instead.
I agree with you. I could get the RF holy trinity lineup in a heartbeat but I won't do it. It's really expensive. Not to mention the new Flashgun for the EOS R(x) lineup that costs over €1100 (yikes!). I dare to say that my EF 16-35 F4.0 is sharper than this lens for half the price I paid for it back when it was released. Although, I have to say the AF with the RF adapter on my EOS R is faster in comparison to my old 5D3. I sold my 5D3 to partially finance my EOS R back in 2019. Even the Tamron fixed focal length lenses I have + one old Sigma 85 EX DG HSM work very well with my EOS R + adapter. However, I have to tweak the exposure compensation (+1.5) with my old Sigma 85mm 1.4 slapped on, and disable in-camera lens corrections to get match-to-scenery results.
@@adamk.5552 Canon will do something about their lens prices, if not it will simply deter sales of RF mount bodies.
Great review as always. It so happens that I broke my piggy bank and bought this 2 days ago, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm using the more forgiving R6 and on that body it's flawless. I was also very suprised to see very pronounced sunstars at f4 and I can happily report that even with a NiSi v7 filter holder with 10 stop filter + soft grad I suffer from no vignetting after applying the default lens profile correction in Lightroom. What a time to be alive with all this "next-gen" technology!
I subscribed to this channel a while back when I realized that this was my “go to” channel whenever I wanted to learn about a particular lens. With this video, I also watched the one on the RF 15-30 (non L). It was quite interesting to realize that the cheaper lens performed almost as well as the L series lens. In fact, it performs even better at the widest angle (vignetting and distortion). So, unless you absolutely need a constant f4, weather sealing and a more rugged construction, the RF 15-30 is a no brainer, as far as I’m concerned. Great video as always and many thanks for this amazing work, Christopher!
Canon got so comfortable relying on digital correction to compensate the flaws of its cheaper lenses, that started moving the practice to the L line. The high price that Canon charges for its glass should be delivered as high performance glass, and not as the camera ability to correct its lower points.
Well, you should be ready for a much bigger lens if you wanted perfect optical corrections.
@@JeanV1986 Agreed. It's a similar change than Sigma made going from the 85 DG (DSLR) to the 85 DG DN (mirrorless). The lens is almost half as heavy and large, but requires correction. If image quality is good in the end, fine with me, I'll take the smaller lens as long as the end result is still good.
who cares as long as the end result is good
@@timothyconner3474 agreed - especially if that means smaller lenses with the same quality.
Honestly it doesn't bother me as much, as long as the final image looks good. Digital correction is a powerful tool when utilised correctly, and allows the lens designing to focus on certain other areas without compromising on the final product. Sure I'd love a lens that looks good without any corrections, but with budget in mind I can stomach digital correction.
that 14mm wide range is tempting, but at over double the cost of my 16-35 f/4 it just doesn't seem worth it.
So compared to the Nikon Z equivalent, it seems the differences are:
- 5mm at the long end, obviously
- Nikon is a bit smaller and lighter
- Nikon clearly wins for sharpness at the wide end across the frame
- The Canon does seem to edge it out wide open at the long end, though
- A little less distortion than the Nikon, though both are pretty brutal at the wide end. Nikon also flips into significant pincushion distortion at the long end.
- Vignetting is pretty bad on both, though Canon recovers a bit at the long end
- Close-focusing capabilities of the Canon far outstrip the Nikon
- Better against bright lights than the Nikon
- Bokeh similar on both, though the Canon might have a slight edge
- But that price difference: in my country it's about $700USD!
Seems kind of hard to recommend Canon RF over Nikon Z to landscape photographers at this point, given this and the price advantage the Z7 has over the R5.
Seems kind of hard to recommend changing to Nikon over Canon over some minor differences in one zoom lens. If I own the Canon ecosystem why would I care about Nikon lenses?
@@johncottrell7901 this is true, however I was thinking more along the lines of people moving from systems like Micro Four Thirds or maybe Pentax K. Obviously if you're already invested in one, then you should probably stick with it since they're both good.
These lenses like all UWA mirrorless zooms are explicitly designed to be used with the lens corrections . They are uncorrected a little wider than the focal length suggests and the corrected results give the focal length labelled. We can complain about this but it is the way of pretty much all uwa mirrorless lenses and it is really folly to disable them
You forgot that the nikon lenses images are much more detailed than with this canon lens.
Canon's strategy on lens design and pricing is discouraging for hobbyists and enthusiast shooters. Prices are just out of affordability range. Luckily, sony and nikon have not abandoned this group.
having the RF mount closed isn't helping either...
@@666Tomato666 exactly. Sigma/tamron could easily bring affordable lenses that they have already desingned for the sony mount.
I got this lens on special, since inception Canon has rarely had any real special prices on their RF lenses like Nikon . But I wanted the more compact size over the f2.8
Canon was very late on the mirrorless market, they needed to show some muscles and make clear who is the leader of the market - hence the L lenses. The more affordable ones will come later, as was with the Ef system. It’s a precise marketing move, it paid years ago and will probably pay again. Let’s see…
@@dottorspock I hope there will be some more cheap lenses when they release R7
I wonder why there are no videos comparing this lens to the EF 16-35L f/4. I'd love to see if this lens is 1.5x better, and worth the price
The more digital doctoring the lower the resolution and this lens needs a lot at the wider half. I predict this will be the first "L" series zoom to get a "II" version.
I purchased this lens as a replacement to my landscape workhorse EF 17-40 f/4 L, the RF 14-35 f/4 IS L has been an excellent tool allowing me so much versatility and it produces incredible images for its size and weight. I love it. Also no more EF-RF adapter which is fantastic! I will be converting all my lenses eventually, thanks for the review.
For $1700 it should be better than it is.
Canon heavily advertised their huge mount as an advantage to their system but all it does it makes all of their lenses massive no matter what.
It's a nice lens but i feel like it's very overpriced. Would have been amazing if it was 50mm on the long end, making it a truly versatile everyday and travel lens.
I just grabbed one on sale for $1299 US. Very happy with it
Clearly Canon is charging very high for this, if I have to buy an ultrawide lens today I will chose the 15-35 rf f2.8 over this. Expected it to be priced below 1200$
To be fair it is quite a lot more exciting than the usual 16-35
That's what I did. f2.8 being an older lens goes on sale sometimes, and I was able to picked it up for only $500 more than this f4. I think a full stop is well worth the extra.
1:10 your cake? No comrade, OUR cake
14-35 perfect for my golf vlogs!!
Optically seems worse than Nikon's z 14-30 especially given the price. One can say it has 35mm on the long end, but for the price of this lens you can almost buy Nikon's 14-30z and 24-70 f4 together.
And to have this range plus autofocus that's useful for anything outside of landscapes, you'd need a Z9. The cost of a Z9 and the 14-30 f/4 is just about the same (in the US) as an R5 and the more expensive 15-35 f/2.8.
The wide end distortion and vignetting on this lens is _completely_ unacceptable though. I'll give you that one.
@@RealRaynedance complete nonsense. I've been earning a living from my Z6 and Z6ii for over two years. Don't believe the exaggerated garbage you see on the internet, especially from the tumbleweed head and the $outhrups, and any other wannabe iNfLueNcErS who try to make a name for themselves by peddling the hate Nikon line. The DSLRs were great, the Z mirrorless are really good, and the Z lenses are phenomenal for their price point.
@@bencollins7684 Thank you for the completely unnecessary attacks toward people and your anecdotal evidence. The Nikon Z cameras have failed me in every scenario I've tried using them in outside of street photography and manual focus. I bought an a7III for a reason.
Begone, fanboy.
@@RealRaynedance lol do you really think that me saying "complete nonsense" is a personal attack?
I wasn't trying to be a prick, just stating the facts that I (and many others) use the Z cameras to earn an income, and to do so, we have to rely on the AF.
By the way, your "Nikon Z cameras have failed me" is... also anecdotal evidence.
I think that you really can't go wrong buying a modern camera, whichever brand you choose. Just don't believe the nonsense you hear from the influenzas.
@@bencollins7684 I said begone, fanboy. The fact that you're choosing to misinterpret what I said is proof of that.
Please could you do the updated Fuji 10-24 and the 70-300. Thank you
Thanks for the review. I’m considering in buying an UWA-lens for my R6, but this one is to expensive for me. Canon released recently the cheaper RF 15-30 lens. Can we expect a review of this new lens too?
Just purchased this Lens from onestopdigital , used them before never had issue , the lens was a little over £900 with a one year warranty . Nice to see my hometown of Ramsgate in the review !!
Also how much sharpening in post was applied ?
Hey Chris, is the new Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 on your list to be reviewed at some point?
Eagerly waiting for Chris to pick that lens apart. His review of that lens is a deciding factor for me to switch to Sony from Canon.
I'll wait for the RF 14-35 f/4 mk II
Another great review, please is the CANON RF 14 - 15mm F.4 better than the CANON RF 15 - 35 F. 2.8 ? Which one do you recommend if money is not a problem ?
If money's no object, then the 15-35 will give you better image quality. However, you should take the weight into consideration if you plan to go hiking. A lot of landscape photographers use F4 lenses for that reason. It's better to use an inferior (though still good) lens and get the shot than to have a great lens that you don't take anywhere because of the weight. If you plan on doing a lot of astrophotography, the f2.8 aperture will be a significant advantage, though.
I got this lens discounted, so far I’m very happy with it , I wanted the more compact size over the 2.8 , the 14-35 range is more practical than 14-24. Canon has rarely gone in for discounts since the RF mount inception. All manufacturers these days are relying more & more on software correction, so I consider the criticisms of Canon to be a little unfair in comparison to other brands. All lenses are a trade off this for that.
Very keen to seen the new Nikon z 24-120 f/4 review !
Surprising "high recommended ". Absolutely a convenient lens for its range and stabilization, but a terrible performance to price ratio. The Nikkor Z 14-30/4 seems much better in that regard. Anyway appreciate your reviews, there awesome 🤗
And how do you propose we mount Nikon Z lens onto Canon RF 🤔
I think canon did it better then Nikon by keeping 77mm filter treat on trinity F4 lens. Also this baby got image stabilization what with body stabilization you can get away tripod and do 1s expose handheld. That mind-blowing, so it's excellent hiking lens 🤠
And the fact is this lens is not even a real 14mm at the wide end! Watch Dustin Abbot's review.
@@KGi4 I disagree, I believe among many others that 82 mm gives less room for vigneting and distortion to appear, and you always buy the biggest filter that you can and that also eliminates the need for step up rings.
@@Willymaze it's still be vignetting no matter what diameter your lens front element is. It's how lens desiged. My point is that 77mmnis cheaper and since Canon kept same size for F4 Trinity lens, just shows how convenient it is and how smart Canon does this job. Also VR for this wide range lens is excellent even if lens is F4, so VR basic can compensate for not being f2.8 making this lens more practice in handheld shooting 🥳✊ price is high cuz lens it's made of high quality for future proof. It's an investment 🤑
For this price you demand perfection, yet it isn't there yet.
So it's fourth canon RF lens with this cut corners on wide end. If I were reviewing this lens, I would just stop at this point.
I fundamentally do not accept such a phenomenon and consider it a critical design defect. I am not satisfied with the excuse that it is a "cheap lens", or a "kit lens" - there's no such things on EF 24-105 4-5.6 stm, or even ef-s 18-55. Not even close !
But when it appears on "L" lens....
Not particularly impressed with the minuscule improvement stopping down has on corner sharpness at either extremes of the focal length range, even at f8 it is not very sharp.
Get the Sigma 14-24 instead, which has the added bonus of being f/2.8. Not as small and light but it is spectacular.
I so want this lens, I would be interested to see how it compares to the venerable 16-35 F4L on the R5.... Good job...
great video as always - i noticed you compare to a 14-24 from other brands (not as good as these you mention) - can you elaborate on which lenses you referring to?
Hi Chris,
New sub here. Nice video. I have this lens coming in the next couple of weeks since I’m traveling and won’t be back until then.
I’m reading through the comment section and can understand the frustration of the expensive RF zooms lenses at 2.8, but for this particular one, I see it different:
- you can add filters in the front
- you don’t need to buy another 14mm lens to carry around with you
- it’s lighter and compact for long hikes and travels
- the size and balance when you change the focal
length makes it easier to balance on gimbal without having to rebalance it
- if you don’t need to shoot in lowlight and save $600+. I shoot landscape and need sharp images at f8 and above so this works perfect
I do agree that the sweet spot is $1200-$1500 but that would cannibalize the 15-35/2.8 so from Canon’s perspective, why would they do that.
If you want to get these prices, wait when other RF lenses are released and there will be aftermarket sellers going for the latest or better IQ and/or 3rd parties. I got mine for $1400 on Ebay and my copy was used once and person decided to switch system.
I also have the EF 16-35/4 with a metabones adapter that I will keep as it will give me f2.8 when I ever need lowlight shooting.
-
Hi, another great review! How would you compare its performance against the RF 15-35? Your review on that was with R so not 100% the same to compare. I am torn in my choice between those 2...
Another excellent review.
Some time ago I was watching some old videos about weird lenses and I saw your review of the Canon 24-85... and it was great! What do you think about the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5? Is it as sharp as the 24-85?
Hi, Thanks for the great reviews over the years. I am a Canon fan and for many years I built up my collection of EF - L Series lens, having the 16-35 f 2.8, 24-70 f 2.8, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f 2.8 and f4 (weight manners) and 100-400 mark I. Now after 2 years, I decided to migrate to Canon R5. Question? Is it worth migrate all my EF- Lens L series to RF L series? or should I stick with the adapter, wich so far, seems to be working fine. I don't see much loss of auto focus and quality. The problem is that RF L series lens price hurt the pocket.....Thanks for all the heads up, I never buy any lens without looking to your reviews.
I think a lot of Canon photographers are asking the same question, and I feel it's not an easy question to answer unless money is of no issue. Also I feel it depends if your a professional and make money from your photography. Personally as a amateur photographer like myself I would keep using the adapter and the EF lenses then slowly purchase RF lenses at a rate that is acceptable to you and your pocket book. So far I have purchased one lens the Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM and the journey begins, good luck👍
The extending barrel makes this lens feeling like the EF-S 10-18 lens... not necessarily 'L'-like in my eyes.
I see why they did this, perhaps to save some space and weight - however, that is a tedious decision.
Might as well get a used 15-35 2.8 IS for that price point, it's too close in price to the 2.8.
I always check out these reviews when considering a lens purchase and I must say that this one in particular was the deciding factor in my upgrading my EF 16-35mm F4L on and adapter for the RF 14-35mm F4L for my EOS R body. I got the EF version initially for use on my M50 with benefit of it also being usable on my EOS R. But the improved image quality combined with the size and weight advantages were enough to persuade me to make the change. I should mention that I use this class of lens mainly for real estate and landscape so I am always on a tripod so the slower f4 is not a problem and the wider field of view is a big plus.
Does the lightroom lens profile solve the distortion problem of this lens?
@@ArashSoltani77 I don;t know yet, the lens hasn't arrived yet. :)
How can you say that this rf 14-35 f/4 L is sharper than the older ef 16-35 f/4L IS lens? The CF review of the ef lens has much sharper corner to corner sharpness. I'm hanging on to my old ef 16-35 and using it with an adapter on my r5 with great results.
The part that NOBODY MENTIONS is that even after correction the corners look just as good or even better than other lenses that are not relying on corrections.
Lol no, just no. Especially for video
@@burritobrosvideos8060 buy a video camera.
@@product26 this lens is still shitty on a video camera haha
Canon is smart by launching excellent value 16stm and this 14-35L at the same time. $299 vs $1699 both reply on digital correction. They are going to sell tonnes loads of 16stm. On the other hand, Nikon 6 glasses 4 group 40mm F2 sounds smells looks so vintage, also at $299. People are spoiled with choices.
So glad I decided to buy the 15-35 2.8
It's a No-No in so many ways. But great job Chris!
Could you elaborate on why you think so?
I would have liked to see a comparison of angles. Firstly to get a grip on how wide 14mm are and secondly because apparently the in-camera-corrections lead to you not getting "real" 14mm.
Otherwise a super great show of the lens. I never buy before watching your video on any lens!
Canon recent design philosophy seems to rely less on correcting distortion and engineer "to the edge" regarding vignetting and later solve it via in-camera correction.
All manufacturers do that now, not just Canon. It has advantages too, making lenses smaller and less complex. Unfortunately does not reduce the prices seems like.
Nikon's 14-30 is like, $500 cheaper and just as good. That extra 5mm and IS doesn't justify an extra $500. Canon's pricing is really absurd nowadays.
can you compare it to 15-35 and 16-35F4L?
Thank you Mr Frost. Have a super day. :)
Prices are now exorbitant. The EF will definitely stay. I really hope that Tamron and Sigma will be on the R-mount one day.
Canon just released (for pre-order) a budget 16mm f2.8 RF lens which you have reviewed earlier. I wonder how this one performs compared to the similarly priced Samyang 14mm f2.8 AF RF lens which you have not reviewed (if you did I can't find it) ?
I'm definitely keeping my EF 16-35 f/4L IS after seeing this review... I would prefer to have the lens do the work of distortion compensation instead of the camera body.
Agree!
Very impressive lens! If I was rich, I would be using a Canon R5 with Canon lenses. But as is, I'm happy with my Sony A7riii and Tamron 17-28 😛.
I just got this lens sort of brand new in the United States at a big box store for $650. I say "sort of brand new" because it was the display model behind glass and was in mint shape. I couldn't pass up the price.
Best buy?
Thanks for the GREAT review 🙏
I am looking for a Canon RF lens for video walks (probably to couple with the Canon R5C).
The FOV should be ~90 degrees which is around 20 to 21mm.
Any cheaper option from Canon? Thanks!
Thank you for this review. Would you recommend this lens for Canon R7?
Did you get it for your R7? I’m debating on the same
@@jbag7641 Yes, it is perfect for me because I already had the 7d M II and I have no problem with the perception of the aps-c crop against gull frame. Maybe, if you are used to FF, you will find it annoying.
@@rmm9747 appreciate the answer! I’ve got an R7 as my only experience with a quality cameras and snagging this lens now for an elope trip to Iceland for us to take our own wedding photos with. Thanks a ton!
A camera and 2-3 lenses should not cost near $10,000… yikes
I bought this lens early November and this review made me hate it. I bought because I will be starting a new career in real estate appraisal next year and wanted to have a good lens for it but that distortion at 14mm is insane. I haven't really had a chance to take it out yet and see, I only shot it in 35mm. Why didn't you shoot any 15mm shots to compare withe the 15-35mm?
**edit**
I love your channel and appreciate the honest review. Not bashing you or anything but ugh I feel distressed after watching this.
Very good review, really like your channel.
As for this lens, as many others similar in aperture, they show the overall trend on the market towards slower and smaller lenses. And this trend in full frame actually confirms my decision to stay with MFT. Going to FF for the supposed increase in performance (which is a valid argument), to end up pairing the camera bodies with slower lenses than you can get in MFT for cheaper and smaller, sort of DEFEATS the PURPOSE.
Keep in mind that since the MFT sensor has a 2x crop factor compared to a full-frame sensor, it lets in 1/4 of the light, so you'd need an f/2 lens on an MFT camera to have the same light gathering as an f/4 on a full-frame camera.
I would like to see how good it is for night sky astrophotography
Hi Chris! Unrelated, but what is your go to for landscapes; your R3 or Z7, and why?
In the end I bought the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Price on that one is 1099$. Puzzling.
For an L lens, and at this price point, I didn't expected it to have such a bad distortion.
Yeah it's much worse than Sony 16-35 f4 ( a 7yrs old lens! ) and about the same as Nikon Z 14-30 f4 while it is a real 14mm not like this lens which is about 15mm compared to Samyang 14mm in Dustin Abbott's review.
The distortion is a Luxury
@@networm64 It's wider than 15mm.
@@rimtiggins6078 It's advertised as 14mm and it's not for sure. Being wider than 15 is the least they had to do. You can also check out Gordon Laing review to see it by your own eyes!
@@networm64 The final angle of view depends on the amount of correction applied. Out of camera JPEGs are somewhere between 14 and 15mm, but you can go wider with RAW files. Is it a perfect solution? No, but with a zoom range this broad you're always gonna encounter compromises. With the Nikon, you lose 5mm at the long end, which isn't ideal either.
Great review Christopher, but how sharp is it compared to the RF15-35 F2.8 ? this will make the deciding factor for which one to get :)
I am curious which focal length has decent enough distortion so that it does not compromise image quality like on 14mm. Hopefully around 16-18mm?
The patch of stars near the ariplane is pleides cluster,but base on the NPF rule for our astro-nerd you shouldn't get star-trails after 2 second.
Tamron 35-150, please
Nikon Z 14-30 is sharper if I remember correctly. But 35mm is very useful.
Best thing is the 77mm filter thread where you can probybly use 82mm filters without vignetting. For the Z 14-30 you need 95mm filters ...
and the Z 14-30 is about half the price. Shame on Canon.
No, the Z 14-30 f4 takes 82mm filters. The Z 14-24 f2.8 might take 95mm filters.
@@wallystellmacher6794 yes. But you get strong vignetting with two 82mm filters attached. That's why 95mm is often necessary
No IS either. Plus can't focus as close.
L class lens which doesn't even cover the full frame image circle at the wide end. That was low, even from Canon
is the autofocus internal or does the lens move when focussing?
I can't seem to find that answer anywhere
i guess internal
I have this lens & love it..
I use it for real estate photography & videos for various things..
It's stabilization is top notch & it works well with both my R5 & R6
Can you compare RF15-35 f2.8 VS RF14-35 F4 without the obvious comparison of F2.8. I want to use to landscape and Timelapse. Thanks
Wow I'm just shocked how you could highly recommend this lens considering it's extraordinary price! Wasn't you a little too nice to Canon? Claiming it has best AF in the world while no other multi brand reviewer which I follow haven't said that. I had to watch again your review of the Sony 16-35 f4 and that video had rather more complaint about the price and that lens was not highly recommended even though it's 1000£ compared to the 1500£ in this case!
The sony only go to 14mm and got no OSS?
I'm hoping that Sony, or one of its third-party manufacturers, design a similar lens in FE. I'd seriously consider it as a "do-it-all" UWA instead of having to combine (or choose between) the so-so Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (which is heavy and only gives you 1 focal length for 500 GBP), Sony's own 16-35mm f/4 (which I have, but is showing its age), and Sigma's or Sony's 14- or 12-24mm f/4s (which lack the very useful 24-35 bit).
This does cover so much it's very compelling even at a high-ish price.
That zoom range though
1:13 OMG, a soviet-style cafe in Wales? I see ВЛКСМ and М.С.Горбачёв printed on your paper tablecloth.
Hope the cake was tasty :)
@christopherfrost what Canon RF lens (upto 100mm) would you say is thé best of the best ?
For that price you can buy a 10-25mm f1.7!! For mft. The difference in speed largely make up for the lower performance of mft sensor.
Yessss thats what i was asking for 👍👍👍🍻
I would like a Sony version of this lens
Am planning to get the R7 with the 14-35/4 as the 18-150/3.5 6.3 is ot in stock. Other than lens will not go as wide angle, are there any issues? Will it be ok as a travel lens?
If I have the money to buy all I want this gonna be in my kit to :P
Awesome video
It costs too much for f4 lens. Canon overprice their RF glass so I will probably swap for Sony a7iv with sigma lenses.
I opened parallel this review and the one of Nikon 14-30 on the same channel. Watching on my 32-inch PC monitor, the Nikon lens is way sharper @ 14 and equal at other focal lengths when wide open. When stopped down, Nikon lens is sharper across the board. In my country it's also about €500 cheaper. I rarely see such big difference in 1st party lenses. Impressive.
Price is shocking considering f4 and how much this lens rely on in camera image correction.
Great review, really disappointed with their pricing.
0:45, it's ok... i sold my left kidney. problem sorted.
:D
Just ordered this from Amazon 33% off
How would I know what polarizing filter would fit this lens?
The filter size for this lens is 77mm.
I'm a bit surprised at your recommendation, but I do get how versatile it is. I wonder how it performs on an APSC sensor, since 14mm is really very wide, and going to an effective 21mm would still be fine, but the 35mm would be an effective 55mm .... almost shooting an 18-55mm "kit" lens for full frame.
There is no APS-C camera this lens is compatible with and might never be.
Why would you even want this on APS C? As a particular expensive standard zoom with 'only' f4 and a strange zoom range starting at 21mm?
@@peterkapunkt6783 Why not?
I still own my old EF 16-35 f4 and use it with an adaptor on my R6. Looking at its performance, i dont know what canon did to it... but im dissapointed. I guess ill stick with my adapted 16-35 f4 EF.
I eyed at the f2.8 version but that is super expensive and with me wanting to get the 100-500RF if its ever available again, ill skip this. Plus the old EF version doesnt have a huge change in center of mass with the adaptor. (e.g. the old 70-200 f2.8 IS ii, due to its length and weight, is VERY front heavy with the adapter, and thus i got the new one, since its also much more compact - ideal for hiking)
Good optics, lovely suntars, nice IS feature, but is overpriced
Why does everyone think ultra wides are the standard landscape photography lens? They are rarely the best choice.
Depends on the landscape
I have an Olympus 8-25mm f4 lens, the focal length is 16 to 50mm, it's pretty much my ideal landscape lens. These new lenses by Canon and Nikon are definitely not making me regret doubling down on micro 4/3.
Have a Tamron 17-35 F2.8- 4 for EF-S system. Mirorrless gear is just too overpriced for hobbysts.
I have the same lens on my Canon RP and it’s a lovely sharp lens for not a lot of money
I use an old version of this lens I got for under $200, and it's a really great value for me!
Vs Sony´s FE PZ 16-35mm f4 G
Oof. Way too expensive. I much prefer the offerings from the Sony and Nikon systems. Canon lenses either seem really ghetto and small aperture or super expensive.
Hope you are doing well
Here is what i see without scientific experiment.
An issue of both of my two R6s but have observed this in all r6 that i have seen!!
Please take a look at your body.
Take 2 photos with...
1/8000 in a uniform background
One shot with mechanical shutter and one with 1C-E shutter mode.
In my bodies, the one with mechanical mode shutter, appears more bright in the lower half of the image and darker on the other half.
In contrast, the one with 1C-e shutter mode (which the default shutter mode) appears normally exposured.
This difference happens on shutter speeds more than 1/1000 and it most exaggerated in 1/8000.
This is a major canon r6 and r5 flaw because the two images should look identical.
Thank you
14mm is terrible IMO. 24mm is good, 35mm is passable. But 14mm is the most important part of this lens. Canon really charging through the nose for mediocrity these days. I'll have the Fuji 8-16 thanks. How Canon dares to charge *more* than an APS-C lens for another system that is WAY better in every way is mind boggling.
More useful then the super expensive 11-24 f/4
11-24 is a unique lens. Nothing comes close to it. Sharp edge to edge and minimal distortion.
@@rafafit1904 well, it’s a rectilinear lens, so should be no distortion.
@@user2144 Of course it is, but there is a lot of distortion on 14mm. More distortion than 11mm on the 11-24mm. Neither has no distortion.
I'd rather have a wider lens of like 10-24