well it's confirmed, Jared thinks the greatest thing he has created is skittles

@jonweinraub

2 жыл бұрын

To be fair, Skittles is a pretty good preset!

@SpokeXBikeCo

2 жыл бұрын

I honestly love skittles 😂😂

@juleswrenches909

2 жыл бұрын

I mean. It really is good though. Usually my go to.

@joaquinbowen7122

2 жыл бұрын

Well skittles is amazing

@MrPiffSmiff

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like an IP lawsuit to me

I have the 14-35 and love it because of it's small size, light weight, and range. I also have the 11-24 and reach for it if I want something wider. Incidentally, the advantage of the 11-24 is actually inherent in the need for an EF to R adapter- using the adapter with the built in filter gives you the ability to use a polarizing or ND filter which is very nice.

Purchased the 14 ~ 35 f/4 as soon as it was available. Replaced the 15 ~ 35 f/2.8. For backpacking and landscape photography the weight savings alone make it worth the purchase!

@KevinNordstrom

Жыл бұрын

is there the heavy vignette even in video?

@peterdyndiuk6648

Жыл бұрын

@@KevinNordstrom Have never used the R5 for video period. If the camera is doing in-body lens correction, I suspect there would not be vignetting, but again; I only take stills.

Just got this lens for underwater work as it has all the right qualities for me. Have enjoyed it on the surface too with my R5. The vignette doesn’t really bother me but can always fix if needed as you have pointed out.

Ive been waiting FOREVER for this review! Ive been thinking about getting the 14-35 for my vlogs. Because the 24-105 is definitely not wide enough.

I have been very happy with this lens for landscape photography. I rented the f/2.8 until this one was available. It's great - I seldom wish I had f/2.8 and substantially lighter.

I've been using a EF 17-40L adapted to my EOS-R, and also carry a IRIX 15mm f/2.6 when I need something wider. I've been waiting for a review of this lens, and am happy to see that it's a good lens. I don't care about it being an f/4, since I shoot landscapes almost exclusively, so rarely, if ever, shoot wide open. I also don't want the added size, weight and $$$ of an f/2.8. Looks like I'll need to sell a few items and get this lens!

😂😂😂😂 Jared, I love the sniff and wind test segment.

8:30 thanks for mentioning this. Let's hope Canon are listening. We need an RF 35mm L, I would even be happy with f1.8

I wasn’t on the fence necessarily but the added cost, weight, and loss of a mm I think based on what you’ve shown isn’t worth the loss of a stop. I think the ƒ/4 is definitely next on my list (as is the 100 mm macro)!

I just sold my EF 16-35 F4L to buy this lens. I did not need F2.8 before, I think I will appreciate it being a lot lighter, more compact (especially taking the adapter in consideration) and even wider. I am fine with having to use the lens correction profile. The end result matters.

When last looking for a a wide angle lens I looked at all these lenses plus the sigma ultra wides and in the end went with the 14-35 mostly for the weight and the fact that I rarely use these wide angle lenses at a larger aperture than 8 for landscape images. I have noticed the vignetting as well which becomes worse when using circular polarizer but so far I'm pretty happy with it. I still have the EF 16-35 F/4 and the fisheye 8-16 but for the most part the new one is my main lens for any wide angle landscapes now.

I received mine last August. Scary first impressions. First I used PS lens correction with OK results. But then came Digital Photo Professional 4 and éureka! Batch Pre Processing Real Estate Photos are a blast and look great. I'm shouting ± 2/0 HDR @ ƒ8 and with proper placement enjoy up to 4 walls in the frame without vignetting. Canon Digital Photo Professional 4 makes this lens a star! Thank you for a great review.

What I also find with lens corrections on wide angles is that people's faces get stretched a lot more. I do use lens corrections, but oftentimes I adjust it either vignetting or warping.

Best reviews on the planet by far, I’ve learned so much from your channel. Your presets absolutely rock, they do exactly what you said giving me the best starting point and sometimes amazing from one click. Love your work.

Yes - the EF 11-24L is still great. It’s going to take an amazing lens to displace mine. Like a 10-24 2.8, or a non-bulbous 11 or 12-24, while giving up nothing in quality

I have this lens. Before this lens I loved the Tamron 15 to 30 f2.8. It still works great on the Canon R, I suspect the Canon R6 as well. The 45mp on the R5 seem to impact the Tamron lens. The 14 to 35 is small, light and very sharp. I am not missing the f2.8. I will still use the Tamron for tight indoor spaces.

@livesongs82

2 жыл бұрын

Can you expand on how the R5 "impacts" the tamron lens?

@jeffreyhill4705

2 жыл бұрын

@@livesongs82 first rent before you buy. This is only really an issue for Pixel peaking at 100%. Lenses have different levels of sharpness at different f stops and focal lengths. Diffraction causes softness has the aperture becomes small. Diffraction is always there, the higher the megapixels of the sensor the sooner diffraction is visible. I should say the size of the photo sights. For example lots of people had issues with the 90D and f22 for example. The R5 is not as extreme as the 90D/R7. I bring up diffraction because I thought that was the issue with the R5 and the Tamron. That should impact every lens the same due to diffraction being from how small the photo sites are, the smaller the sooner they record the issue. Anyway I was wrong. The overall resolving ability of the Tamron lens was the issue. I suspect the best it can do is 20 to 25mp, which is still really good. So on a 20 to 30mp camera the pictures look great. On the R5 they start to look a little mushy at 100%. The 14 to 35 is sharper, except the corners at 14mm. Again other lens don’t even give you 14mm. The RF 70 to 200 f4 is also stupid sharp. The Tamron 70 to 200 f2.8 is still really sharp on the R5. It’s limitation is keeping up with fast action at high fps. For me that is a non issue.

Sounds like your approach to wideangles is the same as mine. Great review, Jared.

Thanks for the video. I just downloaded your guide to capture motion in low light situation. It's simply great. I think there's a small mistake in the last line of page 11. "so I left my shutter speed at 8000" should be "so I left my ISO at 8000" I think.

I have the RF 14-35 F4.. I friggin LOOOOVE this lens. I use it often for real estate, Video and I even use it for some cool quirky or dramatic portraits. I use the control ring for color balance. I'm sure the 15-35 2.8 is better. But damn that 14-35 is REALLY GOOD. If you got the budget for it.. It's soooo worth it.

@Nadine.22

Жыл бұрын

Great idea with the color balance!

I just got my copy about an hour ago. The vignetting was present, but as soon as I imported the images into LRC, the corrections were applied. The images looked great! I did notice that there is a Canon lens correction profile, and there are two Adobe correction files with the addition of version 2. I have no idea what the version history would reveal. The weight of this lens beats lugging around a 15-35 although the f2.8 could come in handy for indoor shots in low light. Thinking concert pictures. I am happy with this lens.

I am still using the 16-35 F4 L EF mount on my R5. Shooting architecture. Will any of you say its worth switching to 14-35 RF F4?

Hi Jared polin how are you and your family life I hope everything is going well and happy God bless you and your family I love your amazing thoughts about the cameras and lenses u r right

I still had the old EF17-40 and replaced it with the RF16 2.8. Personally, 16mm is enough for me next to the RF24-105 4 L. I use little ultra wide and the RF14-35 takes up too much space and weight for me on the go

Currently adapting the EF 17-40 mm F4 on the R5, thoughts on jumping to the 14-35?

Great video! Does it vignette without the lens hood?

What about the 16 f2.8 would that compare? If you just need one wide angle?

Would the 14-35 F4.0 Lens be a good wide to pair with my Canon R7?

The black & white shots here are gorgeous! I’m still quite shocked and disappointed by the level of vignetting at 14mm though, especially for a newly developed pro-level Canon L-lens.

How well does the vignetting clean up in Lightroom?

I have the 16-35mm II EF version which I love it. I find no sharp diferences between both, also the old version is not so contrasty and has better color rendition. Highlights are also softer. I prefer EF L lenses better than RF L.

Thanks for the video. Quick question if the 14-35mm vignettes @14mm then you crop when correcting wouldn't it be the same as the 15mm. Thanks

@JohnMacLeanPhotography

2 жыл бұрын

It's equivalent to 13mm without LC on. It crops it to 14mm FOV with LC on.

Thanks for the review. I notice the vignetting on the Nikon Z and F mount lenses. I don't notice it as such on the Tamron 14-35mm f/2.8-4 on Nikon Z5 with a FTZ adapter. But I do notice it on the kit lens 24-200mm (f/4-5.6) Z lens.

And here I am with an APSC Sony 10-18 F4 on an A7IV cause I can't afford any ultrawide full frame lens😅. It actually works well enough at 12-14mm(in full frame mode). A bit soft in the corners and slight vignetting. But I don't use that lens professionally so I don't really care. Its still a great little lens for some creative shooting. Also becomes a 15-28 for the cropped 4k 60 of the A7IV.

Both amazing lenses. Stefano

It seems that some people don’t understand that a barrel distorsion is a lens capturing a wider angle . With mirrorless cameras we have now a generation of lenses with a strong barrel distortion which take advantage of the software correction. Once this distortion corrected the vignetting disappears. Of course the focal length announced is the one after correction ( angle of view) . There are many exemples of this type of lenses. The recent Sony 16/35 f4 is like this . The older Sony 24/105 f4 too, it is actually a 22mm not a 24mm. Once the distorsion corrected , the dark corners disappear. They are not part of the final image. I would not call this a crop like Mr Polin says as the lens has captured more than planned. Don’t forget that on a mirrorless , what you view ( evf or screen) is corrected. With a pincushion distortion it is the contrary the lens capturing less angle . This is a real crop from the beginning. Using digital correction instead of optical correction allows to simplify the lens design and makes those lenses more compact and….often better , the end results being sometimes brilliant on high resolution sensor.

Do all the RF lenses extend when zoomed? EF lenses generally didn't do that.

For these wide angles I don't think that f/2.8 vs f/4 matters all that much. Weight, wider angle and price make a bigger difference (love my 14-35). Warning: it is not a portrait lens. It works well as a caricature lens though.

The Vignetting, I read that at 14mm, it’s actually 12-13mm and once you correct it in post, it’s 14mm.

Can you make a video or some shorts with the canon EF 11-24? Pretty please?

I survived the first few months with the RF 14-35 f/4L without a supported lens profile and it made my life very miserable to try and correct for manually or by modifying the RF 24-105 variable aperture zoom. Now that Adobe has released its own lens profile, it's actually great to use this lens creatively and see wider. Jared, the thing to keep in mind is that the lens sees at 14mm AFTER you use the correction profile. If you don't use the lens profile then we've calculated out that you're actually seeing closer to 12mm and maybe a hair wider. The problem is obviously the vignette and the distortion. But, as you so nicely demonstrated here, you can still get incredibly good wide images that use the distortions to emphasize the scene. Or, if you want a clean cut image, you can click a box and it's perfectly corrected and cropped down to 14mm.

@davidmanzi4491

6 ай бұрын

Canon's software supported it from day one.

@kevindiossi

6 ай бұрын

@@davidmanzi4491 I don’t use that absolute trash software. 😂

How do you correct vignetting in Lightroom?

Don't see the issue with overlap. It's good to have in fact, at least I know if I need a 35 range it's there because moments move faster than lens change.

I think your missing out on the control ring. I have mine set to control ISO and, I tell you what, it is amazing. Upped my photo game instantly.

I got the 14-35 F4 for real estate photos. Im at F8 when i shoot, and the photos are great. I avg 18-20mm interiors. 24-35 exterior. I only go 14mm in ultra tight rooms. I have no need for wider apertures in my field.

Did you happen to have turned off in-camera lens correction? It's my understanding that several RF lenses, including the 14-35mm and the 16mm F/2.8, are actually engineered a couple of degrees wider. They are optimized to use lens correction either in-camera or in post. Without lens correction, that lens is more like 11-12mm at the wide end. I almost always add vignetting or otherwise use spot exposure adjustments in post, so a little vignette doesn't bother me.

@AnthonyTeasdale

2 жыл бұрын

This. I suspect it is slightly wider and corrects down to 14mm.

@mrtnsnp

2 жыл бұрын

The in-camera correction works only for JPEG, not for RAW.

@JohnDrummondPhoto

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrtnsnp that makes sense. Thanks.

@AnthonyTeasdale

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrtnsnp I guess Lightroom does not have the corrections for the lens yet?

@JoshuaDircks

2 жыл бұрын

@@AnthonyTeasdale the definitely have them in Lightroom. They did not at release but why quickly added.

1:03 Just getting started watching, but how do you get the focal length to show in the viewfinder? Is this an R3 feature? I've not seen it in my R5/R6.

@nallontrails

15 күн бұрын

Should be. I have it in R8.

@JohnMacLeanPhotography

15 күн бұрын

@@nallontrails thanks

Yeah, i am waiting for a 35mm 1.2 RF. buy in a heartbeat. My most used lens is my 35mm 1.8 RF.

I have the Canon 17-40 f4 L lens in EF mount and I love it. I'm the house photographer at a 180 seat music club and I use that lens at 5.6 1/60 sec to get the whole stage. I use it on a Canon 6D and the Sony A7iii. Full frame bodies so f4 doesn't scare me.

As an Angels fan and local that just made this video 1000000x better

Personally, this would be my primary lens for the Roman Forum and the Vatican in Rome, Italy... if / when I eventually go there. Of course I'll need to get myself a Canon EOS R full-frame mirrorless camera, too. Good things! 👍

Landscapes, maybe street photography. I do love wide angle shots. I typically stay at 35.

When you’re coming to Chicago? 😭 I’m a canon shooter and would love to meet ya somehow 🙌🏽📸

I bought the 15-35 as I prefer 2.8 over 4.

These are both great for landscape photographers that are using filters because of the non bulbous front

I bought the RF 14-35 last September before the LR Lens Correction was available. I was a bit freaked out by the immediate results, but in testing found out some interesting things. In comparing it to my EF 16-35 f/4 and EF 11-24 f/4 I came to the following conclusions. Without the LC in LR turned on it's equivalent to 13mm FOV on the 11-24. The LC is a bandaid to correct (crop) for the extreme vignetting and barrel distortion (transform) inherent in the uncorrected image. The 16-35 is optically a whole lot cleaner SOOC without the 14-35's issues. I think they intentionally cut corners to create a small, lightweight, UWA lens at a "reasonable" price. I did end up selling my beloved 16-35, which I thought also felt much better ergonomically than the 14-35, but I digress.

@mihugong3153

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I had the 16-35 before, too. And while the creative engineering in the 14-35 was weird at first, at the end of the day, the results are always very good. So I think this is a debate for purists mostly...

@jhellier

2 жыл бұрын

Is the 14-35 at 14mm with LC truly 14mm FOV? What about the vignetting and distortion compared to the 16-35 f4? Are there any negatives for the 14-35 vs the 16-35 f4 besides the price?

@mihugong3153

2 жыл бұрын

@@jhellier Hey Jon, yes, it is 12ish mm wide without the correction. After cropping, you get effective 14mm at the wide end. Distortion is significantly stronger than on the 16-35 - but only at the wide end which the EF lens doesn't have! If you compare the same focal lengths, the difference isn't that big. It's light, sturdy and delivers great quality. A big plus for me is that it has 2x the magnification compared to the 16-35. 0.38x is quite nice to have in many situations. That brings us to it's second weakness. (First one being the price) If you are at 35mm, F4 at the minimum focusing distance, there is significant haze. You have to stop down 1-2 stops, then IQ is as good as usually.

@JohnMacLeanPhotography

2 жыл бұрын

@@jhellier see my post

@JohnMacLeanPhotography

2 жыл бұрын

@@jhellier Yes with LC it equals 14mm. It was literally built on the premise of requiring LC to get it to look "normal". If you have a 16-35 I would suggest renting the 14-35 like I did and draw your own conclusions. On the R5 you can see the micro contrast difference. If you're shooting an R, RP, R6, or R3 the sharpness may not be as obvious, but the 14-35. is especially sweet in the center. I'm ok with the digital LC, as it's a lighter and very sharp lens, that can take my 77mm filters, while offering me a 2mm gain in view.

what up with jared no holding the baby lens good enough. could broke the lens

Off topic, which GoPro are you using on top?

@waterslug4263

2 жыл бұрын

He’s using the GoPro 5

When will Canon make an aps-c R3? I´m still waiting for the first ever first FIRST first ever fx or aps-c camera with a built in grip like the R3 or Z9 butt slow and cheap. Where IS IT?

@jensfrankjakob

2 жыл бұрын

The R7 is supposed to be the 7D / 90D replacement.

Hey Jared, and many others in the comments .... Lets remove a few misconceptions ..... 1. The latest lenses from Canon be it RF 14-35 or RF 16mm uses different type of lens design . The RF 14-35 is actually 12 or 13 mm when lens corrections are turned off. The vignette due to lens hood or even without hood is at that 12 / 13 mm. When the corrections are applied it crops to true 14mm and this image is totally vignette free. 2. Lens corrections are applicable to raw files as well, not only jpegs. I personally own this lens and I don't find any vignetting in my Raw files. If you don't believe me search youtube / reddit there has been a lot of experimentation and discussion on this as John Drummond has already pointed out. This is a fantastic lens !

@JohnMacLeanPhotography

2 жыл бұрын

I concur

The drama of uncorrected images looks a bit nicer. It's what I want from an ultra wide at least.

When you're shooting weddings in a tight space with everyone getting ready, or in an elevator, or doing a group shot of everyone at the wedding (100+ people) you need a lens like this. 2.8 isn't as important on ultra-wides. Especially with IS & how good these cameras are now getting at higher ISOs. Honestly, the biggest factor (especially as I get older and my back is all jacked up from years of shooting), is weight. You aren't gonna get the shot if you're thinking about how much your back and shoulder hurt all day.

I skipped this lens and got the 15-35mm 2.8 instead. I dont like to postprocess optical defects and the 2.8 gives more consistently "correct" images.

@victoriangirl83

4 ай бұрын

Is that heavier?

@axelfiraxa

4 ай бұрын

​@@victoriangirl83 unfortunately yes. Close to 900g vs 600g

Fro knows fro-toe!!

It corrects in PS or LightRoom

OK you guys wrong, I have both and the 14mm is really a 13mm that's why the vignetting is so bad, when you apply the lens correction it brings it back to 14mm, go ahead and test it against a 14mm prime and you see it really fast.

I wonder how it compares to Nikon's much lighter 14-30mm?

The lens correction is the whole point of this lens. The vignetting is normal, the FOV is wider than 14mm at this point, but not correcting the barrel distortion allowed Canon to make the lens smaller and the front element flat. When you use the in-body lens correction or the profile in ACR, you'll get your 14mm.

@JohnMacLeanPhotography

2 жыл бұрын

exactly!

@RealRaynedance

2 жыл бұрын

It's an L lens. L lenses shouldn't have this problem, period. Either they shouldn't have gone as wide as 14mm, or they should have fixed the problem in the design otherwise. And I know I'm about to get disagreed with. But I'm standing by saying this lens shouldn't have the red ring if they're gonna leave it up to post processing to fix its problems.

@jensfrankjakob

2 жыл бұрын

​@@RealRaynedance Then it would just have been yet another 16-35 to yawn at or it would not have been the first 14mm lens that takes 77mm filters. I appreciate their design choices there. Apart from this, the optical quality seems to be as you would expect from a L series lens. In my opinion it's not really a problem, but I also would not call applying lens correction profiles post-processing. It's just part of the workflow.

@RealRaynedance

2 жыл бұрын

@@jensfrankjakob If it's happening out of camera *or with in-camera processing, it's post processing. I still say they should have either fixed the distortion or not gone as wide as 14.

@jensfrankjakob

2 жыл бұрын

​@@RealRaynedance That is correct, but lens correction data is more or less part of the design of the lens. So I don't mind it needing a bit more of it. It's still according to spec. I also think that your point of view is perfectly fine, but to others Canon made something very appealing with this lens.

As a real estate photographer, I was looking forward to this review. I don't need a super-wide and crazy aperture. The only concern I have are vignette and the barrel distortion. I’m still using the 17-40 adapted btw. Maybe it is time to change

@minusinfinity6974

2 жыл бұрын

The 16-35 f/4L IS is a much better lens than the 17-40 f/4L. I owned both and was using the 16-35 until recently on my Sony. I now use a Sony 12-24 f/4G and it's an incredible lens, so light and as good as many primes. An even better lens is the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 DG DN for Sony. Sucks Canon RF mount is not open, it misses out on so many good lenses and one of the several reasons I quit Canon.

Can you please do a video on how you get access to sporting/ racing/ professional events? Thanks

@froknowsphoto

2 жыл бұрын

It’s a simple answer. You need affiliationS to get acces

At least it seems Canon has some logical pricing in there wide angle lens options for (RF) including the adapted 11-24. I just wish Nikon would release something that's wider than 14mm (even a 12mm prime for FF would be nice). Personally I think that with the f/4 versions (Nikon and Canon) they are much lighter, smaller, and a bit cheaper which makes them ideal. I mean I would prefer to have (for example) the NIkon Z 14-24 but that lens costs about 2x as much as their 14-30 f/4, so I'd rather take a hit on lens speed and a little sharpness (in the corners) to save $1200 (and to me, shooting mostly landscapes and architecture with a wide angle -- don't shoot astrphotography -- I'd rather hold onto that $1200 for something else--- a trip, or another lens).

This lens will be great for crop cameras like the R10. Vignetting shouldn’t be an issue!

I’m using the 15-35 RF for video, so I got the 2.8

If that 11-24 is just collecting dust, Fro, I can give it a new home! I have the EF 16-35 f/2/8 III, and it just aggravates me. It's not close enough when I want something under my 70-200. I had a 24-70 I loved, but the zoom locked up on it and I couldn't get it fixed. I also have a Tamron 17-50, but it throws errors now any time I'm out past about 24. Unfortunately, the budget I have is going to a new body, so glass is later down the line.

Have you ever asked Lightroom to lens correct 1/2 of the 360 images from a Go Pro Max? I was blown away that it'll fix that stupid bubble image and poof....1 click and its flattened!

Crossing my fingers for a 35 F1.2 and a 11- 24mm

Can you make a video on how to shoot at sports event

"I hope that Canon Comes out with an 11-28 or a 12-24 2.8 or something super unique, and if it is f4 it is f4...." If you remember Sony has a 12-24 f4 G lens launched in may of 2017 and a 12-24 f2.8 GM launched in August 2020. To go along with there two (now 3) 16-35mm ultra wide zooms.

Great video, and people ran me down on my channel when I spoke about this lenses bad vignette even with the lens correction in lightroom and on the R. And now after months of this lens being out it gets recognised as one of the worst vignetting expensive lenses to come out of the canon factory, by the time you rectify by cropping you end up with 16mm in my opinion.

@JohnMacLeanPhotography

2 жыл бұрын

not true. It's equivalent to 13mm without LC on. It crops it to 14mm FOV with LC on.

@ironian24

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnMacLeanPhotography yes and still with a vignette, I know I have it and use it a lot. Never seen a vignette like it on any great lens I have used from Canon and that is the truth.

Good point

Sorry, Canon did it for marketing, with an f/4 that is still “generally” affordable. Effectively it is a 15mm that’s pushed beyond its design to 14mm with imo extreme vignetting in the context of modern design, price tag and the RF mount that allows for updated glass design. Now pros will get what they need from it, it looks sharp. But to drop this kind of money on a sub optimal design just for the 14mm? Canon should and could do better, especially as part of the RF mount advantages vs EF.

(Sorry, I'm poor at English😅) I think this vignetting at 14mm is not "optical" but "mechanical" caused by lens hood. The "optical" vignetting is generally symmetric and decrease with the increasing F-number in most cases. The other hand, the "mechanical" vignetting is occasionally asymmetric by slight position variations of lens food attaching and always increase with the increasing F-number. Two nice photos shot by Stephen show this vignetting is "mechanical". 12:59 This vignetting is asymmetric. 13:26 This vignetting increases with the increasing F-number from F8 above to F16. Therefore, I think Canon should improve the shape of lens hood for RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM. I agree the necessity of ultra wide RF lenses. But Canon could think that ultra wide RF lenses need to have overwhelming optical characteristics, because RF mount featuring large diameter and short back focus has big advantages in especially short focal length range. So, it would take a long time that they release ultra wide RF lenses. PS. While your photos of Shohei Ohtani are excellent, I wonder if persons who aren't interesting in baseball in the US and Canada don't know him. This is just out of curiosity as Japanese.

@bzomeful

2 жыл бұрын

What I don't understand is...why didn't Jared Polin or Stephen just take off the lens hood off to test if it's due to the lens hood? It's such an easy thing to do.

@pain_tendo

2 жыл бұрын

@@bzomeful I think so. I maybe failed to hear Jared's explain which this vignetting at 14mm either depends or not on lens food, because I'm poor at English. Just now, I'm asking Canon Marketing Japan that Canon USA could explain about this issue directly to Jared.

Interesting. I've been using this lens for 3-4 months and have yet to see any vignetting (on my R5). I've never used the lens hood....so maybe that's a factor.

@JohnMacLeanPhotography

2 жыл бұрын

It's probably because Fro isn't using the LC in LR and you are. Or you're shooting in-camera JPGs, which add the correction.

@timdaugherty7612

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnMacLeanPhotography - LC = Lightroom Classic? I'm shooting RAW so it's not that. I use Lightroom Classic (if that's what you meant). I'll be curious to check this out next time I'm out - and look at the RAW files directly. Maybe Lightroom is applying a lens correction automatically or something. I'm suspicious this is normal though.

@Leo_Santisteban

2 жыл бұрын

@@timdaugherty7612 pretty sure he means lens corrections

@jensfrankjakob

2 жыл бұрын

​@@timdaugherty7612 Yep, LR is applying the lens correction profile automatically.

@timdaugherty7612

2 жыл бұрын

@@jensfrankjakob Thanks Jens. Good to know. I guess I won't worry about it one way or the other - I love the lens and have no issues with it.

Lately the RF lenses, even with an L badge on it are disappointing. A lot of corners being cut with the optic quality and using plastic housing with the same high price tag as the EF lenses. You could argue that the plastic housing makes the lens lighter and "in the spirit of mirrorless", but the R line-up have been the exact EOS DSLR replacements with the size and weight anyway. Because you can't see through the lens in real time like using an OVF, they often make a lot of compromises for the wide angle lenses in that the barrel distortion is so bad, it's like that they have a formula for slightly shorter focal length but doesn't cover the sensor corners. Then they can "fix it in post" by forcing you to use lens distortion correction, which of course you can't turn off, in camera. I have an RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 which has a terrible lens distortion (it's really cheap though) and when I zoom in or out quickly I can see the lens distortion correction lags behind a bit. Though I suppose the R cameras have quite high resolution these days and the distortion correction doesn't matter much in post. Still, you'd hope you _can use_ every pixels on the sensor to create the image, not alter them.

@melvinjohnson2074

Жыл бұрын

Agree!

This lens is a "big deal" for me, because it accepts 77mm screw-on filters; the same size filters that most of my other lenses use. Raw files seem to have wider than 14mm images without an odious bulbous front lens element. All this in an easier to carry, well built and less overpriced package. Want more like this please, Canon!

@adamhayek7889

7 ай бұрын

You can adapt filter sizes...

Common sense would dictate u dont like that 16-35 range not because its not practical but because it doesnt work for your work flow. But i can assure you many photographers hobbiest and pros alike value the 16-35 2.8 lenses.

yay!

It´s here, 10-20mm :)

This vignetting looks like you assembled too tall uv filter

i got the 15 -35, love the 2.8 and the photos it took. Then dropped it early one morning and broke it. You would of nearly seen a grown man ugly cry.

I kinda like that look anyway

15-35 , that vignette bugs me on the 14-35. Plus, all I shoot is real estate so I think it’s the best for my situation

What if Canon gives you a weird 10 - 18mm F2-F7.1 zoom 🤣

Other reviewers do not mention vignetting?

If the corners at 14mm are really dark like that, I do not consider it a 14mm lens, because I have to either crop the corners or amplify them by a few stops, which will also make the noise in the corners 16 times or so worse than in the center. If you already used ISO 4000, that means ISO 64000 in the corners. I prefer my Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. It has a very bulky front element that keeps vignetting low. It also has an image stabilizer and low distortion that does not have to be corrected secretly by the cameras. Both the 14-35 and the 15-35 are heavily overpriced for what they deliver.

@pongokamerat8601

Жыл бұрын

True

Good justification this time to spend a bit more and get the 2.8

Does the lens really have that crazy vignetting? It definitely looks like you put the lens hood on wrong lol but if not that’s really wild

@stuartsmith945

2 жыл бұрын

I don't see the vignetting with my hood installed. I am wondering about a filter intruding into the lens's field of view.

@PeteCocoPhoto

2 жыл бұрын

@@stuartsmith945 You might be right about that Stuart. Although I don't think fro uses filters as a general rule. Either way the images looked pretty awesome.

So, by passing the wind tunnel test, it should stand up to the rigors of the Windy City, ya? Totally missed that pun man. I'm a bit disappointed.

This is on clearance for half off at Best Buy right now if you order in the store. Must be an in store order, no idea why. 🤷🏽‍♂️

It's completely unacceptable to me that the optics of a $1700 L lens does not cover the entire image sensor. That's what that "Vignetting" is. A $300 16 2.8, fine. But just not a lens like this. I've been a huge critic of this lens shortly since it came out.

@Twobarpsi

2 жыл бұрын

I agree! I don't know why he just accepts and dismisses that failure!