Canon 35 1.4 RF VCM Lens full review, why it's not for still photographers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Relevant links + Raw files on patreon ► / 107889861
Summary
In this in-depth review of the Canon 35mm F1.4 RF L Series VCM lens, I dive into its impressive autofocus and video capabilities while highlighting a significant tradeoff for still photographers: the mandatory lens distortion correction that results in a loss of resolution. Despite its robust build and sharp image quality, the design choices leave me questioning if it’s worth the investment. Join me as I explore whether this lens lives up to the hype and if it’s the right fit for my photography needs.
Chapters
00:00
Introduction and Lens Overview
01:08
Build Quality and Concerns
02:32
Usability for Still Photography and Videography
03:30
Distortion Correction and Image Quality
05:26
Autofocus Performance
11:29
Comparison with EF Mount Version
14:20
Sunstar Effect
16:16
Conclusion and Recommendations
Instagram
► / iamthesam
Presets
► samhurdphotogr...
Subscribe
► / samhurdphoto
Website
► samhurdphotogra... - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
RF 35mm 1.4L is awesome lens! Uncorrected raw file is like 32mm so no problem there - after correction it becomes 35mm. This is how Canon does lenses nowdays. I can’t see a problem there.
i think i clearly stated what the issues were
@@iamsamhurdphotography dude. After correction the result is top notch. At least my Lightroom does the correction automatically. Just relax and take some photos. It’s spectacular lens.
@@alexmaccape8411 the problem is that I take a ton of photos. tens of thousands a week. little annoyances add up, a lot.
exactly, seriously a made up issue,, just apply the correction to every image lol
@@portraitblake yeah. I’ve already shot 1000+ images with new 35/1.4L and it behaves exactly like my other RF lenses, like 24-105/2.8L and 14-35/4L. All of them are corrected digitally in post, and Lightroom does that automatically. Absolutely zero problem.
RF lenses are expensive, sure, but my god what lens I get! 35/1.4L is relatively small and light, IQ is out of this world as to be expected from L-series glass, it has fast aperture for low light shooting and subject separation, programmable control ring (I use it for ISO) and button (drive mode for me) and weather sealing. If I only found a top quality ND-filter to rear filter holder - now that is very clever design.
They are not “cheating”, it does “crop” slightly because the field of view is technically something like 32 or 33mm, according to folks who know about lens design. Essentially it was designed to be this way and to assert that “this is not a photographer’s lens” is quite absurd! This would mean that older EF lenses with worse distortion are “not for photographers “! Quite silly opinion!
what are you talking about? The distortion in the raw file is extremely terrible compared to the older versions. have you tested a comparison to see for yourself? In order to get proper correction for it I have to crop in and lose resolution. I may not lose field of view, but I’m losing pixels. I trust you know the difference. It’s simple math, and if there’s some magic that’s happening I would love for you to explain it to me. It’s not a slight crop.
@@iamsamhurdphotographyI do own the EF Mk 2 version, when applying the profile I get to see the same results, except that the RF version has better contrast, fast AF, and is sharper. It takes literally milliseconds to apply the profile , problem solved. Or take one step back when shooting, problem solved. LOL When printing or showing on digital platforms, if indeed there is a loss of resolution, the difference is negligible. We all adapt to unique lens quirks as there is no such thing as a perfect lens! I just thought the comment that this is not a photographer’s lens is not correct, there are plenty of professionals that will buy this lens, use it, and will focus on the positives that this lens offers.
I agree 100%. This TH-camr’s analysis is so F’ing lame. I bet he still drives cars with drum brakes, because according to his logic, it’s more “pure” and “engaging”! 😂😂😂
I get that it’s an easy fix in post but you might be missing his point. the fact that in 2024 you’re buying a lens that technically has more distortion seems disingenuous. Canon claimed when they developed the new RF mount they could develop better lenses but it’s seems they’re just developing for a distortion algorithm
@@salvamando1agree with this, the biggest thing I can see being a problem that most will see is the vignette, it quite extreme. So in higher iso images I’d dial the correction back some what. Other than that no one is going to notice the distortion in everyday use as Lightroom or what ever will correct upon import. Looks like there will be some deals around in a few months on the used market.
It’s why I stick to the EF mark II
That lens it’s a beast
It's fine if you want to stick to your EF II but don't make it sound like this lens is worse. It isn't.
prove it.
Just seeing this. Drat - it was on the buy list for this year. Holding with the EF+adaptor until further notice
The lens was announced together with the C400 film camera and is described by Canon as one of the first hybrid lenses. According to Canon, this hybrid series will be expanded in the future. Clearly, this lens is primarily aimed at photographers who also want to shoot film. It is definitely not a successor to the EF 35 1.4.
You can be critical of this hybrid lens series because you don't want to make the compromises. Personally, however, I give a hybrid series a good chance.
yup! i did say it’s essentially labelled for videographers, and for good reason. i just want to make it very clear that for people that primarily shoot photo, and no video at all (which is *most* photographers) this lens is not a great choice, esp at this price point. go with the ef or wait for another rf that isn’t hybrid. but, i believe this is primarily aimed at videographers who also shoot video. they don’t say that in marketing, but they should.
@@iamsamhurdphotography ... yes, marketing is certainly not one of canon's strong points
It's a trade-off I am willing to take. I prefer my 35 1.4 and 14-35 4 over heavier lenses. It's the new normal and other manufacturers are also taking this route. You can have your 35 1.2 brick once it releases.
i don’t care what sony or others are doing tbh. sony lenses in particular have never had a look that i like. i would return a huge 35 1.2 if it ends up being gigantic… just like i didn’t recommend and returned the 85 1.2. my actual recommendation is to just stick with an adapted 35 1.4 ef. i do not believe they can’t make a 35 1.4 rf that’s about the same size as the ef without the severe distortion. in fact, i know they can. they’re just making the distortion tradeoff for the sake of no focus breathing and other video-centric features i couldn’t care less about.
After seeing your review and others, I finally cancelled my order. I'll probably still get this lens in some time, but in second hand. I can't justify paying so much for a lens who needs so much correction.
glad to be helpful. this is why canon will probably *never* send me gear to review.
@@iamsamhurdphotography 😂
@@iamsamhurdphotography🤣
I think you should get it if you can. The end result is bloody amazing. Who cares if they need profile correction, it keeps the lens super compact and the images are still crazy sharp.
@@wentan8978 it’s really not bloody, or amazing.
I'm using it and loving it. Yep, the distortion is annoying, but fixable. Also, you can use the aperture ring in photo mode on the new R52, so I think that was them planning on the future, not for cameras that are existing and being replaced.
How can somebody design a prime lens like this with such massive distortion? I would expect something like this out of a affordable inexpensive 24-85 mm Zoom lens for full frame but not from a very expensive prime lens with a fixed focal length of 35 mm. Even Nikon does have better lenses in the less expensive f/1.8 range for Z-Mount.
Get with the times. RF lenses (including L) are no stranger to distortion. Even with corrections, this lens is sharper in the corners and center than the previous 35 f/1.4 EF L II which is one of the best 35mm lenses ever made. Digital corrections have been around over a decade and they're not going anywhere, why do people care about distortion if the corrected image is brilliant? Luddites.
That lens toss as the beginning is tooooo much 😭😭☠️☠️
Another great alternative for Canon shooters that I’ve been really happy with is an adapted Tamron 35 1.4, truly stellar optics, sharp as a tack, buttery bokeh and really well controlled chromatic aberrations - probably best bang for buck too, and I think it outperforms the Sigma Art, particularly in the longitudinal chromatic aberrations that show up in bokeh highlights around trees!
good to know! tamron always slips under my radar. wish they could make an RF line
Of the third party lenses I’ve used (not a ton) I’ve always thought that Tamron felt the highest quality.
I was expecting so much from this RF 35 1.4 for street photography. I am so dissapointed by this Lens. I will keep my 28-70 f/2 for street photography.
definitely try for yourself, but yeah :(
They did it with cheap lenses and I could kind of forgive it. Although if a person buys an inexpensive lens, this does not mean that he does not want to squeeze everything out of his camera. We all shoot with cameras with interchangeable lenses, not phones, because image quality is important to us. We paid for the sensors in our cameras, all 864 square millimeters, and we want the lens to use them all.
When they did this with a 10-20, I could understand it too, since it is a lens with record parameters.
But to do this with a 35mm L-series lens - no, I can’t understand that. 35mm is not that wide.
The distortions of this lens is disgusting. This is supposed to be a L lens. WTF Canon! Its one thing with the RF 16 but what? I wonder has less corrections? RF 35 f1.8 or RF 35 f1.4L? Hmmm.....
Many RF lenses on the shorter end, say less than 50 mm, are now being designed by Canon to require distortion correction. Therefore, they require camera correction to be on. For example, the RF 14-35mm f4 is actually a 12 mm lens at the wide end, but after you apply the required distortion it goes to 14mm.
yes, but you are still losing resolution. i understand that they are doing this on purpose… i just think it’s a bad approach.
@@iamsamhurdphotography The lens manufacturers have a number of reasons for doing this, but cost, design simplicity, and lower weight are the primary ones.
@@TheBigBlueMarble yup, the 50 1.2 RF is on the edge of being a little large, the 85 1.2 is laughably huge, and don't get me started on the 28-70 f/2.0, but for a f/1.4 aperture lens... the 35 1.4 can be made a reasonable size and weight. I would be willing to pay more than $1600 for a 35 1.4 rf that was the same size and performance etc as the 50 1.2 rf @ $2+k.
Recently moved to Nikon after 20y shooting canon, if I had stayed with canon I would have probably kept the sigma art 35 1.4 EF adapted to RF… in combination with the RF 50 1.2 +RF 85 1.2
that or the canon 35 is definitely the way to go! I’m buying another one just to have as a backup since they might stop making them someday
This is what I have, the ef sigma 35 1.4 and the Canon RF 85mm 1.2 L. Great combo
Seems like an overpriced fraud of an L series lens. Lens companies are factoring in software to the final look of the lens. This may be cost-effective to make lenses but if it's a L lens it should be more optically elite than it pretends to be.
agreed. as i mentioned in the video - they’ve essentially shifted in camera cropping for stabilization to the end user having to distortion correct the raw files themselves. wild!
Have you used this lens? I was skeptical of it as well but I love it. It is very sharp and the colors are stunning. Could it be better? Yep. Is it expensive? Yep. Is it worth the money? Maybe. It will probably be discounted in a few months. Is it a fraud? Nope.
it’s really not that expensive for a professional lens. i would happily pay $2500 for a lens that wasn’t hybrid, had a useable aperture ring, still allowed for double exposures, didn’t lose resolution when correcting for the distortion, and didn’t rattle.
My thoughts….
First, the aperture ring will work with R1 and R5m2….
Second: The corrections DON’T MATTER. I’ve pixel peeped to my hearts content on many of the new canon lenses and the corrections don’t hurt the final quality of the image. I don’t know what kind of magic sauce they are using at canon but it doesn’t mess with anything… so I don’t care.
Jared Polin is the only gear reviewer who seems to get this. It’s simply not an issue…. It just works. 🤷🏻♂️
It is an amazing lens, bought it and fell in love with it. Don't really understand all the negative fuss about it. Absolutely stunning for video and photo. The size is perfect and it is so much fun to use. Really having a blast with it. I have al the RF glass and I find them quite heavy but that is the price I willingly pay for beautiful glass, that is not a problem for me but I am liking this new size for the 35, it gives me more freedom and is more convenient to use in situations where I want to be stealthy or when I am in documentary mode.
Photographers should buy the very first EF 35mm f/1.4 (version1) which goes for around $500-$600 Thats almost a 5th of the price of this lens and boasts incredible 3d pop.
indeed. that’s the one i showed in the video
Canon addressed the loose lens issue and it's not a problem.
agreed, it’s not a problem, but it’s annoying.
It will get a problem over time - whatever damping material is used will wear out.
With the way people were whining about it I expected it to rattle and be annoying, it moves, slightly, with a very soft thud to it. It is not a problem at all.
this is also my concern
Canon has some nerve putting out a lens at this price with this much distortion at this focal length (it is not even an ultra-wide). Really disappointed with the R system lenswise. This is why I refuse to buy most R lenses and mostly go with my old EF or Sigma lenses on my R6 II. My Sigma 40mm 1.4 may be big and heavy but it blows this lens out of the water.
it is rather surprising, but I am holding out hope that they’ll release a 35 mm L series, more geared toward professional still photographers
@@iamsamhurdphotography It would be disappointing if they don't, and I don't understand the trend. Same for Nikon with their new Z cameras. Definitely focusing toward video by omitting mechanical shutters and offering 8k videos and insane fps no still photographer would ever use.
Thanks for the video, Sam. I think this is the way camera companies are going to move forward from now on- get it "good enough" optically and then rely on AI/Upscaling/Algorithms in post to correct for the quirks. I switched to Sony recently after being unhappy with Canon's treatment of 3rd party manufacturers and I do notice that Sony tend to use software corrections liberally in order to keep the size and weight of their GM lenses down- the alternative was going Nikon with their 50mm the size of a 24-70 and their approach of just having huge lenses that MAY be optically better. IDK time will tell, but at the end of the day I am really happy. I do think it's kinda laughable that they're marketing this as a hybrid lens at a price point where I'd expect distortion to be better but like you said, it's pretty clear that a stills oriented 1.2 is probably coming when they make the next big leap in sensor tech/resolution- whether that will be worth being the size of a 28-70 f2, we'll have to wait and see!
yup! very interested in a 35 f/1.2 if it’s not ultra gigantic
Got the Nikon Z version recently and it's exactly the same problem about distorsion and vignetting - while being very well managed in C1 for me - ... but (and it's a big but), it's half the price, it's lighter, smaller and the ring is working for anything you want. Maybe the bokeh can be better on the Canon in certain circumstances though. Still, quite a simple decision.
Yeah, some of Sony’s recent zoom lenses do this a ton too, I’m not too worried about it but it’s bizarre to see it in an L series lens like the 35/1.4.
Yes, the 20-70 does this but it's a compromise in image quality because at 20 mm you will lose sharpness torwards the edges due to heavy in-camera correction.
Which lens do you prefer the RF 35 mm F1.8 or the old EF 35 mm F1.2… which is sharper?
I never had the EF version, just got the new Rf 35 F1.4… and am so disappointed after seeing your review!!
Fuji uses floating elements in their linear motor lenses. They work well for fast, silent AF, but the clunking when not powered on is unsettling.
unsettling is a good word for it 😂 it does have very good stabilization and very smooth focus with virtually no focus breathing - so it’s effective. that’s mostly only useful for video tho so…
This lens from Caon is exactly why I dumped Canon after 20 years for Sony. Loved Canon and had tons of EF L lenses but then with RF. I found too many things wrong. Way too many and it was a "don't like it tough we have no 3rd party AF lenses" from Canon. Even my adapted L lenses with IS never stopped. It kept the lens IS on the whole time (likely to wear it out and kill the lens?) I did so much research on Camera brands, Canon and even Sony and decided to part ways. Since switching I have so many lenses options and get me to switch back to Canon? Nah. I will keep my Canon DSLR and a few lenses but meh... no thanks. 20 years of loyalty but lost from lenses like this.
Nothing wrong with this lens. It's ok to switch but u hv not provided any factual reason jus opinion which is fine.
Sony's 35mm also required lens correction and that's nothing wrong about it. Not everyone wants to carry a heavy lens and there's already tons of sample that shows the picture is still sharp as hell after correction
Good video. I can see the points you're making, but I'm personally OK with the tradeoffs. I never had the EF 35mm mkII, I had the original. That was my favorite lens of all time, I had an ultra sharp copy and I so regret getting rid of it when I switched to digital. It had pretty insane distortion and vignetting but the image was so creamy and sharp at the same time... made me realize that I'm more into the overall look of the image rather than how it gets there. Everyone touts the rf 35mm 1.8...to me that's the ultimate meh lens. I just don't care for the image that comes out of it, it's technically excellent, but boring af IMO. The only thing that annoys tf out of me is the fact that you can't use it with double exposure... mind you, I've never used double exposure and never really had an intention of using it but just the fact that I can't with this lens pisses me off LOL
totally agree the 35 1.8 is very meh, but for the price it’s fantastic! to each their own, always, but yeah the no double exposure… so bizarre. i have to assume it’s something with the way it processes image distortion? have no idea.
I had a chance to use Canon Rf 24-240mm F4-6.3 and it behaved in a similar way distortion wise, but it is not a L-series lens. I too feel like that amount of distortion the RF 35 1.4 produces is unacceptable at this price point.
agreed. also, i know they’re not l series, but don’t even look at the 24 1.8 rf or 16 rf. distortion is absurd on those too. 16mm almost looks like a fisheye
The old tutankhamun EF Sigma 35 1.4 art works so well i never needed the RF one
Brilliant lens and cheap
Before that is the 24-105 vcm
Quick question, can't you have it automatically apply the correction in camera? I have mine automatically applied for every lens?
for sure you can, but with some limitations, and it has to be saved in your import preset, no? this is a problem because *some* lenses I would want a profile correction applied, and some lenses I would not, but I do *always* want the same color/exposure/tonecurve preset settings. if I'm wrong then let me know...
@@iamsamhurdphotography I have mine attached to the RAW files in the menu systems, maybe I'm thinking of something else? I know that it has to either be on the entire time or off the entire time though in the camera settings, so it does go back to what you're saying with the occasional corrections, thanks for the clarification!
Thank you for your point of view on this lens, but I have one complaint about saying it's more about video.
When it is more made for video, it should have less digital corrections since when I shoot in RAW on R5, R6 II via Recorder, C70, C400, R5 C or any RED with RF Mount there is no distortion correction applied and it looks just aweful. If this lens would have been made with Video in Mind how could they just simply have forgot this?
when I shoot in cRAW on my R3 distortion is always applied, and I'm not able to turn it off. not sure about every camera body, but this lens is without a doubt meant to be primarily a videography lens!
@@iamsamhurdphotography it is applied for your viewfinder but now when you play it back on your PC and Editor Software.
make sure that your camera bodies all have the latest firmware. All the raw footage I captured using the lens had distortion correction applied with no ability to turn it off
The difference is CRaw internal via external pro res raw. Craw is a compressed canon raw and will have this included, many of the canon aspects don’t transfer via hdmi such as the canon cinema gamut. That’s probably the reason for the difference.
@@Shellvedge ah, yup! that would be the difference. I only ever shoot RAW video internally to the cf card - and only really talking head video for TH-cam, nothing else.
The irony here is that the main reason we haven’t seen more lenses like this that depend on software correction to work properly is that it required too much processing power for video. Now that we have the power, purists give it the thumbs down for still photography! Yes, you lose a few lines of resolving power on the edges but is that really a problem? For people who actually need and use this lens for work (and not just having the capabilities for having sake) I think that this is a smart tradeoff.
i agree it’s a tradeoff that some will be totally fine with! it’s not for me. i think my main issue is that there should be a very clear denotation when a lens requires distortion correction to operate properly
So I think Canon said that this is first in a family offering.
RF 24mm f1.4 L VCM
RF 35mm f1.4 L VCM
RF 50mm f1.4 L VCM
RF 85mm f1.4 L VCM
RF 100mm f1.4 L VCM
RF 135mm f1.4 L VCM
it’s certainly possible :|
You must have not been paying attention for the last 5-6 years. As far as I know all camera manufacturers rely heavily on lens correction profiles now. If you want specific Canon examples, take a look at the non-L RF 24-240mm or the relatively new 24-105mm f2.8L ( a $3000 USD lens). In those examples the uncorrected angle of view is wider at the 24mm end allowing the corrected image to still be 24mm.
Thank you for this! I was trying to explain this but you articulated it much better!
i’ve been paying very close attention. have you seen the 16mm rf!? haha. this is just the first lens i actually cared about, and at its price point it’s not okay. the loss in resolution having to correct for it is too extreme, and the correction profiles aren’t all accurate. you say 5-6 years and then site the only comparable L series lens released late last year? also, i’be not needed distortion correction on nikon lenses, but i haven’t tried nearly as many of those
@@iamsamhurdphotography If you prefer an L that goes back a while, the RF 14-35 f4L has been out for few years now and it too needs a lens profile, especially at the wide end. The RF 15-35 f2.8L is better corrected optically. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of paying L lens prices and getting a design that is optically inferior to what you expect at the price point, especially a prime which is generally a simpler optical design than the zooms. 🤷🏻♂️
Man that distortion is crazy! I'm also not a fan of how cheap the RF mount L series lenses plastic feels vs the competition or even EF L series lenses given how high the prices are in comparison.
I'm very happy with the build/feel of my 50 1.2 RF, but yeah... seems to be a *range* - not ideal!
Thanks for the video! I agree with you and appreciate you bringing up the resolution conundrum. I have been wondering about just that. Canon is doing magic with their files remaining original resolution after cropping! 😂 It feels off! On the other hand many customers seem to be very happy with the final image they get. I can’t decide which side I stand on. I lean towards wanting an optically well corrected lens, not digitally corrected after the fact. But I’m an old fart…
Would you recommend the Ef 35 1.4 over the RF 35 1.8?
yup
@@iamsamhurdphotography Is the autofocus on the EF THAT much less good as on this one or just a marginal decrease? Kind of relevant for event / fast paced photography! Would be interested in knowing, because another (I assume Canon sponsored) photographer said that the RF 35 VCM is outperforming with the Autofocus by a large margin.
i think the AF on the 35 1.4 ef is faster than the 35 1.8 rf, but slower than the 35 1.4 rf vcm
@@iamsamhurdphotography Yeah I thought so, my question was more so if it really is that significantly faster on the VCM vs the old EF? Or just marginally faster? Because if it's just a small margin of improvement with the VCM, I'd definitely be more than fine with the older lens even for fastpaced movements at events.
@@lanycera marginal - you'd be fine with the older lens
My Sigma 35 art is way better. DO BETTER, CANON. Im this close 👌🏽 from switching to sony.... I want a 35 1.2. or a small rf 1.4.
Great example as photographers we want as much control as possible especially shooting in raw. My years of shooting my leveling is naturally better I crop a use the lightroom level way less seems like to be extremely safe I’d have to back up even more to compensate for the crop.
TH-cam is an incredible platform but it’s becoming an echo chamber, and these camera companies are creating gear primarily for TH-cam content creators to create reviews of future gear.
this is actually an interesting take. i watch literally zero other youtubers in this space so im not sure how influential they are all the way back to lens designers, but wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right to some degree
@@iamsamhurdphotography I get the sense that TH-camrs are quite influential these days. Seems like a lot of advertising capital comes their way through paid trips, camps, gear loans, etc. I've heard that TH-cam is basically the only relevant marketing channel left (aside from the remaining camera stores themselves) for manufacturers these days. Hopefully behind the scenes actual pro shooters' opinions and thoughts get to the designers and engineers of camera bodies and lenses.
@@j.sauer.photo_ well, then I'm sure they appreciate my critical reviews and I'll get an invite to go on a camping trip any day now lol I'm sure you're right. strange times.
Кому твой EF нужен? Детский сад честное слово!
Well balanced and very helpful. Thank you! I fully agree that this lens appears to be a step down for Canon. But they may be judging the market correctly here, while at the same time saving production costs.
Canon is making Nikon look more and more interesting….
i’m very curious to try the nikon 35 1.4 z
@@iamsamhurdphotography I love that lens. Definitely give it a go. However in regards to the commentor, for me z8/9 and electronic shutter only is a dealbreaker (the banding IS an issue esp for event photography and the max 1/200th strobe sync for studio photographers) and the z7II truly had atrocious AF in comparison. They just need to step up their autofocus game and go back to catering to stills photographers as well. I hate the trend of gearing toward videographers.
Its a great lightweight lens with incredible speed of focussing! So to my opinion ..not gonna follow your vids..they are rubbish.
totally fine with me! my opinion is my own and frankly i’m just trying to help people save money. i promise you’d be better off buying an adapted 35 1.4 ef ii, but you do you
Lack of ibis
It has stabilisation. IBIS refers to the stabilisation in the body, not the lens.
@mjscpr you're right about the definition of IBIS, but this lens does not have stabilisation by itself.
@@aranelchan you are correct, I am really surprised. I ordered one, but that’s a dealbreaker on the C70.
For photo only purposes I agree it’s overpriced. The video advantages outweigh the distortion stuff for me. People fail to credit the lens for the rear ND, clickless aperture, and very very quiet focusing motor.
And the weight? It’s amazing. Just held it at B&H. The thud is also barely anything. But I came from Fuji lol
We want a cheap, 1.2/1.4, weather sealed lens, with no correction under 1 lb. Maybe in 2050. For now let’s chill a bit. 😂
For the photo only peeps who want perfection, the 40 sigma still works great for me on my r5.
seeing as how impressed i am with the nikon z mount 35 1.4 that was just released… maybe canon will come around sooner than expected
@@iamsamhurdphotographythe reviews online will be heard im sure. Won’t be getting this lens at full msrp knowing that Nikon lens exists.
And I’m prob one of the 10 fans of this lens overall haha
Nikon is shaking up the industry. Was shooting the Z8 from launch up until about two weeks ago. The lens choices is what I miss.
If canon can get that type of variety plus better pricing, it’s game over. But that’s all wishful thinking atm. Haha
Dude..that klocknoise has been since the RF 70-200 F4 so why bring it up, it disappears when mounted..
because it sounds terrible 😂
Smooth brained title, of course it's for still shooters.
pathetic