Not good

I had it for two weeks and returned it. My Benchmark is Nikons 14-30 S.

Even after applying the new lens profiles in LR, the Canon 14-35 shows heavy distortion and absolutely terrible CAs. Sharpness is ok, not more. AF and Build quality is good.

I wanted to like it, but this is completely overpriced. The Nikon is better all around at 60% of the price.

Another RF lens letdown after the pretty unremarkable/soft 24-105 L and ridiculously poor STM AF on the 85mm f/2.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Lars wrote:

I had it for two weeks and returned it. My Benchmark is Nikons 14-30 S.

Even after applying the new lens profiles in LR, the Canon 14-35 shows heavy distortion and absolutely terrible CAs. Sharpness is ok, not more. AF and Build quality is good.

I wanted to like it, but this is completely overpriced. The Nikon is better all around at 60% of the price.

I don't know much about this lens so I Googled it. From the first review I found, at https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s/5:

"At its worst, you’ll see insane distortion – nearly fisheye level – plus heavy vignetting. And, more troubling, it appears to have more potential for sample variation than the other Nikon Z lenses so far."

OK <shrug>.

If you quote, you should quote correctly. So let me help you:

"At its best, it’s excellent – somehow cramming a filter thread, a class-leading zoom range, and top-of-the-line performance into a seriously portable package. It lives up to the promise of what a mirrorless lens can be. At its worst (your quote).."

I stated the things that are good about the Canon lens (AF, built). You can add the 5mm. Still it hardly matters when the rest (at least in my sample) is so bad while the price is extremely high.

On the other hand Bryan, at the Digital Picture (who, in my opinion, does pretty good reviews) seems to have had a different experience than you:

"I consider an ultra-wide-angle zoom lens an essential part of my kit and rarely go anywhere without such a lens in the bag. When light weight, compact size, and moderate price are important, and those attributes frequently are for a lens in this class, the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens rises to the top of the ultra-wide-angle zoom lens shortlist. The remarkable focal length range, reaching from 14mm all the way to 35mm, increases the versatility of this lens. Add excellent performing Nano USM AF and image stabilization along with this lens's impressive optical quality, and the other candidates on the list fall away."

Based on his review, I expect to rent one and give it a try.

William Woodruff wrote:

On the other hand Bryan, at the Digital Picture (who, in my opinion, does pretty good reviews)

He's not the most critical reviewer when it comes to Canon lenses in general and Canon L lenses in particular. If it has a red ring it's fantastic no matter what.

seems to have had a different experience than you:

"I consider an ultra-wide-angle zoom lens an essential part of my kit and rarely go anywhere without such a lens in the bag. When light weight, compact size, and moderate price are important, and those attributes frequently are for a lens in this class, the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens rises to the top of the ultra-wide-angle zoom lens shortlist. The remarkable focal length range, reaching from 14mm all the way to 35mm, increases the versatility of this lens. Add excellent performing Nano USM AF and image stabilization along with this lens's impressive optical quality, and the other candidates on the list fall away."

Based on his review, I expect to rent one and give it a try.

Lars wrote:

I had it for two weeks and returned it. My Benchmark is Nikons 14-30 S.

Even after applying the new lens profiles in LR, the Canon 14-35 shows heavy distortion and absolutely terrible CAs. Sharpness is ok, not more. AF and Build quality is good.

I wanted to like it, but this is completely overpriced. The Nikon is better all around at 60% of the price.

Another RF lens letdown after the pretty unremarkable/soft 24-105 L and ridiculously poor STM AF on the 85mm f/2.

I'm sorry you seem to have bad luck with your copies. My RF 24-105 is remarkably sharp, easily the best 24-105 I've used. My 85 F2 is an excellent performer, and the AF has yet to let me down. Again, it's the best 85 I've used (I haven't used the big and heavy 85L lenses). Based on our divergent opinions on the RF lenses, I'll take your experience with the 14-35 as evidence that I would love it. I'm not going to get it, though. I have the 16 F2.8, which is small and light and sharp (where I want it to be sharp) and gives me all the ultra wide I need. I'm sure you'll hate it, but I absolutely love it.

Niko Todd wrote:

Lars wrote:

I had it for two weeks and returned it. My Benchmark is Nikons 14-30 S.

Even after applying the new lens profiles in LR, the Canon 14-35 shows heavy distortion and absolutely terrible CAs. Sharpness is ok, not more. AF and Build quality is good.

I wanted to like it, but this is completely overpriced. The Nikon is better all around at 60% of the price.

Another RF lens letdown after the pretty unremarkable/soft 24-105 L and ridiculously poor STM AF on the 85mm f/2.

Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

That looks extremely bad, not sharp anywhere at any aperture, almost like a defect. The sample variations that various sites mention probably are correct and mabye I was on the lucky side with the Nikon and unlucky side of the Canon.

Expensive: yes. Too expensive: maybe. Bad: it is designed with post precessing/ corrections in mind. (It's actually e.g. more a 13mm lens to get to 14mm with corrections.) I'm fine with this and my (still limited experience) is: not bad at all.

Ever tried another software?

More in line with my experience:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u_QRXnMxyQg

Lars wrote:

I had it for two weeks and returned it. My Benchmark is Nikons 14-30 S.

Even after applying the new lens profiles in LR, the Canon 14-35 shows heavy distortion and absolutely terrible CAs. Sharpness is ok, not more. AF and Build quality is good.

I wanted to like it, but this is completely overpriced. The Nikon is better all around at 60% of the price.

Another RF lens letdown after the pretty unremarkable/soft 24-105 L and ridiculously poor STM AF on the 85mm f/2.

My 24-105 is dead-on sharp at anything under F11; if yours is as soft as you suggest, you might want to send it back.

Maybe you should take a look at the Samyang 14mm f/2.4 XP.   It's not a zoom, but it covers the 14mm FL pretty well.

thunder storm wrote:

Maybe you should take a look at the Samyang 14mm f/2.4 XP. It's not a zoom, but it covers the 14mm FL pretty well.

I use the AF 14mm Samyang, which is a pretty decent lens. Yes, works best stopped down a bit - it's an ultrawide. They tend to. At the moment, it's what I use when I can't be bothered to fit an adaptor to my 16-35 L.
I do find this thread pretty interesting in terms of credibility of reviewers. In the past, camera/lens reviewers in magazines tended to have done a form of apprenticeship, and learned their craft over time. These days, we're all reviewers, and even most of the well-respected YouTubers are self-taught  - and by the same token, self-accredited. You say you're a lens reviewer, and you ARE a lens reviewer nowadays.
I've been friends with, known, met or conversed online with quite a few magazine and ex-magazine reviewers over the years (including several senior staff past and present here), and even these guys' reviews have to have the context of their prejudices taken into account when you read their reviews. That goes double for YouTubers, and even more so for people on here. That's not a criticism of anyone, merely a statement of fact. If you want to build up a  fuller picture of any piece of kit, read more reviews of them, and be prepared to discard the outliers as perhaps not typical of the bit of kit in question - the tester could have had a bad (or especially good) example. Also with time, you'll work out whose opinions most closely match your own, and you can give them more credence. Doesn't mean that any of them are wrong about what they say, merely that some of their experiences might be more relevant to you than others.

William Woodruff wrote:

Lars wrote:

I had it for two weeks and returned it. My Benchmark is Nikons 14-30 S.

Even after applying the new lens profiles in LR, the Canon 14-35 shows heavy distortion and absolutely terrible CAs. Sharpness is ok, not more. AF and Build quality is good.

I wanted to like it, but this is completely overpriced. The Nikon is better all around at 60% of the price.

Another RF lens letdown after the pretty unremarkable/soft 24-105 L and ridiculously poor STM AF on the 85mm f/2.

My 24-105 is dead-on sharp at anything under F11; if yours is as soft as you suggest, you might want to send it back.

Mine too.

All my RF lenses are good and the R5 plus RF lenses are definitely making it easier for me to get ‘keepers’.

I had the EF versions as well and prefer the RF albeit that has more to do with more compact sizes. Still, the quality of all is stellar for their respective price points, I’ve yet to receive an RF lens I wasn’t happy with and I have had some dud EF lenses in the past.

I’m just a casual hobbyist photographer too, so would expect a serious photographer to be even happier with these lenses.