Question(s) for RF 14-35 owners

drsnoopy wrote:

Basil Fawlty wrote:

Wing2 wrote:

Distortion and vignetting is not serious after correction. The RAW file uncorrected does have serious distortion and vignetting. However, if you manually correct the RAW file, you can get as wide as 13mm

Thanks for your reply! Just curious, from your experience, was you zoom out, at what focal length would you say the uncorrected distortion and vignetting cease to be a problem? In other words, how bad is it at 15mm? 16mm?

Thanks

It’s irrelevant. Just use the profile (DPP, DXO, Adobe) and the distortion is corrected. It is designed to be used with a profile. If that troubles you, buy something else. Or use jpeg.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I ask him because I'm just curious.  I am well aware that it can be fixed in post.

BBR5 wrote:

In general I prefer DXO PureRAW because of the excellent noise reduction and overall rendering. But when using it I typically follow-up with LRc for additional editing (I have PureRAW, not PhotoLab).

From the samples you posited I think I would agree.  If I end up getting this lens, I may have to invest in DXO PR.  It would be interesting to play around with the Lightroom corrections (Adjust distortion and transform sliders maybe) to see what adjustments might be made to match as close as possible the DXO corrections.

I got my 14-35 last month and have thoroughly enjoyed using it. As other have said, it is relatively light and compact, and with the 70-200 f4 makes a very easy to carry "cover (almost) everything" kit.

Here's a couple of shots taken shortly after I got it, at 14 and 35.

14mm

35mm

It would make an excellent walk around cityscape/street lens, which I shall try next time I get to a city.

Thanks for sharing the images - very nice!  Looks like the sky was on fire.

Blue-Shift wrote:

Basil Fawlty wrote:

For anyone who actually has the RF 14-35:

1. Does Lightroom now have a correction profile for this lens? I've heard it has quite a bit of barrel distortion and vignetting at the wide end?

2. If LR has a profile now, how well does it work?

3. If you had it to do over, would you still get this lens, or would you get something else (like maybe RF 15-53 or EF 16-35, etc)? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance.

1. Yes and yes.

BUT there is a big advantage, too: If you deactivate the lightroom profile, you get closer to 12mm with good image quality. (with distortion and vignetting). Having that option can be very helpful, 12mm is an incredible focal range for such a compact package.

2. I could see no problems with it whatsoever.

3. I had the EF 16-35 before. It's a very good lens, and for many use cases it's fine keeping that one. I switched because:

1. Wanted to go all-native (not a strong reason, because adapting EF glass works perfectly)

2. The RF 14-35 can focus much closer, giving it 2x the magnification of the EF 16-35. That's quite an advantage for a flower guy like me.

3. The option to go wider while deactivating profile is so nice to have, I use this on a regular basis. It's useless for architecture, but most shots of living subjects (plants, portraits, animals...) will not be negatively affected by the distortion.

Don't you miss the EF16-35mm? I am about to walk down the path of trading it with the RF14-35. Biggest hesitation is the build quality.

Basil Fawlty wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

Basil Fawlty wrote:

Wing2 wrote:

Distortion and vignetting is not serious after correction. The RAW file uncorrected does have serious distortion and vignetting. However, if you manually correct the RAW file, you can get as wide as 13mm

Thanks for your reply! Just curious, from your experience, was you zoom out, at what focal length would you say the uncorrected distortion and vignetting cease to be a problem? In other words, how bad is it at 15mm? 16mm?

Thanks

It’s irrelevant. Just use the profile (DPP, DXO, Adobe) and the distortion is corrected. It is designed to be used with a profile. If that troubles you, buy something else. Or use jpeg.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I ask him because I'm just curious. I am well aware that it can be fixed in post.

Hi - it was intended as a thoughtful post, not a criticism.  My point is it’s intended to be used that way, it’s not “fixed in post” because they never expect you to see it uncorrected.  Indeed you can’t view it on the camera without correction, in the EVF or on the LCD, and this is why the ability to turn correction off is greyed out in the menu.  In some other camera systems, Fujifilm for example, software correction is employed by being baked into the RAW file, and this with/without correction question never arises and isn’t even discussed, it’s basically a non-issue.

Blue-Shift wrote:

CamerEyes wrote:

Don't you miss the EF16-35mm? I am about to walk down the path of trading it with the RF14-35. Biggest hesitation is the build quality.

No, not at all.

I have to say that I was annoyed a bit at first about the extending design of the RF. All those complications for one cm extension! In that sense, I prefer the EF solution with a solid, rugged barrel that is 1cm longer.

But once I got the RF 14-35, I forgot about it quickly. It's build quality is beyond reproach, very solid feeling and every bit as good as the EF, but much more modern. I used it in strong rain a few times with no issues, also it got dirty several times and never was there any complaint.

I like this lens a lot despite it costing a steep premium over the EF - it was worth it for me.

Thanks for this helpful feedback.