Dustin Abbot's RF 35mm f/1.4 review

YuengLinger · Nov 18, 2024

I think Dustin's careful balancing of the benefits and drawbacks of the RF 35mm f/1.4L's design strikes just the right tone. This lens is the only one that prompted me to buy a "backup" of the EF version of a lens since I fell in love with the first RF primes released several years ago.

As I've posted before, craftsmanship means something to me. To others this might be a nostalgic, irrelevant perspective, but I hope Canon changes course with its L primes.

Enjoy the video!

Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM Review | A Polarizing Successor to the 35L II

Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a deep dive review of Canon's somewhat controversial RF 35mm F1.4L VCM lens. What's the controversy about? | This episode...

www.youtube.com

Click · Nov 18, 2024

Thanks for sharing. I always enjoy Dustin Abbot's review.

koenkooi · Nov 18, 2024

His a priori hate for the distortions were telling. He tried really hard to justify his feeling, but couldn't really point to a measurable degradation (paging @SwissFrank !) and didn't change his opinion. I hope he never tries the RF85L DS, Canon darkened the lens internally with paint to introduce vignetting!

I read his written review, I didn't watch the matching video, does his face get redder and redder the more he talks about distortions?

It's like Chris Frost's opinion of build quality: if it feels heavy, it's good. If it feels light, say the heavier competitors are better. If you see a plastic shell, cast some aspersions on it!

YuengLinger · Nov 18, 2024

koenkooi said:
His a priori hate for the distortions were telling. He tried really hard to justify his feeling, but couldn't really point to a measurable degradation...

Wow. You don't like the reviewer (admitting you did not watch the video), so tossing in "hate" is your first response? You are suggesting, snarkily, that he can't be objective, which is not at all what I've seen in many years of watching his reviews. And then you belittle another reviewer just for emphasis? Ok. You are certainly entitled to your revealing opinions!

He does show how the several stops of vignetting cause a noise increase in the corners after correction, and this, mind you, coinciding with the R5 II's high-ISO noise increase over the Mark I.

neuroanatomist · Nov 18, 2024

YuengLinger said:
He does show how the several stops of vignetting cause a noise increase in the corners after correction, and this, mind you, coinciding with the R5 II's high-ISO noise increase over the Mark I.

Do you mean the same 3-stops of vignetting that the EF 35/1.4L II has? Egad, the horror!

YuengLinger · Nov 18, 2024

neuroanatomist said:
Do you mean the same 3-stops of vignetting that the EF 35/1.4L II has? Egad, the horror!

Good point, only 1/2 stop better than the RF version. Admittedly, those R primes I do love, the 50mm and 85mm 1.2, have vignetting too.

I've said that I have an aversion to what seems more emphasis on digital correction, as I like starting with great optics and going from there with post processing. In this regard, it looks like the EF 35mm f/1.4L II's significant, measurable advantage would be minimal distortion.

If Canon's lens designers were given the order to make lighter, cheaper primes, of course they must. And software has improved enough to mitigate small impacts to optical quality. But I'm happy I grabbed another EF copy so I can have a backup and breathe easier as my kids move into better lenses!

neuroanatomist · Nov 18, 2024

YuengLinger said:
I've said that I have an aversion to what seems more emphasis on digital correction, as I like starting with great optics and going from there with post processing. In this regard, it looks like the EF 35mm f/1.4L II's significant, measurable advantage would be minimal distortion.

Yes, you've said that. Can you show that there is a significant, measurable advantage after the distortion of both lenses is corrected?

YuengLinger · Nov 18, 2024

neuroanatomist said:
Yes, you've said that. Can you show that there is a significant, measurable advantage after the distortion of both lenses is corrected?

As I've also said, software can cover the shortcomings remarkably well. I prefer to start with fewer shortcomings.

Yes, we tend to repeat ourselves, neuro. I discuss some things I'd like to see Canon do differently, and you remind me how Canon could care less what I think. You remain focused on your missions to keep us in line with logic and to remind us to be deferential to Canon's success.

Keep up the great work!

0x2102 · Nov 18, 2024

neuroanatomist said:
Yes, you've said that. Can you show that there is a significant, measurable advantage after the distortion of both lenses is corrected?

Here is an article that talks about some of the visual side effects of software correction.

Will Modern Lenses Have an Increased Dependence on Lens Corrections?

I see a growing number of new lenses hitting the market that rely on lens correction. These lenses have some benefits, but are lens manufacturers taking shortcuts with these lens designs? Will we be seeing more and more lenses with this reliance on lens correction in the near future? I remember...

fstoppers.com

"...in specialized photography, this reliance on lens correction can become increasingly problematic, even rendering results unusable in some cases. This is especially noticeable in image stacking. Since each lens correction is unique, stacking can result in a significant amount of banding."

YuengLinger · Nov 18, 2024

0x2102 said:
Here is an article that talks about some of the visual side effects of software correction.

Will Modern Lenses Have an Increased Dependence on Lens Corrections?

I see a growing number of new lenses hitting the market that rely on lens correction. These lenses have some benefits, but are lens manufacturers taking shortcuts with these lens designs? Will we be seeing more and more lenses with this reliance on lens correction in the near future? I remember...

fstoppers.com

"...in specialized photography, this reliance on lens correction can become increasingly problematic, even rendering results unusable in some cases. This is especially noticeable in image stacking. Since each lens correction is unique, stacking can result in a significant amount of banding."

Thank you. Exactly! Plus all that sentimental "craftsmanship" stuff.

koenkooi · Nov 18, 2024

0x2102 said:
Here is an article that talks about some of the visual side effects of software correction.

Will Modern Lenses Have an Increased Dependence on Lens Corrections?

I see a growing number of new lenses hitting the market that rely on lens correction. These lenses have some benefits, but are lens manufacturers taking shortcuts with these lens designs? Will we be seeing more and more lenses with this reliance on lens correction in the near future? I remember...

fstoppers.com

"...in specialized photography, this reliance on lens correction can become increasingly problematic, even rendering results unusable in some cases. This is especially noticeable in image stacking. Since each lens correction is unique, stacking can result in a significant amount of banding."

He doesn’t say if the distortion correction is done before or after stacking, I’d say that doing it after stacking wouldn’t lead to banding.

neuroanatomist · Nov 18, 2024

koenkooi said:
He doesn’t say if the distortion correction is done before or after stacking, I’d say that doing it after stacking wouldn’t lead to banding.

I was thinking that, as well. Not a use case that affects me, but at least that's finally some demonstration of an actual (well, potential) problem, if one of limited scope.

koenkooi · Nov 18, 2024

YuengLinger said:
Wow. You don't like the reviewer (admitting you did not watch the video)

I said I read the article on his site, which in the past has been the script for the video, has that changed?

YuengLinger said:
, so tossing in "hate" is your first response? You are suggesting, snarkily, that he can't be objective, which is not at all what I've seen in many years of watching his reviews.

When it comes to distortion, he doesn’t seem to be. As people here and in other places have been asking: can someone show a measurable difference in the end result, or is it just the knowledge of distortions ruining all your joy?
I was in the ruined-joy camp till I compared the RF16 and 15-30 to the EF17-40L, the corners are now actually useable!

YuengLinger said:
And then you belittle another reviewer just for emphasis? Ok. You are certainly entitled to your revealing opinions!

I trust lensrentals teardowns and experiences over discussing build quality after a day of use.

YuengLinger said:
He does show how the several stops of vignetting cause a noise increase in the corners after correction, and this, mind you, coinciding with the R5 II's high-ISO noise increase over the Mark I.

I was talking about distortion, not vignetting.

koenkooi · Nov 18, 2024

koenkooi said:
He doesn’t say if the distortion correction is done before or after stacking, I’d say that doing it after stacking wouldn’t lead to banding.

I do like his shots of the telescopes, back when I visited, devices with radio emissions needed to be turned off, so I used a Yashica TLR with 120 film:

Search

Search

Dustin Abbot's RF 35mm f/1.4 review

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.

Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM Review | A Polarizing Successor to the 35L II

Click

koenkooi

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.

neuroanatomist

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.

neuroanatomist

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.

0x2102

Will Modern Lenses Have an Increased Dependence on Lens Corrections?

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.

Will Modern Lenses Have an Increased Dependence on Lens Corrections?

koenkooi

Will Modern Lenses Have an Increased Dependence on Lens Corrections?

neuroanatomist

koenkooi

koenkooi

Similar threads