You can speculated that Canon is leaving the less-usual focal length like 28mm, 20mm and 16mm for fast and high-quality still-photography primes. Or they will make ultra-fast (f/1.2) primes with the same focal length like the VCM lenses?So you know "many" people who want one then?
Have you seen the optical correction of the EF 17-40/4L? Compare that lens on the 5DsR to the digitally corrected corner of the RF 14-35/4L on a sensor with similar resolution (R5), and tell me which is more effective? Since the former is 'corrected by the lens', probably you like the top image better.
Canon will do what makes economic sense to them, so milking the hybrid market with VCM first (many potential buyers) and coming afterwards with a better (and faster?) lens at a higher price (most likely), weight and dimension (and fewer buyers) might make sense to them. With the RF 85/1.2 L (BR optics) they have shown that they can produce excellent glass for photographers.
How does the AF motor choice (VCM) impact the optical performance?
I would be happy if Canon matches the pricing of the Sony / Sigma 14mm options. Hopes and dreams aside, any RF14mm with aperture under f2.8 is likely to be more expensive albeit much better optically than the EF14/2.8.
I could see wide primes of f1.4 being useful for astro landscape but generally landscaper prefer to shoot ~f9 for max depth of field and sharpness without diffraction. If there is close foreground subject then focus stacking a couple of shots helps the front to back dof.
Optically corrected lenses usually have to make sacrifice in other aspects (CA, coma, etc.) given the same cost, so you end up correcting those digitally. RF lenses rely on digital correction for distortion, but they can optimize other aspects. The end result is that RF lenses usually have same output quality (if not higher) than their EF predecessors after both optical and digital correction. A prime example is RF 10 20 vs EF 11 24.
6 minutes into this video you have a RAW distortion shot for all 3 VCM lenses.
youtu.be
Just my opinion: I like to have the best data from the sensor itself before I go into "data recovery" procedures.
Correct me if I am wrong but the RF14-35/4 has similar performance from 16mm as the EF version but has the added benefit of the extra 2mm on the wide end and maintained the 77mm filter thread. 2 big pluses for it... just waiting for (hopefully) a black Friday discount and I will pull out the wallet
RF with correction is a little bit better than EF without correction - so yes: Final image quality is very close.Correct me if I am wrong but the RF14-35/4 has similar performance from 16mm as the EF version but has the added benefit of the extra 2mm on the wide end and maintained the 77mm filter thread. 2 big pluses for it... just waiting for (hopefully) a black Friday discount and I will pull out the wallet
The front element seems pretty small though. (Which is common in non-SLR wide-angles: the rear glass often is much larger while the front is smaller than you'd expect.)
I know coma is a special concern for astro (I've never shot any myself though would like to). I don't know if the VCM have good coma. But the MTFs from the newly-announced VCM are EXTREMELY good, I think. What are the other concerns you have for image quality that the VCM wouldn't be as good as some other Canons?
I think some people just want to find an excuse to not buy a lens that would more than meet their imaging needs but doesn’t fit their budget.
Sounds interesting and you're probably right. I have absolutely no clue about it and can't explain to myself why the 24mm is gathering more light despite the F-number being the same.
If it is only a subtle difference I wouldn't mind at all. I´m not shooting professionally and I also don´t commit to astro in terms of planning, traveling, chasing comets etc. so I do think I should be fine. I follow some astro photographers from NZ on insta and they do amazing panos and such as 12-20 pic panos. I`ll probably never take such pics, but I´d like to take pics of the Milky Way again in NZ next year (first time was in 2019) and therefore I´d wish for 20mm. A three-four pic pano should be in the books, therefore 20mm will sufficient enough.
What limitations does the VCM have that makes you want to stay away from these lenses?
The price point of a possible RF 14mm F2.0 (or lower) would be waaaaay out of my league, therefore I´m not even hoping for one.
(Sadly), it was discontinued. I took this lens with me to NZ in 2019 for night sky photography. I loved the F1.4 but I hated the weight. Especially because I carried it around only for this one particular reason. One can get a used copy for a reasonable price in Germany. If there isn't a better option available next summer, I'll just get it again and sell it after the trip.
