Canon 35 1.4 RF VCM Lens full review, why it's not for still photographers 

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!

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.

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.

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.

Obviously it's a new label so its understandable that people don't know what it means yet, but VCM stands for voice coil motor and doesn't have anything to do with video specifically. It's a type of motor that existed already before Canon decided to use for this. It's allows for fast and actuate movement of a weight that that the USM can't handle. There is one element group in the front that controlled by a USM motor and heavier elements in the back that are controlled by the VCM motor (yeah, I know I'm saying Ultrasonic Motor motor and Voice Coil Motor motor). This allows for a design of better balanced lens instead of front heavy, and with a motor that can move the heavy elements that can keep up with the USM motor in front, it eliminates focus breathing. (Or so a different video I just watched said.)

It’s why I stick to the EF mark II That lens it’s a beast

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.

I am no engineer, but the VCM motor sounds like the linear motors in some of the Fuji lenses I own - they thunk and clunk when powered down, and if you shake them violently you can hear them banging around. But given they've been used in zoom/prime lenses for almost a decade I'd say there isn't much to worry about - they last. Not to mention, they are the fastest, most accurate focusing motors you can get in that system. Nowadays the sound tells me I am holding "one of the good ones". As for lens distortion, I agree - less software correction is preferable to more, since there is obviously a trade-off in terms of image quality. Mirrorless tech is already robbing you of resolution, because the AF systems are integrated into the imaging sensor - hence the R3 has 2.6 million pixels doing (something - AF I guess), and 24 million pixels actually recording the image. That is a lot of pixels. All THAT said, I don't personally worry about it too much - there is nowhere for me to go but back to an SLR if I have a problem with all this.

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.

Huh. WOW. What a fumble. So would you recommend an EF version 2 or a Sigma? I’m with you, I think the 35mm prime length is perfect for one prime if you’re like me and have a 24-70 and 70-200.

Very informative. I was looking at this lens for milky way panos but I suspect with that much distortion it would take a lot of overlap on the shots to get everything to look good. Thank you for sharing your thoughtful review!

I don't see these as problems. They are features. You can work with your tools or argue with them. If you don't like it though, send it back.

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!

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.

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

Why praise the smooth bokeh but also complain about the number of sun stars? You can't have both. More aperture blades = smoother bokeh = more points in sun stars

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.

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

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!!

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!

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.

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.

Is it suitable for canon r7?

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.

That lens toss as the beginning is tooooo much 😭😭☠️☠️

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?

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.

Quick question, can't you have it automatically apply the correction in camera? I have mine automatically applied for every lens?

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.

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.

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.

Would you recommend the Ef 35 1.4 over the RF 35 1.8?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.....

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…

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.

Canon addressed the loose lens issue and it's not a problem.

The lens doesn’t have ibis what are you talking about

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.

The old tutankhamun EF Sigma 35 1.4 art works so well i never needed the RF one

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.

RU-vid is an incredible platform but it’s becoming an echo chamber, and these camera companies are creating gear primarily for RU-vid content creators to create reviews of future gear.

Before that is the 24-105 vcm

I have the lens its a still and video lens I use canon dpp software and I have know probelms

Кому твой EF нужен? Детский сад честное слово!

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.

Canon is making Nikon look more and more interesting….

Smooth brained title, of course it's for still shooters.

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.

Dude..that klocknoise has been since the RF 70-200 F4 so why bring it up, it disappears when mounted..

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.

Its a great lightweight lens with incredible speed of focussing! So to my opinion ..not gonna follow your vids..they are rubbish.

Lack of ibis

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.