I’ve had this lens for a week and has not left my R5 since I got it and I’ve used it daily since I’m on a “staycation”! Honestly, the rattling “issue” is way overblown, I stopped paying attention to it since day one, and I’m a pretty dramatic neurotic misophoniac! It’s a beautiful lens, and I’m so happy that it is so light, perfect for walk around and street photography!
Really happy you love it! I do agree about the rattle, I’m already used to it, just a surprising thing for Canon to let fly. Enjoy your new lens and your staycation!
@@TerraThink Well, it shouldn't be. Canon has stated, since its announcement, that the lens interior is cushioned specifically for the floating elements.
I am a Wedding Photographer as a Main Job. I have used the lens about three weeks now. 5 Weddings. I have to be honest. The end Results are amazing. The bokeh is much much better than the 35 1.8. But the price is hurting... All the flaws are not a bumer for me but i understanf Everyone who is pissed.
Due to the strong vignetting at f/1.4, the corners have to be brightened considerably by the correction. I suspect that this could lead to a lot of noise at high ISO values. Haven't you had a problem with this yet?
I previously owned the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM lens before switching to the Canon R system. In my opinion, the Sony 35 GM lens outperforms the RF 35mm f/1.4 L VCM in every aspect except for focus breathing, which can be corrected in the new Sony cameras. I'm not sure what Canon was thinking, considering they had ample time to study the Sony 35mm GM lens before releasing this sub-standard lens. Yes, the Sony FE 35 GM aperture ring on the lens is fully functional when shooting stills and it does not rattle.
@@TerraThink I shot with Canon for many years prior to Sony mirrorless cameras starting to gain a significant advantage in autofocus performance over Canon DSLRs around the mid-2010s. I then tried out the Sony mirrorless system and was impressed. Canon was dragging its feet; it did not see the need to improve, and this attitude upset most Canon users, including me. It wasn't until the release of Canon's EOS R (2018) and later models like the EOS R5 and R6 (2020) that Canon began to close the gap in autofocus performance with their mirrorless cameras. At that time, I missed the Canon colour, ergonomic designs and better user experience and bought an R5 after selling all my Sony gear. I am very happy with the performance of my R5, which has reliable autofocus, effective IBIS, better user-friendly interface, comfortable grip, intuitive controls, high image quality and detail rendering. I could not be happier. But I cannot deny the fact that Sony has better lens choices, and it is heading towards the right direction of producing smaller, lighter and better quality lenses. My favourite lens is 35mm focal length, and I am particularly disappointed with the new Canon RF 35 mm f/1.4L that was recently launched after 4 years of waiting.
This 35 1.4 VCM has been compared to the 35 1.4 II (EF) and outperforms it considerably just like the GM does. So no, the 35 1.4 GM doesn't seem to outperform it in every aspect. Sharpness seems to be astronomically good just like the GM. See the CameraLabs review for more.
Great reviews as always James, telling the truth and being honest and also talking about the quirks of the lens. Your recommendations are always welcome.
Guys, if you need a cheaper pro grade 35mm lens, you can still adapt the EF 35mm F1.4 Tamron. It is probably just as sharp, has some of the best color and bokeh, is made of metal, has weather sealing, for 699$. Also, it doesn't require that much profile correction, though the combination of the lens and the adapter will make for a bigger and heavier combo. Oh and it's not a rattle snake.
Thank you for the recommendation. My Canon RF 35mm 1.4 is going back. Too much barrel distortion and vignetting correction for me. I'm researching that Tampon lens now.
@jeffkernen1554 watch Dustin Abbott's review of the lens, which is the most comprehensive and thorough review of it. It really is a special lens and represents awesome value.
@unique93obr agreed, I love the 28-45mm focal length so I use the pancake 28mm from canon whenever I want to travel light but the tamron gives the extra touch of special when I need it
After waiting six years for a proper 35mm f/1.4 lens from Canon, this release is incredibly disappointing. The annoying rattling sounds, Image Quality - without profile correction barrel distortion is horrendous, severe chromatic aberration, and terrible ghosting made it an instant return for me. Canon's attempt to please both videographers and photographers has resulted in a lens filled with flaws, which is absolutely unacceptable for a $1500 lens.
The rattling is kinda scary. It still takes great photos despite the flaws but for me the bigger problem is canons slow rollout of lenses in general. We have crazy lenses like the 28-70 f2 and 200-800mm but still no mid range 50/85 f.1.4/f1.8. Such lenses should be the standard on any system and deserve the most attention. How did third party lenses already cover that years ago on RF before canon banned them, yet canon hasnt given us anything? Atleast thats my thoughts.
Excellent as always! That rattling does bother me for sure. Canon has stated that the aperture ring is only for video and that will not change in the future. Your video samples look incredible, especially that 8K part! I think it has to do with the colour in the frame - so much pop. Thank you for providing raw samples. I want to see how this compares to the 1.8 version.
Thank you so much DRIS! It’s not really a loss that the aperture ring won’t work in photo but a bit of a strange decision. Glad you liked the clips and hope the RAWs help you in your decision
Excellent review James. Your videos are really well done. I have been following you since your first video which was great, but they are even getting better 👏 keep it up pal. 📷
I shoot Canon and I love the design of their cameras, but their lenses are falling pretty short of their competition. Sony, Sigma and even Tamron are putting out much better stuff. Sony's 35 1.4 is smaller, better corrected, razor sharp and you can click or de-click the aperture ring in both video annnnnnnd photo. Hell even Nikon just put out a 35 1.4 that's smaller at 1/3 the price. This lens is a hard pass for me. Great video though!
Have had mine for a week and totally agree with you: a flawed but ultimately excellent lens. I need a 35mm f1.4 in my collection and this is the only native RF option, so will definitely be keeping it. Would just love for it to cost a bit less given all the compromises…. Wonderful review by the way. Love your content. 🎉
Long time EF 35mm f1.4 mk2 user here. Weddings etc. The release of this lens means there will be a flood of used EF 35mm’s coming. Snap up a bargain people. The mk2 is more than anyone will need professionally for photo use.
Thanks again for another great portrait/lens video. For a versatile light portrait package I think this 35mm 1.4, 50mm f1.2 and 70-200mm f2.8 would be great. For something magical and special I would add a 135mm f/1.8 or f 2.0
For weddings, I use 35mm for 90% of the day. Live by it, so I was waiting for Canon to release this for ages. But then I realised that I didn't actually want photos sharp... that was the point. Why would I pay that much money to reduce the sharpness anyway lol. I'd only get it for the weather sealing tbh
Great review as usual. I think I'm going with the 35 1.8 , Honestly 35 MM is probably my least favorite focal length in fact after reviewing the focal lengths in Lightroom I found that when I shoot the 28-70 40MM is my most common focal length
It’s probably psychological but the rattle on a select few of my lenses bothers me too. Although this 35 1.4 looks great I think I want to try out the 135 1.8 RF and see how that looks. Between my 15-35, 14-35, 24-70 and 24-105 I have the 35mm focal length covered. Obviously not as wide open as a prime though. Any experience with the 135 1.8 RF James?
Yeah my RF lenses with IS in particular do have some rattle. But this 35mm is on a new level! RF 135 is excellent, optically fantastic and amazing rendering, I think you would really like it
Hi Jared, RF 135 1.8 is one of my best lenses: it stands up to the RF 1.2 primes. I can easily hand hold 1/30 at the R5, and it's quite sharp corner to corner. 135mm is a bit of a niche focal length, but still it gets quite some use here, mainly for landscape and outdoor portraits. AF motor is very fast, so it's nice for moving subjects like running dogs, too. When compared to my 70-200 2.8 @135mm the main differences are: more than one stop more light, plus much better contrast wide open.
Lack of image stabilisation is the deal breaker for me. Canon IS is so good and essential for handheld video. Looks like a great photo lens though! The "something's moving in there" rattle also happens to some degree with the 24-105 F4L.
I have an ancient Canon 28-135 EF 3.5 to 5.6 IS lens that has I wouldn't necessarily call it a rattle but clunking when shaken like in the video. I called Canon about when I got the lens all those years ago (for my EOS10D) and was told there's nothing wrong with it. As I understand it my lens is the first one Canon did that had image stabilization which works a treat. Seems like Canon hasn't let the acorn fall too far from the tree with the rattles. Disappointing as you'd think Canon would have learned from the past. And don't get me started on the chromatic aberration and barrel distortion business. All my old EF lenses (L and non-L) come through just fine on my R7 without any in camera digital correction. Disappointing that Canon has unlearned the knowledge they had from the past.
I can kind of accept that a lens with IS will have some rattle, makes sense. Didn’t expect it on this lens! I do think IS would of made a lot of sense in this lens and made it really attractive to R5C owners
thanks for your much awaited review on this lens. I am interested in buying a light prime lens for video ... and the RF1.8 would be nicer for my needs except the slow autofocus for video .... if only they would update the smaller 1.8 with a more efficient AF motor
Thank you for watching! The RF 35mm 1.8 is a little slow I’m afraid. I don’t mind it so much for my use case but can understand it might be a deal breaker for some
Good review, James! As usual we can get very useful material to compare. I'm a RF 35mm f/1.8 user, mostly for video. I like the f/1.4 extra detail and contrast on the samples I've downloaded. However, I see some moirée present on the dress. Sometimes, sharpness on R6 and R62 produces this undesirable effect on patterns and clothes. Thank you for this video!
That sounds like a very Canon thing to do. Release a purposefully flawed lens that everyone still wants in their arsenal and follow up with the lens everyone actually wanted.
The rattle is the main thing turning me off from getting this lens. I want to bring it everywhere and to constantly hear a rattle as I walk might be too much to bear.
I definitely look forward to when you release a new video with great quality sample files. Thank you so much. PS: At this point the Canon R5 Mark II is already out. Maybe you can bring it to the channel. Greetings.
I love the 35 f1.8 and it's amazing value but the comparison between the 2 here shows exactly why one is a professional lens and the other is not. great video
Awesome lens, have had it for a week now. Rattle is the only downside I can think of, but it’s not a big deal by any means. The things I prioritize are truly something great - size, image quality, autofocus speed. And fun factor, which is important for me as well.
Great video James. And lol at everyone crying over this lens. It’s great. If you are a pro and the price isn’t an issue (which for a pro it shouldn’t be) and you need a fast native Rf 35mm1.4, it is a must have. I love this with my 851.2. This lens really shines for video. I am still struggling going from shooting nothing but 85 and 135 primes to a 35. For video it’s not an issue but I have to learn how to take 35mm portraits lol
Good review, I have the lens for a week now. What you didn’t touch on, esp with your portrait setup is LOCA - if you have backlight in your image that’s out of focus it gets quite a bit of green fringing - foreground purple. Annoys the heck out of me as I’m used to warm images from my 28-70. Bokeh is a bit weird but I can get used to it - in summary I wished it would have made less compromises for that bs parfocal attribute
Great review as always. I can’t see myself picking this up over the 1.8 any time in the near future, I could buy an X100V for the same price and get something way more fun. I’m thinking of getting a Pergear 35mm f1.4 which is the cheapest full frame f1.4 lens on the RF mount and has lots more character which is more suited to my style over something more clinical like this lens. This lens will be perfect for some people though.
I don't really know why people care that much about corrections personally, this is just the way it is now. If it means the sharpness suffers significantly because of aggressive correction I get it, but in this case even with corrections the RF 35 1.4 outperforms the EF 35 1.4 II and that lens was extremely well regarded (this is not a comment aimed at James just a wider observation)
It’s a fair point. If the final results look great I suppose the rest doesn’t matter! And I’m really liking the end results from this lens. Definitely keeping mine!
@@JamesReader Canon have been relying on digital corrections for a while now too, a bunch of the RF lenses (even L) have quite a bit of distortion! If people wanna get mad about expensive gear having some heavy distortion they should check out the Leica Q2 lens. I think this is just an evolution of camera technology, if this was possible in the film days we'd all be very used to lenses designed around digital corrections. The fact this outperforms the EF 35 even with the corrections is very impressive to me. The 35 GM 1.4 might end up being an overall better lens but I'm not using Sony anymore and we would be splitting hairs, the RF 35 1.4, EF 35 L II, Sigma 35 1.2 and 35 GM are like 4 of the best 35mm lenses in existence...
Does the lens suffer the same distortion and vignetting with video? I definitely noticed it in the photos you showed but didn't see it in the video samples.
I know the 50 1.2 image quality is spectacular. The main reason I’d prefer the 35 over it is the weight and whether it’s too heavy to be a regular walk around lens
@@rixomatrx not at all. Or maybe it’s because I got the 50mm after I bought the 28-70. And let me tell you about that friggin. It’s bulky and heavy where it hurts my shoulder from carrying it in a bag. So when I got the 50. It was definitely by go-to lens for casual stuff. But it isn’t heavy at all. I recommend it
Thats why Canon users must purchase 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.
I had a second shooter use this lens on their R6 and it does not look that great imo, at least for professional use. The flaws really show up. For the used price, that's still hard to beat though. The VII on the other hand is still super nice.
@@gregoryreneau1052 It does have flaws and a very analogue feel. However the 3d pop of version 1, is insane. A tough lens to master, but fully capable of amazing and professional results. After all it is an L series lens.
Waaa…. Waaa…. Waaa! Let’s see, fast, light, sharp, takes beautiful images. All for $1,500? And, that’s a problem? I don’t design, or build camera lenses. I only look at the images a lens gives me, and I’ve already got this one ordered.
Oh, one more thing…. Sitting in front of your l computer for 20 minutes, using Photoshop, to create the perfect print is OK. But, a one click lens profile correction is just horrible! Give me a break….
I don't see why the "rattle" is disappointing when it doesn't happen in use. A lot of smart phone cameras have a "rattle" when the camera is not in use too - it's down to the electromagnets that are used for image stabilisation not being powered and holding the lens elements in place. Long-term I very much doubt it will cause any issues with the lens that normal physical abuse wouldn't cause anyway.
I think you’re right in most cases but this lens has no image stabilisation. My RF lenses with built in IS rattle a whole lot less than this lens. Maybe I’ve made it into a bigger deal than I should have, I’m already used to the rattle and more than happy with the lens! Thank you for watching.
Make a similar 85mm F1.4 and I'll be very happy. Good as the 1.2 lenses are technically, the 85mm 1.2 is just too damn heavy. So yes, it's a compromise but I personally like this direction from Canon.
After watching your review, I decided to cancel my order. The build, the distortion, It is such a weird choice to me. I loaded your raw files into my capture one, the distortion is so obvious and I don’t even have a correction profile because I am using the old standalone version. Oh well, I guess I need to wait for their more photo centric 35 lens.😢
@@JamesReader I desperately searched for raw files to test on my CO the day before. Then, a day later, your video magically showed up on my timeline. I really appreciate your upload.
@@SEAME7 Maybe you are right, I shouldn't. I tried the lens in a shop and need to take back what I said about the build quality and the rattling. It is very subtle and dampened unless you really pay attention to it (I tried it on some Sony lenses, and I am surprised that some of those also make this rattling sound). The lens itself is very sharp on my R6 Mark II, but the distortion is still too much for me.
The rattling is because of the new engine.. when there’s no power to the lens the motors can move and they are buffered so it’s not damaging anything when it rattles. Canon’s official video on it says to expect it and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.
@@JamesReader I have older af lenses that do this and for those I was worried. I was relieved also when I heard Canon officially address this behavior. I preordered one and I’m patiently waiting for it to come, can’t wait!
Im still kinda hoping that Canon makes 35mm version of their 85mm f 1.2 L USM lens. No IS, no video features, no rattle and preferably not relying on digital corrections either. Just state of the art 35mm f 1.2 L USM lens. As good or even better than their RF 85mm L lens is. Emphases on image quality and bokeh over everything else. I would gladly pay a small fortune for that lens. This feels way overpriced especially comparing to Nikon Z 35mm f 1.4 (although it's not their S series lens) More like 1000-1200 € lens max, not +2000 € like in some countries here in Europe. RF 35mm f 1.8 Macro IS STM is way better value in my honest opinion.
Canon officially said that this lens is a "rattler" lens but you are not saying anything o_O And second question and the most important )) I have 24-70 and now I am thinking to buy one of the primes by canon, As far as I am shooting both - photo and video I don't know which one is sexier for both work )) so which one do you advice as a sharp and useful? 35, 50 or 85?
Wow, thanks James, great video! A lot of really good information and at the same time an entertaining video with a wonderful smooth cinema look, this is unique. You sold me on the RF 35mm f/1.8 actually :-). Not that I plan to buy it any time soon, but it is on my shortlist. I also noticed there is no sponsor ad on this one, did you changed your approach? Today I just shot a grandkid video on a stage with spotlights using R7 and the standard settings, no CLOG. The result isn't good, bwah! I need to learn CLOG3. What you are doing here is really nice and soft to look at, so much better than what I did today. Though sometimes just a tad too saturated with a bit of a magenta cast... maybe that is the lens? But I'm whittling hairs here, this video is really nice to look at!
Thank you so much Philippe as always! I think you’ll really like the RF 35 1.8. Very underrated lens. I have decided against sponsored segments on these longer comparison videos as I feel sometimes they can interrupt the flow of the video. It also lets me release videos on new products much quicker (sponsors usually like you to release on certain dates) The standard settings aren’t very forgiving in terms of exposure, I think you’ll find CLOG 3 much easier with a bit of practice. The magenta cast is often because I’m shooting in very green environments, sometimes I over correct the colour cast.
I think Canon is trying to cut cost a bit too much. They are relying on digital lens correction and padding in the lens to stop the moving elements from being damaged instead of just putting in a bit more engineering effort. I’m not a Sony fanboy, but Sony makes much smaller lenses that are super high-quality without rattles. I still love the rf mount and some of the cool lens that have come from it. But they do need to do better.
Seems to me, this is more for video. Hope they make a photo specific lens soon, with bigger diameter and bigger barrel,(similar to RF 50/1.2) so that there’s less reliance on digital correction. In fact, they should’ve made that first.
Very nice rendering. I think there is a lot to like about this lens. I don't need it bad enough to pay Canon's early adopter tax but I expect I'll be picking one up when I can get a better price in a year or so. I already have a few 35's but I think I'd prefer this one to most of the others. That being said, I've never owned the EF 35L II and I would love to add on of those to my kit if the price every come down significantly. Maybe the new RF 35mm will shake a few loose.
The lens rattling may be related to the stabilizer. Perhaps you disconnect the lens from the camera too quickly and the stabilizer does not have time to turn off. This happens on some lenses.
@@TerraThink of course not. Yet my Nikon 50/1.4 AF for DSLR is smaller. Thats what I hate about mirrorless almost all fast primes are big. Except the 400/2.8 it actually weights significantly less.
I did use the R5 for my first shoot with this lens but I’ve had some front focusing issues with my R5 lately so really didn’t want to mess up any comparisons. I’ve really been enjoying using the R6 II though.
@@JamesReader I am somewhat new to ML cameras. I thought ML cameras were not supposed to have front focusing issues. I am just asking as I came from a DSLR user to ML with the understanding ML has no issues with such issues.
Thanks for comparing to the 1.8. It’s hard to justify 4x the price. This lens would be a go for me at 1200, will hold off for now. 1.8 is still one of the best deals out there imo. I would love to see lens flaring on the 1.4 vs 1.8 I assume it’s better?
We are surprised on 7/17/2024 at the announcement of the R5 MII with an announcement for a superior RF 35mm 1.2L USM (shipping August 2024)... :) :) :) (I hope so much)
I wasn't interested in the RF 35 specifically anyway...But I am in desperate need of a wide angle prime lens that has weather sealing, is sharp and can be used for almost everything. So I was very looking forward for the 24mm version. Right now...not anymore. So I'll probably have to ditch my need of weather sealing and go for an EF lens so that I have something to use for the next few years until Canon gets their shlt together and releases something for the RF that can be used for Astro. Just disappointed.
Was contemplating switching to canon when the r5 ii comes out. But G Master primes are just too good and canons are meh. (Yes the 50 and 85 1.2 are optically great but the focus is horrendously slow compared)
Yeah my guess with the 85 is that it’s the lens IS that lets the elements float a little bit when it’s powered off, you get something similar with most of the RF lenses with IS. This is quite a bit different with the 35mm, it feels like everything inside the lens is shifting around.
The distortion is crazy when looking at the raw pics without correction. My RF 24-70mm 2.8 has pretty much no distortion at 35mm. For $1500 this is really bad. Also, the vignette is the worst I've seen on a L prime. Shame on Canon. It's still a great lens with corrections but it shouldn't need this much.
My copy has significant CA (purple fringing) shooting in high contrast areas like foliage against a bright sky. In Adobe’s ACR I have to add an additional +4 purple de-fringing on top of their lens profile. Other than that and the heavy vignetting, it is a good lens. Still, it’s a little disappointing given that it’s an L lens and cost a premium. 🤷🏻♂️
As a follow up, I dug out my EF 35/1.4L II to compare to the RF version. For photography, the older EF lens has similar resolution but significantly less distortion and CA. It is the superior image quality lens. It does have heavy vignetting like the RF version and add noise in the corners when corrected at the wider apertures. It’s still sold new for $2000 USD so it is a more expensive lens. The RF version is a better video lens and is smaller and lighter, especially factoring in the addition of an EF to RF converter. 🤷🏻♂️
@@ThroughJoesLens Thanks, this is valuable information. I was tempted to get the EF version since a while, but decided to wait for an RF 35 1.2... - maybe the wrong decision.
@@tom_k_d With a good lens profile I’d probably go with the newer RF version just for the native mount, size, and video features. In the end the image quality will be roughly equal once corrected and you’ll save $500 if you’re in the US. They both have good sharpness. One thing I forgot to mention is that, at least for my copies, the EF version renders images with a noticeably warmer tone (compared with camera matching Faithful color profile in ACR). The RF version was more neutral.
@@ThroughJoesLens Thanks - I sincerely hope Canon comes with a nice photo-centric RF 35mm 1.2 USM on top of this VCM lense soon, to complete my other two excellent RF 1.2 primes. Till then: I still own an EF35mm 2.0 IS USM, which isn't that bad, either...
If you shoot 35mm primes a lot then I would say yes. Upgrade for more sharpness, faster aperture and better low light performance. Also if you shoot a lot video this is a big improvement
