Great, detailed review that pointed out the fairly significant flaws (for some) that a lot of other reviews haven't put as much weight on. Also, kudos for the English channel. Talking tech in another language isn't easy!
You’d love it if you got it. But yes if you inhabit the perspective in this video you will not appreciate this piece of glass they made. To each their own! At least rent it sometime.
@@LukeSchaeferFilms it's more the football shaped Bokeh that turns me off as during Christmas I do lots of photography that includes lights. The backlight outdoors photos were big turn off to.
Distortion is a stupid thing to complain about. I cannot believe the reviewer wasted even one second complaining about it. Let the software fix it and you will never see a problem. Since they let the software fix it, it's far smaller, cheaper, sharper, less breathing, less coma, and so on, things that can NOT be fixed in software.
Due to this video, I first hesitated buying the RF 35 1.4 VCM. However, after consulting more review sources, I bought the lens anyway. My view: 1. The images of the lens pop: lots of sharpness and contrast (this holds true even for the corners where most lens corrections are applied). 2. The viewfinder image is identical with the corrected image in Lightroom and RAW previews (lens corrections have no influence on composition). 3. The points 1 and 2 lead to the conclusion, that there is no significant downside to the fact that the lens utilizes lens corrections. Hence, I find the harsh critisisim in this video not appropriate. 4. Longitudinal CA are moderate (no deal breaker) 5. Rattling of lens when switched off is there (no deal breaker) 6. Compared to other lenses: It is very hard to find a 35 mm 1.4 lens with similar weight, form factor and performance compared to the RF 35 1.4. Only Sony managed to build a 35 1.4 with similar IQ, weight and size for a slightly lower price (and without relying on post processing correction). Credit where credit is due. However on a wider picture, the Canon lens performs extremely well in the crowded 35 1.4 space. I believe it is one finest 35 mm 1.4 out there.
Digital Corrections Crop your Image, so you don't use all of your resolution and all of your Sensor. What about Lateral CAs? They are there even with Corrections Applied. So you are okay with a very expensive prime that uses image editing to cover up what it's optics produce. If thats okay for you, pass on, but It doesn't mean that it's not there of that I'm harsh to criticize it. I never said it will have influence on your composition anywhere als then with RAW Video. What about the flares? I've seen no other review that even tested for flares but I have seen some shots in forums that are absolutly crazy in this regard. Saying it is one of the finest 35/1.4 is so out of this world, how much did you test?
@@davision-en "harsh" I was solely referring to the comments in the video about the fact that this particular lens design relies on digital distortion correction. It is generally true that image warps impact image quality. But there is more to it: The image warp is already taken into account in the lens design: The digitally uncorrected image needs to have a particularly high resolution in the areas with strongest subsequent warping (in the corners) to ensure that the effective image output meets the design goal of the imaging system. This, in turn, is easier to achieve if there is lower distortion correction to begin with. At the end of the day, if your images are tack sharp with punchy contrast at 1.4 (even in the corners), is it really so important to you (or anyone else) in which part of the image recording process the correction was applied? Regarding flares, rattling, non-correctable CA and other imperfections: Here we have different perception of the "severity" of these imperfections and how strongly they should be weighted in the ultimate real-world-value assesment of the lens.
Terrific review, I have the lens as well and on day 1 I have not been impressed. I'm in a position to return the lens and just go for the RF 28-70 which is such a higher quality lens even though it is F2. The rattling is already annoying me and I haven't even shot with it yet. Would you say the 28-70 blows this thing out of the water?
Thanks for the honest review. I'm an old Sony shooter but I really like my Canon RF 1.2 glass. The 85/1.2 DS is an absolute marvel. I was expecting a continuation of the f/1.2 lineup in a 35mm model (and I would be absolutely drooling over a 35/1.2 DS LOL). Unfortunately this lens looks nothing like what I was expecting. I'm tired of waiting and will be getting the Sigma 35/1.2 instead. I know it would suck in terms of fps on the A1/A9 III but I'm getting it for the 1.2 look and nothing else. Regarding rattling - some of my Sony lenses rattle. The 50/1.2 and 400/2.8 are probably the worst. The 600/4 also rattles but not as much as the 400/2.8. I wouldn't pay much attention to this issue. Distortions, severe vignetting, flare and CA are real problems though. Hope you'll keep posting videos in English.
The RF 35mm is really cool to me. I finally have a size lens with my RF that makes it feel compact and I can carry it everywhere. Furthermore, the focus breathing and manual aperture are one of a kind for a lens. Certainly, made to capture video. Beautifully sharp, and yes, the compromise for the video side of things is relying more on the editing aspect. The clicking is another compromise. This lens has the fastest autofocus in the market right now. It doesn't bother me. The EF 35mm had a similar click and I loved that lens. The 35mm captures Life from a personal journal perspective. I love this lens.
@@davision-en it is not worse than any of the RF primes. The RF 50mm & 85mm have their mighty place and I would not compare them to the 35mm. Different glass for sure. And for the record, the 35mm is way cheaper than the others and it has the fastest autofocus and relatively almost no focus breathing. First of its kind. Very compact, nice bokeh, and beautifully sharp. Certainly worth its price.
@@diegobernard9506 I disagree with that I tested the 50 1.2 and don't think it's a particular good lens. The 85 1.2 is mighty but also very expensive. Overwise there is not so much to compare against but non of them have that much backlit problems or distortion to begin with. Mostly they have one smaller flaw and thats it. Here are a bunch of flaws.
I love to talk about the things I do for a living and love doing, I'm not shy of any argument but you should come with some arguments instead of whining @lqr824
There's nothing wrong with keeping my old EF 35mm f/1.4L II with an adapter on my R5. I can't see any reason to "upgrade". Thanks for the honest review.
I have a copy of the lens and I must say you are exaggerating the sound it makes when powered off. Beyond that though, it does have significant chromatic abbreviation without a lens profile applied. I had to add an extra +4 in Adobe Camera Raw to get rid of the last bit of purple fringing. That is disappointing in a lens of this quality. I typically run Canon raw files through DXO PureRAW and output corrected DNG files to use in Adobe software but DXO doesn’t have a lens profile for it yet. Hopefully they are working on it.
Thanks for pointing out all the potential flaws. I hope that the price will drop to the levels that justify the performance. I don't mind some of the characteristics, however work against bright light is mind boggling , as Canon is typically quite strong in this department. Also the rattling was something I was quite ok with until you pointed out how annoying it is in practice.
That's a very good and honest review. I was about to throw in the money to acquire this lens but learning about the CA and vignetting and noise after digital correction stops me from buying. Guess to look for another 35mm. Any suggestion?
Why can't Canon figure out their lens situation? 24-70 F2.8 - tick tick tick autofocus noise. 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 - circa 1990 motors with insane shifting and autofocus noise. Now this with its noisy movement when off. Love Canon cameras but their lenses are severely flawed. Not to mention the ghosting and flaring. They're absolutely useless for video with any on-board mic. Sony can make state-of-the art, totally silent XD linear focusing lenses, with no movement, that are perfect for photo and video. What is Canon's deal?
@@LukeSchaeferFilms I own it. It’s phenomenal but it is noisy as hell. Circa 1990 ring type motors. You might say well who cares, who uses an 85 1.2 for video? Well the point is, and this pertains to the RF 50 1.2 as well, the Sony 50 1.2 GM uses 4 Linear XD motors that are lightning fast and completely silent whereas Canon uses extremely noisy dinosaur (ring type) motors. Hell I used to own a Samyang 85 1.4 and it was completely silent. Same goes for Tamron and Nikon.
I have no problem with motor noise.. Lens is here to do a job of delivering auto focus accurately, photo quality to be on top of the mark, as well the video quality. So far, I have RF 24 -105 L F4, RF 35 F1.8 STM, RF 70 - 200 L F2.8 and I am more than happy with it... All performing top of my expectation... It can happen that some of the lenses are bad like this specific lens, but in general, all of them are good...
more to the point, what's your deal? Nothing but complaints about Canon so why would you even shoot Canon? You're wasting your time watching a Canon video.
In my opinion it should cost around 900€/£, maybe even 799€/£! I never buy it for 1800£! 🤣 unless I would have very rich clients, otherwise price totally ridiculous to me
Thank you for this detailed review. You covered all the questions I had. I'm at a crossroad with staying with Canon or moving over. I was eagerly waiting for newer RF 1.4 lenses and if this is the sort of lenses coming next from Canon I might as well look at Nikon or Sony. I just need the typical F1.4 primes. I guess I need to do my homework with Nikon and Sony see their full offering. I have the R5 and R6mk2 and been using Canon for the last 20 years and I have been waiting to see what the upcoming R5Mk2 will be about. I had a Sony A74 and A73 but did not enjoy using it so sold it after 6 months of use. Now with Nikon latest bodys I will check their lens selection for primes.
@@tekguyphoto my work is using Sony at the moment and I use Nikon for everything else, and I can't stand Sony for professional work. Horrible menu system, you need glasses to read the UI elements, tethering to a laptop is second class (sometimes once a day restarts). Lenses on Sony are plentiful and some are really good, but everything else is so far behind what Nikon offers if you shoot professionally, and rely on your camera to deliver images. Canon DSLRs are also great for the same reasons, but as with Nikon I'm sure they will not be made anymore in the future.
It is really disappointing. I was ready to get this lens as my go-to lens, with WR, 1.4 aperture, relatively small size...Prime lens are supposed to be optimised for one focal length, and not to rely too much on digital correction.. That distorsion at 35mm is so massive...
Ef 35 1.4 II has perfect center wide open sharpness and perfect close down sharpness across the frame. In practice this is almost always enough. I would even say that the first generation Sigma Art is almost always enough. If you need more, you can buy Sigma 40 1.4 which is an Otus level lens. This new lens feels like Canon is squeezing out profits by making the product cheaper. It's simply much less light, much less "lens" overall, than the 35 1.4 should provide. And they try to hide it with the sensor's image quality reserves - no, I don't buy it.
This rattling thing is not acceptable for a Lseries prime without IS built in - I really hope they will also release a more photo-centric 35 1.2 to complement the 85 1.2 and 50 1.2.
@@abercrombie2684 The 50 1.2 is a great lens for low light events, and a 35 1.2 would complement it nicely. That said, a 35 1.4 without rattling noise and distortion would do it for me, too.
@@tom_k_d It's clear. Well. If you need a good 35 1.4 then welcome to Sony) Sigma and G Master are at your service) Canon is a dead platform. even Nikon is doing more interesting things now. the same Nikon ZF. and their new glass is very good and not expensive. I’m already silent about the current mirrorless cameras.
Good points in your review! I myself is waiting to try out this lens at my local store. I think people are forgetting about the unique feature of RF lenses which is the clickable control ring. IMO Canon released it with the aperture ring for added flexibility & "unclickability" strictly for videos, and one can easily use the control ring as an aperture ring for stills if you wish to. I just thought it'll be redundant if the aperture ring would be useable for stills then knowing that you also have a control ring to use it for.
I honestly think the rf mount has some of the most amazing "bang for the buck" lens, like the rf28, 100-400, 200800 etc but i really want canon to open up their mount. I am sick of waiting lol.
@@wentan8978 I have 100-500 and 200-800 isn't as appealing to me. I'd much rather have a reasonably priced prime 800 6.3 like Nikon offering. I can't find myself buying any of the latest Canon lens releases. But I am sure plenty of people need those types of lenses.
@davision-en yeah but the rf28 is honestly super sharp and focus extremely fast though, and I bought it on sale with a really cheap price. 100-400 is so amazingly light that I brought it to few of my hikes and don't feel tired at all, and I got a lot of amazing photos from it. I mean, I honestly would not expect weather sealing for these prices. By the way, I checked out your main channel, I think a lot of videos don't have official English captions? Will you add them in the future? Thanks
I love shooting backlit and wide open. The 50mm and 85mm 1.2 are almost flawless in that regard. I hoped this lens was on par but it looks horrible indeed. Guess I'll be keep using the RF 35mm 1.8 IS (which is a great lens btw).
As much as I want this lens because I want a fast 35mm prime for my r6 it seems like canon was a little lazy with this lens. Knowing everyone has been wanting this since they first announced rf lenses. I was really hoping for a f1.2 especially with how much they’ve made us wait. Will I buy this? Probably because I really need a lens like this but it’s unfortunate they didn’t put their all into this lens
I watched the review in German not knowing it would be released in English too 😂. Thanks for pointing out the issues other reviewers may overlook. Would have loved a comparaisons in IQ to similarly priced Sony Nikon and Panasonic lenses.
@@davision-en The Sony G master and Nikon 1.4G ? It's 1900€ in Europe because we get ripped off somehow. 😂 It should be sold 1600€. The C400 is 8000$ and is only 8600€ after VAT.
@@mousbleu Yes, of course you could compare it with the lenses from the other two camera manufacturers: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35 mm / 1.4 G UVP € 1,999.00 Sony FE 35mm F1.4 G-Master UVP 1,699.00 € Only, both are purely lenses for photographers and do not have any special film features. You won't find hybrid fixed focal lengths like those launched by Canon with Nikon and Sony.
Great review! FYI, Canon confirmed that the iris ring will function in photo mode in future bodies. I also received my copy yesterday and it is quite a beautiful lens that is super light and renders beautifully, much better than my EF copy. As an amateur photographer most of the drawbacks pointed out are not deal breakers for me, nor have I experienced them in my limited use. I can see how the rattling may annoy people, but I don’t think that it is bad at all, and I’m a major neurotic misophoniac! I would say order or rent it and try it out before deciding based on one person’s experience. To me, this lens is totally worth it.
wow, that lens is way overpriced :O no f-stop in photo... a rattle in your bag? I would feel self conscious of it being damaged rattling like that, no I.S. -what was Canon thinking, and CA??? are we back in the '80s again? Sounds like Canon did not put in the aspheric and ULD elements in, either, and the distortion? who did Canon outsource this lens design to? The ghosting looks like a Canon 50 f/1.0, is this a throwback 'character' lens?
Enjoyable video. Looks like it is not on par with the Sony 35 1.4 GM. The Sony bokeh is more pleasing and it has no cheap rattle. Disappointing, especially for this price.
Thank you for this honest review. I was really looking forward to this lens, and now I won't be getting one. I do outdoor sessions at golden hour and love backlight - the ghosting would drive me nuts. That's why I didn't keep my RF 35mm f/1.8. I would expect better from an L series lens.
@@davision-en Bizarre lens design choice and price to match by Canon in that case... I know you don't shoot Nikon Z system, but it would be interesting to see how good/bad the new 35mm f/1.4 does under your same testing criteria for 1000 euros less.
After more testing with the lens (non scientific) just comparing the 35mm vs the 35mm on my 15-35mm lens. Walking the streets if I use a faster shutter speed then I used on my first attempt the images looked very good. No complaints. Still over priced but what RF lens is not overpriced. Are the lenses and R cameras any better than my older Nikons DSLR. NO. However taking images are more enjoyable with the RF set up, lighter on most lenses and smaller. I am just an old dog, learning a new trick 🙂
Thank you so much for this review, honesty at the forefront. I'd really expect more from Canon at this price point. Sony really makes a better lens at a lower price point. One thing I've noticed is, that Canon doesn't like to give lens hoods in the box with the lens. Is this the same case with this expensive guy or you just dont use it?
@@davision-en If you can, would you do comparison between the Sony and Canon. Potentially even Nikon, but that guy isn't released yet and isn't an S line, so it's not up to the highest standard.
This lens lags behind the EF 35 1.4 II in certain respects. For example in the previous lens, lateral AC was very low and axial AC was completely non-existent thanks to the blue refractive element. This element was also added to the RF85 1.2 with unquestionable results. So why has it disappeared from this new lens, and why is this lens sold for less than the old flagship? I bet there's an RF 35 1.2 in the drawer, whether it ever comes out remains to be seen, but this 1.4 lens has enough imperfections to make room for a 1.2 version.
Yes the aperture ring not working in photo mode is unacceptable. I was so close in ordering this lens and an R6ii. Will stick to my X-Pro2 for a while longer…
I don't know, I never had this lens since it never came to my mind to pay the asked 2000€ here in Germany for this EF Lens. I never had an EF Camera as well. I had the EF 35/1.8 for a Short Term on a Adapter but I didn't like the loud AF and the bad haptics of this lens.
Great production quality in this video. The conclusion and prejudice against this lens and canon you make at the end is ridiculous though. If you don’t make much doing photo and video that’s okay, but it’s actually a very affordable lens for what it is. You completely ragged on it here lol but to each their own! Keep up with the high quality content!
@@davision-en I don’t think it’s a piece of shit after corrections. And the end result is what matters. All lenses from all manufacturers are made with digital corrections in mind these days. The only negative I see with this lens is the sound of the motors. That would annoy me, but if I had the money I would be very happy to have a 35mm f/1.4. RU-vid has this obsession of tearing apart every new lens and making them seem like they are terrible unless it’s cheap and as good as a pro lens (Voltrox 1.2’s)
"after correction" so It's okay for you that your Lens does image manipulation on your RAWs before you even touched them? As I said, CAs didn't go away from corrections either, thats the least I would expect.
Great lens. But the aperture ring is utter unusable. Only in video mode and no click switch. I think canon missed the mark with these new lenses regarding the aperture ring. It’s like canon doesn’t understand that we all use ND filters for adjusting exposure when shooting video.
@@lqr824 Still no clicks, which makes it allmost unusable for photography. I don’t understand why canon chose to cripple these lenses in this way. Look at Sony.
@@thomashegna1078 Well, remember it still has the programmable clicking ring at the front. I don't like that ring, because it probably makes every Canon lens cost a bit more and be bigger and so on, but I do have that set for aperture. Frankly it'd be a problem if the other aperture ring also worked at the same time!
Well, it's safe to say that the 700$ Tamron 35mm f1.4 is still the best Canon 35mm lens, followed closely by the old EF 35mm F1.4 mk2. I personally didn't think CAs looked too bad as these are extreme tests for CA. Likewise the bokeh looks nice, but we do expect better from a 2000$ lens. At 1000$, it would have been a much more reasonable proposition.
@@matt_4terry based on the existing version for Sony, the tamron is still better. Sigmas don't render so great and are known to fall apart quicker than other manufacturers.
Thanks for this review, I wanted to pre-order it, I may keep my SIGMA 1.4mm lens for a while longer. So many years of waiting and maybe another 2 or 3 years for a MK II version. I'm a wedding photographer, backlights, bokeh and low light situation are so important to get great images. Maybe I should check out the Canon 50mm f1.2.... Sad ! 😒
I feel this lens will be a classic. The solar flaring coloring with bright spot Aberration will be what the kids will want to achieve in 50 years from now. AI will try to achieve the same but fail
SIGMAs 35/1.4 DG DN is EVEN WORSE!!! Thats not the Point of this Video. The point is, this is to expensive for what it is. I would rather buy this one here then the SIGMA even if it would be just 500€.
Well that’s not what it sounds like here. I haven’t heard one good thing that would make me buy this lens even at 500€ I’m not a videographer so those features don’t appeal to me hence why I’ll wait for a new RF from Sigma. It’ll come eventually
@@robigerovasilisphotography I havn't talked about the SIGMA here but I tested the SIGMA 35/1.4 DG DN for SONY E Mount years ago and as I said it is even worse. It is not close as sharp, CAs are hell of a problem, it has crazy distortion and vignetting as well and crazy focus breathing.
I have this lens, and I like it. It's not bad for photos-crazy sharp, small size, and weather-sealed. For me, it definitely has more pros than cons. It could be cheaper, but that's not a major factor for me. I usually shoot in daylight, so as long as vignetting and distortion are automatically corrected by the lens profile in LR, I'm okay with that. I agree that a lens from the L line shouldn't have these issues, but we don't really have a choice (if we want to use it natively without adapters).
Thanks for the great video, your insight is so valuable! I’m curious, did you ever try the Tamron 35 1.4 SP for EF? Mitch Lally’s video comparing it to the Sigma convinced me to buy the Tamron a couple of years ago, it is sharper, with smoother bokeh, and has extremely well corrected chromatic aberrations which was really important to me. It’s one of my favourite lenses, but its 815g and with an adapter it’s more like 945g on my R5/R6 ii. I was really hoping the new RF 1.4 would be the smaller, lighter replacement for it but now I’m not so sure!
Optically this is a Awesome Lens! But my Problem with it was the way more breathing then my SIGMA. It’s worse Optically but better for Video. Thank you for the Feedback on the Video!
I got a tested press sample from Canon. If thats a „bad one“ it would be really strange since I even asked Canon is this is expected behavior or a defect. I highly doubt that yours is any different but you will not see the Problems if you are not looking for them. I can also take nice pictures with it but that doesn’t make it optically better. How should yours be different?
Another review with mainly shooting charts. Go out and grab some amazing photos and show them in the video, buddy. The lens is very, very capable of delivering great results. And another thing - Canon isn't "premium" as you said a dozen of times. Leica is. Hassy is, Phase 1 is... Canon isn't. It is a work horse. It is for sure Canon won't be using the best glass for the lens elements, they won't use the best tech out there to make it small & light, because this is expensive. They also are there for keeping their profits. If you want edge-to-edge perfection in small and light package, go & buy Leica. Cheers.
What have you missed the Shots I‘ve taken or what? Yes it is very capable of producing crappy AF Ghosting and Flares and relying heavily on digital corrections. I test lenses maybe you don’t care but I do.
I really hope you got a lemon and that this lens is usually a lot better. Wouldn't count on it though. The lens rattle is what would annoy me to no end. Need to be able to walk around without hearing every step lol
Hello, it is normal for any cam motor actuator and it is not recommended to shake the lense on purpose. You'll get use to it! Flair is not that bad well compared for example with canon ef primes, and some will like it, at least people can't say nom that it is to much neutral hybrid lense
You are talking this lens up in your head to tell you it would be a „good“ investment while this lens is just plain bad in almost any case but Sharpness and Breathing.
@@davision-en hmmm No, everything don't need a hidden logic it is just what it is maybe trying to find a good thing out of that, just saying that it IS not a thing to be surprises coming from canon. And that's not because I commented twice a different opinion on canon that I'm a fanboy, it is often thé opposite, and I liké your r5ii overheating vidéo 😉
I never use a Lens Hood, not every day and especially not If I test a lens for flares. But the problematic backlit images shown have nothing to do with a lens hood, since the Light-Source is in the Frame, not outside of it.
You don't really need aperture ring in photo mode... And in video is much better to be clickless... So, there you go 😉 BTW waaaaay too expensive... I'm leaving to Nikon...
@@davision-en love and need are not the same. I love it too, but modern cameras don't need it, but for video you might really need it. And for video it is perfect to be clickless, so Canon has the point in making it clickless and available only in video mode. Limited for the price, but it looks to me, as usual by Canon, just enough.
I purchased this lens last week. I took the lens with the R5 for some street photography. I thought something was not right but not all that wrong. I could not put my finger on it. I processed some images and for a prime 35mm that I paid $1500.00 for I was not impressed. My older Nikon DSLR d810 and d4s with F mount 35mm was sharper, smaller and lighter. I have the Canon 24-105 f/4 and the 15-35m f/2.8 and to me this lens is just missing something. Not a bad lens but I may well travel the 70 miles and return this lens.
Think you blowing the rattle thing out of proportion a touch. Sure it’s annoying but it really doesn’t damage anything. Fuji uses LM motor (VCMs) and they all rattle. They have little rubber bumpers inside, tamaron might not move but they arguably have other problems . These are great little motors, no moving parts other than rails so in theory less wear and tear, so your investment will last longer. Store vertically in your bag and you won’t hear them at all and how you hear it when walking with the camera out I don’t know Ive never experienced that with Fuji glass when off and you have the camera hanging sending the optics down, they don’t rattle on the horizontal plain. All the other stuff is a little annoying but I’ve found all canons lens need some sort of digital correction some more so than others. Fuji glass none in most cases. And flare is subjective and can be used creatively. Not defending the lens but I think you’re highlighting things that really quite trivial and can be worked around. Te real problem is Canons glass is extremely expensive and overpriced in general and there relying on digital correcting to this degree. Just my 2cents
@@davision-en Well, you said that the noise gives the camera a cheap feeling, which shouldn't be the case at this price. This point is echoed by many comments - rattling as a low quality feature.
Dunno why ppl need something unnecessary like the clickable aperture ring, i mean u can have it changed under your fingers why need it on the ring to change aperture? Let it stay for video purpose
You have categorised the objetive completely wrong. It is a hybrid lens that combines features for photography and filming. It is therefore lightweight, has a silent motor, a stepless aperture ring, no focus breathing and, according to canonrumors, the best image quality of any 35mm lens Canon has ever released. Which Sony lens offers a similar combination for photographers and film makers?
So hybrid for you means it’s not made for photo? Then it will not be hybrid but a Film / Cine Lens. Also there is no Z here in the Name. And so for filmmaking distortion, vignetting, CAs, Ghosting and Flares are no problem? Like I said, try using this Video Hybrid Lens for RAW Video and your eyes will fall out. And image quality is NOT just Sharpness it’s much much more. Like Bokeh rendition, LoCA, LaCA and so on. You categorized this lens completely wrong and you shouldn’t trust Canon Rumors as your source of information. I have never seen a review or test published there. Did you?
A better version for photography better be coming from Canon - F1.2, IS, and some exotic coatings for superb contrast. Hopefully costing more that $2.5K. This thing is a toy.
Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM. This lens does everything better than this Canon lens except focus breathing, which can be digitally corrected. This digital correction is acceptable for me. Yes, Sony also does image correction, but I'm more than happy to use the lens uncorrected.
Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM. This lens does everything better than this Canon lens except focus breathing, which can be digitally corrected. This digital correction is acceptable for me. Yes, Sony also does image correction, but I'm more than happy to use the lens uncorrected.
@@davision-enso großartig deine Reviews auch sind (tatsächlich nahezu unerreicht in Detailtiefe und Breite an Tests), am Ton in den Kommentaren solltest du echt mal ein bisschen arbeiten. Häufig übel herablassend und sehr schnell beleidigt. Kommentare im Internet sind schon oft genug Gift und Galle spuckend (siehe Post oben von tuanminh), da musst du ja nicht auch noch ins selbe Horn blasen. Trotzdem sehr cool, die Videos auch in Englisch zu finden 👍
@@magnus7372 denkst du nur weil man in der Öffentlichkeit steht darf man keine Meinung mehr zu Idioten haben und die auch irgendwo hin schreiben? Du weißt nichts davon wie es ist solche Scheiße jeden Tag irgendwo aussortieren zu müssen. Also wenn mir mal wieder jemand erzählt ich sei Fanboy von dies oder das und bin dumm weil ich an Canon hänge dann kann der eben auch einfach mal die Fresse halten. Sorry not Sorry.
@@davision-en und begibst dich auf das gleiche Niveau. Krone richten und weitergehen wäre auch ne Möglichkeit, man muss ja nicht auf sowas antworten, was irgendwelche Teenager ins Internet schreiben, um dir auf den Sack zu gehen. Naja wie dem auch sei, mach mit den Reviews weiter so 👍
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.
I was afraid of this kind of bad results, when I saw this lens didn't had blue refractive lens like RF 85/1.2L has. I could easily pay 500€ more for this lens, if the image quality was in par with the RF 85/1.2L. But Canon decide to skip blue refractive lens on the RF 35/1.4L, so they coukd make it cheaper. Bad decision, Canon! P.S. Why does ppl keep saying "every L lens has weather sealing". No, they don't. Most of them have, but not all.
