Canon Will Announce A New VCM L Lens This Month

[blackcoffee17]

Can folks tell me why they like these VCM lenses? If you like shooting video that much, why not get video lenses and a camera that specializes in them? They must be selling because Canon keeps rolling them out, but I'm baffled. Lower image quality, but somewhat better for video applications seems like a hard no for me, at least for putting on an R5 or R3 or whatever.

I never understand this question. It's the same when people say "just buy a video camera". Why would I buy an extra expensive and big cinema lens and another expensive lens for stills when I can have one that can do both? Portability, overall cost, practicality and ease of use (switching between still and video) are key here.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Really looking forward to Canon getting through all this VCM garbage and never touching it again.

It's not the VCM is the issue, that's just a focusing motor. The issue is the underdesigned lenses because can correct it later in camera. Im not against software correction - I think its a very useful tool - but when a 800g pro L wide angle zoom lens has 5+ stop vignetting in the corners, that's a bit too much.

 

[domo_p1000]

Why do people need to be so vituperative about yet-to-be-announced items that they don't want to buy? I suspect that Canon is not developing these items out of spite (although it would raise a wry smile with me if they were).

 

[David - Sydney]

It's up now. RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM and it will cost more than the 24/35 VCM's.

So roughly double the price of the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG DN Art released 3 years ago and a bit more than the Sigma 14/1.4 and the Sony 14/1.8. Could be a hard sell but we will need to see the reviews.

What are the use cases for a 20/1.4 besides astro?

 

[LarsCS]

Had hoped for something wider but might get the 20mm VCM as well. 24 VCM & 50 VCM are my best/favorite astrophotography lenses right now.

 

[cpreston]

20mm is nice to have, but Canon really needs to get the 85mm out. For video, you really need a telephoto of some sort for coverage and interviews. Get the 85mm and I will probably buy the whole set. Until then, I will just continue to use my ef lenses. The 85mm, 50mm, and 24mm are my core lenses for video.

 

[Zadak]

I don't understand, why 20mm when you have 24mm? Why not 16mm? Or 18mm?

 

[EricN]

I don't understand, why 20mm when you have 24mm? Why not 16mm? Or 18mm?

I was not expecting 20mm

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's not the VCM is the issue, that's just a focusing motor. The issue is the underdesigned lenses because can correct it later in camera. Im not against software correction - I think it’s a very useful tool - but when a 800g pro L wide angle zoom lens has 5+ stop vignetting in the corners, that's a bit too much.

Which lens has >5 stops of vignetting? The three VCM lenses have 3-4 stops of vignetting. Guess what? The RF 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L also have 3-4 stops of vignetting. I guess those are also underdesigned lenses, they’re just heavier.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Rationally, there can be 2 impacts:

1. higher ISO degradation in the corners to correct a lens with higher vignetting
2. "invented" data: if a lens' image circle does not cover the corners, the software correction stretches the image to cover the corners and those pixels are therefore extrapolated - in other words, the stretched image has been created from less data than an image recorded with a lens that does cover the full sensor

Both of those impacts are likely to be small enough to be practically invisible in most situations, and both are likely to matter less and less with more and more modern NR techniques and AI computational stretching... and with higher and higher resolution sensors (more data to work with see what I did there?)

Rationally, those two impacts apply to all lenses. What is not rational is the belief some people hold that increased noise from vignetting correction and loss of sharpness from distortion correction apply only or differentially more to lenses that require digital correction.

Vignetting is the easier to understand of the two effects under discussion. The ‘optically’ corrected EF 35/1.4L II has the same amount of vignetting as the RF 35/1.4L VCM. Correcting it in post introduces the same amount of noise.

The situation with distortion is really no different. Any wide angle rectilinear lens requires distortion correction. The wider the AoV, the more correction needed. Digital correction of distortion ‘stretches’ (interpolates) the image data. That stretching is based on mathematical modeling of the lens. If you prefer to be a bit pejorative, the digital correction smears the corners after the image is captured.

Optical correction of distortion also ‘stretches’ the image based on mathematical modeling of the lens, but the correction is performed by designing it into the lens optics. While there is no interpolation needed, optical correction still smears the corners…it just happens before the image is captured. The end result is the same – loss of corner sharpness is similar.

It’s also worth noting that optical correction isn’t perfect, there’s almost always distortion remaining in wide and ultrawide lenses, they’re just corrected enough to fill the frame. Remember the ‘optically corrected’ EF 17-40/4L?

Emotionally, that's a personal thing and each one of us will have a different view on the matter.

I believe opinions about physical matters should be based on facts. Some of us have the personal view that the earth is flat. It’s not. Digital correction is not inherently worse than optical correction.

Now, if you want to emotionally believe that the best ice cream flavor is something other than mint chocolate chip, you can (but you’d be wrong ).

 

[LSXPhotog]

I don’t like the digital corrections…but at the end of the day, does it actually truly matter if it allows for better designs and standout “dream” lenses?

I find it very amusing how many people write off the VCM lenses for photography. As if they’re not stellar photography lenses with truly insane autofocus motors in a small/light design. The distortion corrections bothered me at first when I got my RF 14-35 f/4…and then I got theRF 16mm lens - yikes. Then I got the RF 24-105 f/2.8L IS USM Z lens and spent $3000 for bad distortion corrections at 24-35mm.

But then I took a step back after years of working with this gear and asked if it really even matters? Most of the work I do is heavily scrutinized by clients in commercial and publishing. I do loads of composite flash and ambient images for automotive and real estate…the corrections have never impacted anything I’ve worked on. Composite work is incredibly demanding on consistency between each frame/layer.

In taking that step back, I can also appreciate that the 14-35 is almost the prefect ultra-wide lens for travel and real estate. It has been invaluable and indispensable for shooting real estate. The 16mm is simply a DREAM gimbal ultra-wide with its f/2.8 aperture and ultra compact/light design. Finally, the RF 24-105 f/2.8L IS USM Z is, in my opinion, the single greatest lens Canon has ever made or by any manufacturer. Since day one of shooting I’ve always asked for a 24-105 f/2.8…seriously, it’s the most important lens I’ve ever used for photos and video. None of these lenses would exist at all if it weren’t for digital corrections. It doesn’t matter for me if I’m happy with the final images and video - and I am.

(BTW, I have a theory based on nothing that the 14-35 was designed specifically to accept 77mm filters without vignette. It shoots wider than 14mm and crops out the extra area. REALLY upset me at first, but when push comes to shove, it hasn’t mattered one bit.)

 

[blackcoffee17]

Which lens has >5 stops of vignetting? The three VCM lenses have 3-4 stops of vignetting. Guess what? The RF 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L also have 3-4 stops of vignetting. I guess those are also underdesigned lenses, they’re just heavier.

The 15-35 is approaching 5 stops in the corners and the lens is as big as a brick.

 

[vikingar]

Rationally, those two impacts apply to all lenses.

True.

What is not rational is the belief some people hold that increased noise from vignetting correction and loss of sharpness from distortion correction apply only or differentially more to lenses that require digital correction.

False. The belief is rational and founded. Otherwise optical corrections such as adaptive optics used in astronomy or microscopy would never be necessary. Whether it's "differentially more" for Canon's lenses is subject to debate per-lens, no matter how often you say it isn't. It's not a given that they are always as good as they could be optically, you simply can't know because you haven't seen an equivalent, optically corrected version of the same RF lens. Only old EF lenses. Maybe Canon has some (expensive) optically perfect RF lenses in their labs.

I concede though that for some of Canon's lenses it truly doesn't matter in general use, and that the price/weight/size tradeoffs probably make sense for most people.

Vignetting is the easier to understand of the two effects under discussion. The ‘optically’ corrected EF 35/1.4L II has the same amount of vignetting as the RF 35/1.4L VCM. Correcting it in post introduces the same amount of noise.

So it's in fact not optically corrected as it still has vignetting. Optical correction would result in less vignetting optically (by making the lens larger). I concede that this very likely increases price/weight/size - but not necessarily depending on design process.

The situation with distortion is really no different. Any wide angle rectilinear lens requires distortion correction. The wider the AoV, the more correction needed. Digital correction of distortion ‘stretches’ (interpolates) the image data. That stretching is based on mathematical modeling of the lens. If you prefer to be a bit pejorative, the digital correction smears the corners after the image is captured.

True.

Optical correction of distortion also ‘stretches’ the image based on mathematical modeling of the lens, but the correction is performed by designing it into the lens optics.

True.

While there is no interpolation needed, optical correction still smears the corners…it just happens before the image is captured.

False. There is no reason why smearing would need to occur. You can correct distortion in a variety of ways optically. Neither loss of resolution nor smearing is absolutely necessary.

A easily understandable counterexample would be a myopic lens - like an eye. Correct it optically using glasses and the resolution increases. To be absolutely fair to your argument, this correction could also be done computationally (convolution) and will yield results but it's extremely hard to get the inverse PSF (point spread function) right, and the rasterization from the sensor leads to ringing artifacts.

The end result is the same – loss of corner sharpness is similar.

True only for RF vs EF. You can't really know because you don't have equivalent optically corrected RF lenses for comparison. Personally I think it's like that because Canon's design targets for RF are to be "at least as good" in the corners as the old EF lenses were, and they can achieve that digitally so they do.

It’s also worth noting that optical correction isn’t perfect, there’s almost always distortion remaining in wide and ultrawide lenses, they’re just corrected enough to fill the frame. Remember the ‘optically corrected’ EF 17-40/4L?

True.

I believe opinions about physical matters should be based on facts. Some of us have the personal view that the earth is flat. It’s not. Digital correction is not inherently worse than optical correction.

True. But it's not a given that it's always equivalent. It can be better or worse depending on what you compare it to.

Now, if you want to emotionally believe that the best ice cream flavor is something other than mint chocolate chip, you can (but you’d be wrong ).

I think your choice of flavor invalidates the rest of your arguments, but thats just me.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

So roughly double the price of the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG DN Art released 3 years ago and a bit more than the Sigma 14/1.4 and the Sony 14/1.8. Could be a hard sell but we will need to see the reviews.

You are probably right about that. I don't get why the VCM are rediculous expensive compared to the competition. Even the Sony 35mm F1.4 GMaster lens costs about 400-500 € less in Germany... don't get me started about the Sigma offering. If Canons version was only 300gr, I'd swallow the pill and pay the premium, but it doesn't seem likely at all...

What are the use cases for a 20/1.4 besides astro?

Generally landscapes (although UWA zooms would be preferred), nightscapes, cities at night and I've seen quite a few "environmental portraits" (is the term correct?) of animals such as dogs, horses and cats. The 20mm really catches the environment surrounding the subject and f1.4 gives you great control of shutter speed and/ or depth of field.

 

[jeffa4444]

Can folks tell me why they like these VCM lenses? If you like shooting video that much, why not get video lenses and a camera that specializes in them? They must be selling because Canon keeps rolling them out, but I'm baffled. Lower image quality, but somewhat better for video applications seems like a hard no for me, at least for putting on an R5 or R3 or whatever.

 

[jeffa4444]

Can folks tell me why they like these VCM lenses? If you like shooting video that much, why not get video lenses and a camera that specializes in them? They must be selling because Canon keeps rolling them out, but I'm baffled. Lower image quality, but somewhat better for video applications seems like a hard no for me, at least for putting on an R5 or R3 or whatever.

I have the RF 35mm f1.4L VCM and the RF 50mm f1.4L VCM. Let’s start with the 35mm. I’m mainly a stills shooter with the occasional video and the environment shots I’ve shot with this lens are pretty much what I would expect for a lens in this price point and yes I’m not bothered with the optical corrections Canon make this lens wider to allow for the corrections but I would agree in low light the corners slightly suffer.
The 50mm is corrected almost exactly as the RF 50mm f1.2L USM which I also have. The differences are as follows:-
The 1.2L lens has better bokeh and a smoother transition but it’s not a massive difference. It focus's slower, is a lot heavier and is not really suited to video unless on a tripod. The 1.4L lens is lighter, sharper into the corners, no focus breathing, good bokeh with slightly cats eye out to the edges. Overall this lens is great value for money I think too many people are divorced from the cost of lens development and manufacturing costs having worked at Panavision for 40 years I think I know a good or bad lens and accept lenses are built to a price and all optical designs are a compromise.
For there intended use they are exactly what I would expect at the price point and given AI and software improvements we have today.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 15-35 is approaching 5 stops in the corners and the lens is as big as a brick.

So your argument is that the 'big as a brick' RF 15-35/2.8 is also an 'underdesigned' lens?

And yet the RF 15-35/2.8 does not 'require' distortion correction. The vignetting is about half a stop worse than on the EF 16-35/2.8 III. Thanks for supporting my main point, that these 'problems' are not unique to RF lenses, nor to those RF lenses that require distortion correction.

 

[roby17269]

Rationally, those two impacts apply to all lenses. What is not rational is the belief some people hold that increased noise from vignetting correction and loss of sharpness from distortion correction apply only or differentially more to lenses that require digital correction.

Vignetting is the easier to understand of the two effects under discussion. The ‘optically’ corrected EF 35/1.4L II has the same amount of vignetting as the RF 35/1.4L VCM. Correcting it in post introduces the same amount of noise.

The situation with distortion is really no different. Any wide angle rectilinear lens requires distortion correction. The wider the AoV, the more correction needed. Digital correction of distortion ‘stretches’ (interpolates) the image data. That stretching is based on mathematical modeling of the lens. If you prefer to be a bit pejorative, the digital correction smears the corners after the image is captured.

Optical correction of distortion also ‘stretches’ the image based on mathematical modeling of the lens, but the correction is performed by designing it into the lens optics. While there is no interpolation needed, optical correction still smears the corners…it just happens before the image is captured. The end result is the same – loss of corner sharpness is similar.

It’s also worth noting that optical correction isn’t perfect, there’s almost always distortion remaining in wide and ultrawide lenses, they’re just corrected enough to fill the frame. Remember the ‘optically corrected’ EF 17-40/4L?


I believe opinions about physical matters should be based on facts. Some of us have the personal view that the earth is flat. It’s not. Digital correction is not inherently worse than optical correction.

Generally speaking, yes, similar levels of vignetting will result in similar degradation, therefore this should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
But for geometric distortion, there is a difference depending on if the lens' image circle fully or partially covers the sensor. In both cases you end up with a stretched 24 or 45 (say) mp image, but with the former you start with 24 or 45mp worth of data, while with the latter you start with less data than that, so you typically have to stretch more.
Again, not likely to be a visible difference for all matters and purposes.

Now, if you want to emotionally believe that the best ice cream flavor is something other than mint chocolate chip, you can (but you’d be wrong ).

Mint choc chip?!? Ewww I was mostly with you till this heretical assertion

 

[Del Paso]

And where is my RF 24-70 f/2 L?
If it doesn't come within 2-3 weeks, I'll cry bitter tears of desperation.
(And maybe buy a marvelous sonni out of vengeance)

 

[roby17269]

And where is my RF 24-70 f/2 L?
If it doesn't come within 2-3 weeks, I'll cry bitter tears of desperation.
(And maybe buy a marvelous sonni out of vengeance)

What's with everyone having desires for new lenses?!?
I thought I was the only one allowed!
After I get the 35 1.2, be my guest