The RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM is Canon's widest current L-series prime for the RF mount, and Canon's first new 20mm lens in 33 years.
For many people interested in this lens, a choice will need to be made between the 20/1.4 and its slightly older fraternal twin, the RF 24mm f/1.4L VCM. The two lenses differ by only 4mm in focal length and are very similar in IQ and size/weight, though the 20/1.4 is slightly more expensive. Personally, I suspect I would have chosen the 20/1.4 if I hadn't bought the 24/1.4 before this lens was announced. As it is, it seems a shame to sell a lens I bought just a few months ago, so I'll keep both and see which gets more use.
A 'first impressions' mini review follows, the TL;DR is that it's a great lens, good IQ, handles very well.
The 20/1.4 VCM feels solid, virtually identical to the 24/1.4 (and presumably the other VCM lenses that I don't have). The included hood is shallower than that for the 24/1.4. The lens exhibits the same 'clunk' as the other VCM lenses when moved.
DxO does not yet have a lens module for the 20/1.4. They have one for the 24/1.4, but to keep the playing field level, for the comparisons and most of the shots below I am showing in-camera JPGs (reduced to 2000 pixels wide) for both lenses. Side note: I've previously mentioned that I loathe DPP, but I also neglected to set the camera to shoot RAW+JPG so instead I used in-camera RAW conversion to generate the JPGs. It was my first (and maybe my last) time using the feature and annoyingly (to me, at least) converted JPGs are given new, sequential image names (i.e., converting a batch of 30 RAWs, the file name of the first JPG is incremented up from the last RAW on the card). That means that the JPG file name does not match the RAW file name. I'm sure Canon in their infinite wisdom has a reason for this but...UGH.
The first few shots I took with the lens were just out in the yard.
"PJM Rhododendron 1" – 20/1.4 @ f/1.4"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/4000 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
"PJM Rhododendron 2" – 20/1.4 @ f/5.6"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/250 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
"PJM Rhododendron 3" – 24/1.4 @ f/1.4"
EOS R1, RF 24mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/5000 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
"PJM Rhododendron 4" – 24/1.4 @ f/5.6"
EOS R1, RF 24mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/320 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
For above series camera was on a tripod and in Av mode (technically Fv with shutter speed and ISO on Auto), and the camera metered the exposure at 1/3-stop brighter for the 24/1.4.
Later in the day, I made a brief stop at a local cemetery.
"Freemason"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/4000 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
"Clover Headstone HDR"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/80 - 1/6400 s, f/4, ISO 100 (this one was a 5-shot HDR spanning 6.3 stops, which 40 fps makes quite easy to do handheld, oh my how times have changed).
"Sunstar"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/800 s, f/16, ISO 100
The 11-bladed aperture produces very nice sunstars, I really like the alternating long and short rays. Flare is present but not bad.
While I'll leave the majority of the technical characteristics to the actual reviews, I was curious about the vignetting so I did a quick blue-sky test. Below is a composite of upper left quadrants, showing RAW files exported from DxO with no corrections.
As I expected, the 20/1.4 'forces' distortion correction in-camera because the image does not quite fill the frame, as is the case with the 24/1.4. What I did not expect is that the vignetting of the 20/1.4 is actually noticeably better than the 24/1.4. Wide open there is less mechanical and optical vignetting with the wider lens, and both types of vignetting improve more when the 20/1.4 is stopped down (in particular, the 24/1.4's mechanical vignetting improves somewhat down to f/4, then gets worse again to f/8).
I was surprised enough that I triple-checked the EXIF data to make sure I hadn't mixed up the lenses. Obviously mechanical vignetting on both lenses will go away with distortion correction, but the lower optical vignetting with the 20/1.4 is a nice surprise.
For many people interested in this lens, a choice will need to be made between the 20/1.4 and its slightly older fraternal twin, the RF 24mm f/1.4L VCM. The two lenses differ by only 4mm in focal length and are very similar in IQ and size/weight, though the 20/1.4 is slightly more expensive. Personally, I suspect I would have chosen the 20/1.4 if I hadn't bought the 24/1.4 before this lens was announced. As it is, it seems a shame to sell a lens I bought just a few months ago, so I'll keep both and see which gets more use.
A 'first impressions' mini review follows, the TL;DR is that it's a great lens, good IQ, handles very well.
The 20/1.4 VCM feels solid, virtually identical to the 24/1.4 (and presumably the other VCM lenses that I don't have). The included hood is shallower than that for the 24/1.4. The lens exhibits the same 'clunk' as the other VCM lenses when moved.
DxO does not yet have a lens module for the 20/1.4. They have one for the 24/1.4, but to keep the playing field level, for the comparisons and most of the shots below I am showing in-camera JPGs (reduced to 2000 pixels wide) for both lenses. Side note: I've previously mentioned that I loathe DPP, but I also neglected to set the camera to shoot RAW+JPG so instead I used in-camera RAW conversion to generate the JPGs. It was my first (and maybe my last) time using the feature and annoyingly (to me, at least) converted JPGs are given new, sequential image names (i.e., converting a batch of 30 RAWs, the file name of the first JPG is incremented up from the last RAW on the card). That means that the JPG file name does not match the RAW file name. I'm sure Canon in their infinite wisdom has a reason for this but...UGH.
The first few shots I took with the lens were just out in the yard.
"PJM Rhododendron 1" – 20/1.4 @ f/1.4"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/4000 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
"PJM Rhododendron 2" – 20/1.4 @ f/5.6"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/250 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
"PJM Rhododendron 3" – 24/1.4 @ f/1.4"
EOS R1, RF 24mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/5000 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
"PJM Rhododendron 4" – 24/1.4 @ f/5.6"
EOS R1, RF 24mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/320 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
For above series camera was on a tripod and in Av mode (technically Fv with shutter speed and ISO on Auto), and the camera metered the exposure at 1/3-stop brighter for the 24/1.4.
Later in the day, I made a brief stop at a local cemetery.
"Freemason"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/4000 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
"Clover Headstone HDR"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/80 - 1/6400 s, f/4, ISO 100 (this one was a 5-shot HDR spanning 6.3 stops, which 40 fps makes quite easy to do handheld, oh my how times have changed).
"Sunstar"
EOS R1, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/800 s, f/16, ISO 100
The 11-bladed aperture produces very nice sunstars, I really like the alternating long and short rays. Flare is present but not bad.
While I'll leave the majority of the technical characteristics to the actual reviews, I was curious about the vignetting so I did a quick blue-sky test. Below is a composite of upper left quadrants, showing RAW files exported from DxO with no corrections.
As I expected, the 20/1.4 'forces' distortion correction in-camera because the image does not quite fill the frame, as is the case with the 24/1.4. What I did not expect is that the vignetting of the 20/1.4 is actually noticeably better than the 24/1.4. Wide open there is less mechanical and optical vignetting with the wider lens, and both types of vignetting improve more when the 20/1.4 is stopped down (in particular, the 24/1.4's mechanical vignetting improves somewhat down to f/4, then gets worse again to f/8).
I was surprised enough that I triple-checked the EXIF data to make sure I hadn't mixed up the lenses. Obviously mechanical vignetting on both lenses will go away with distortion correction, but the lower optical vignetting with the 20/1.4 is a nice surprise.
