Photography News 100 - Newsletter

First test

TEST PICTURES

Our test shots were taken with the 14-35mm f/4 on a Canon EOS R5, fixed on a Kingjoy C85 tripod, and the full-sized Raws processed through Adobe Lightroom with default sharpening

14mm

20mm

24mm

35mm

F/4

F/5.6

F/8

F/11

F/16

“STOPPING DOWN TO F/5.6 HELPED CRISPEN UP THE EDGES” To check out the prowess of the optic, I shot our custom test chart at 14, 20, 24, 28 and 35mm, with the Raws put through Lightroom using the dedicated profile and default sharpening. The camera has a set of lens aberration corrections, all set to off. These were peripheral illumination correction, digital lens optimiser, chromatic aberration correction and diffraction correction. Wide open at 14mm, fine detail looked well-resolved and sharp, especially in the centre – but this drifted off just a fraction. Stopping down to f/5.6, then f/8, helped crispen up the edges, while there was less improvement in the centre because it started at a high level. Overall, f/8 was the best aperture, although there wasn’t very much difference between this and f/11. Sharpness at 20mm started at a higher level; across the frame,

will get vignetting when processing Raws without using a lens profile. Although this is not quite visible through the viewfinder/monitor or on image previews. It makes no sense to forgo using a correction profile, and I worked with the one in Lightroom. Clicking the profile box on and off shows how much correction it does, getting rid of any vignetting by cropping – as well as resolving the significant barrel distortion. While you may think that cropping loses you coverage, Canon claims you still get an effective 14mm – and ‘well within the standard for lens measurement’. Given the proximity of the front lens element to the front of the body, I’d prefer to leave a protection filter on and let Lightroom’s lens profile do its work. I would only take that filter off if I wanted to replace it with a polariser or another filter. Others I tried included a Lee100 holder (in two-slot configuration), with 77mm WA adapter. There was no cut-off with the slip-in filters, but there was with the clip-on polariser. I also sampled an H&Y 67-82mm VND+CPL, which is quite deep- bodied but gave no cut-off. Similarly, all was fine with my Kase Magnetic Circular filters, too. WC

During my time testing the lens, the sun made its appearance, so I tried shooting into the light. I found that the various coatings – ASC, Super Spectra and SWC – did a very good job at keeping flare and ghosting to a minimum. A bayonet-fit lens hood is supplied. With its ultra-wide view, this hood is very shallow, out of necessity. Of course, this limits its usefulness. I don’t usually bother with hoods on such wide lenses, because they are ineffective at preventing non-image-forming light from hitting the front element. However, as part of the test, I made sure to try it out. Interestingly, if you operate the lens with a hood or thin protection filter at 14mm, you

crispness was good from f/4 onwards. It stayed at a good quality through to f/11 – and even the f/16 output was sound enough. A similar pattern of high performance was seen at 24mm in the wider apertures. At f/4 and f/5.6, fine detail was very nicely differentiated, with great contrast across the frame. F/8 was the best overall, but there was not much in it compared with f/5.6. Quality dropped slightly at f/11 and f/16, but sharpness remained solid. At 28mm (test shots not shown here), there’s a quality showing at f/4 and f/5.6, a level that was maintained at f/8, before dropping away slightly. Although it was very acceptable at f/11 and f/16. Finally, we get to the 35mm focal length. Again, wider apertures were satisfactory, but the starting point seemed to be at a lower level, compared with the shorter settings. Sharpness was good across the frame, but rendition of the finer details appeared less crisp. F/5.6 gave the best overall showing, with f/8 and f/11 not quite as good as you might expect. We are talking minor discrepancies, though. With some considered unsharp masking in editing, detail can be improved.

Verdict The Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM is a lens rich in possibility. Get in close to scenes with strong lines, and dynamic compositions are there to be found. Added to that, its optical performance is more than a little respectable. Of course, it does not have the speed of the 15-35mm f/2.8, but then it is over £600 cheaper (at current street prices). Nevertheless, £1749 is still a sizeable chunk of cash, but with few high-spec, third-party zooms available, you might have to bite the bullet and go for it. PROS Good value, excellent handling, capable performer CONS Lens profile needed to correct vignetting and distortion issues

KEEP IT STEADY On image-stabilised cameras, the claimed IS benefit is 7EV – and 5.5EV on non-IS bodies

Issue 100 | Photography News 67

photographynews.co.uk