For me personally, the F/4 is the true "value" winner b/c when I'm shooting very wide, particularly for landscapes, I'm not shooting at 2.8 anyway. So IMO, it's a no brainer to go with the f4 - cheaper and lighter.
So far, I have managed to hold on to an EF 16-35 f/4 adapted to my R5. It's been difficult decideing between these two. The size/weight advantage and "similar" AF/and IQ quality of the RF 14-35 are tempting. But the versatality of the RF 15-35 f/2.8 checks all the boxes for AF/IQ, landscape/architecture, music/live performance, and sports. The used market has the 15-35 at $1,550 and the 14-35 at $1,220. True to your point about value for the price.
The great thing about Canon L series lenses is the fact that all are great, and you can choose them based on the size/weight/aperture not the sharpens and AF speed
Yep, maybe will get a filter on mine too for the R5 someday, if you think the lens protection factor is much better than inage quality differance. You like the 15-35 way better? Very nice great video BTW. Question: I use to use a UV filter on my lenses, but I haven’t been doing it for years. Maybe I should go back to doing that especially for lots of my photography with RF 15-35mm and RF 70-200 2.8, because you’re outdoors. What do you suggest? Travel can be demanding on gear. Do you use them anyways? Can you tell any difference when you use a UV filter or not? With the gear I use would you always use one for lens protection? Which one would you use for these lenses? Or dont use one, if quality gets compromised.
Why turn off the lens correction for the 14-35, or for that matter the 15-35? Canon was aware of the distortion of the 14 when wide open. It is not as noticeable at 16. A difference of 1 mm? I get the whole issue of a wider aperture, however, for landscaping and most shoots, are we really going to use a wide open aperture all the time? For the cost, weight, and bulk of the imaging, the 14-35 is a decent lens. For that matter, if I were doing a lot of indoor photography without using flash illumination, I would spend the money on the 15-35 without a doubt.
I agree, whats the point of comparing with lens correction off when most people are going to keep them on. Test them how you use them, i.e., with lens correction on unless you're always shooting with it off. Pointless video like the other ultra wide angle lense reviews this channel does. I immediately stopped watching once he said lens correction off as this review will be of no use anymore cause it's not comparing the lenses in the condition they will be used.
I had both! Sold the F.2.8. The F4 is lighter, very sharp and costs money. If you shoot, as said, landscape etc, you don't shoot at F2.8 anyways. For DOF I have faster lenses.
I have the 14-45, bought for city trip /architecture in old European cities where you can't always step back far. Went to Barcelona with it recently and the shots look great, though I havent done the post on many yet.....I don't miss the extra stop of aperture for this use at all (generally f8 or so) but I massively value the lower weight and size, especially now all the airlines are being very stingy on carry on size! In fact, my carry on was stuffed with this lens +24-105f4 + 35mm prime RF. If I had the larger 15-35 I'd have had to leave the 35 mm at home, and while i have that focal length on the zoom, I use the 35mm at night to get the f 1.8 and a very small camera (on the original EOS R)...definitely prefer to have the prime than the slightly better but heavier of these two for me.
Pointless comparison when it comes to lens correction. Do you compare lenses on a shelf or on a camera? What forces you to use them without the lens correction? RF 14-35 is designed with it in mind. I was surprised by how 14-35 is weak in close-ups. But honestly, I'd rather barely find the issue on my own having this lens - it's not for close-ups.
Out of those... not sure... for the amount of money you have to pay I'm not impressed with either. But right now all RF lenses feel a bit too expensive.
They certainly are expensive in the the UK! Though I am impressed by the quality. I can save circa 30% using one of the importers who buy in Hong Kong .....good ones pay the duty etc for you and replace the Canon warranty with a sort of insurance policy version (and it's still sbt 30% less!). Not sure how the Canon official supply route will last to be honest when they have very few physical outlets any more and they are offering zero value for the massive markup on some other countries prices
I shoot mostly video with this lens and don't need the extra stop for light or bokeh, so the higher price, size and weight of the f2.8 aren't justified for me.
For me personally, the F/4 is the true "value" winner b/c when I'm shooting very wide, particularly for landscapes, I'm not shooting at 2.8 anyway. So IMO, it's a no brainer to go with the f4 - cheaper and lighter.
So far, I have managed to hold on to an EF 16-35 f/4 adapted to my R5. It's been difficult decideing between these two. The size/weight advantage and "similar" AF/and IQ quality of the RF 14-35 are tempting. But the versatality of the RF 15-35 f/2.8 checks all the boxes for AF/IQ, landscape/architecture, music/live performance, and sports. The used market has the 15-35 at $1,550 and the 14-35 at $1,220. True to your point about value for the price.
The great thing about Canon L series lenses is the fact that all are great, and you can choose them based on the size/weight/aperture not the sharpens and AF speed
I have the 14-35mm but wish I chose the 15-35mm for low light video
Yep, maybe will get a filter on mine too for the R5 someday, if you think the lens protection factor is much better than inage quality differance. You like the 15-35 way better? Very nice great video BTW. Question: I use to use a UV filter on my lenses, but I haven’t been doing it for years. Maybe I should go back to doing that especially for lots of my photography with RF 15-35mm and RF 70-200 2.8, because you’re outdoors. What do you suggest? Travel can be demanding on gear. Do you use them anyways? Can you tell any difference when you use a UV filter or not? With the gear I use would you always use one for lens protection? Which one would you use for these lenses? Or dont use one, if quality gets compromised.
Why turn off the lens correction for the 14-35, or for that matter the 15-35? Canon was aware of the distortion of the 14 when wide open. It is not as noticeable at 16. A difference of 1 mm? I get the whole issue of a wider aperture, however, for landscaping and most shoots, are we really going to use a wide open aperture all the time? For the cost, weight, and bulk of the imaging, the 14-35 is a decent lens. For that matter, if I were doing a lot of indoor photography without using flash illumination, I would spend the money on the 15-35 without a doubt.
I agree, whats the point of comparing with lens correction off when most people are going to keep them on. Test them how you use them, i.e., with lens correction on unless you're always shooting with it off. Pointless video like the other ultra wide angle lense reviews this channel does. I immediately stopped watching once he said lens correction off as this review will be of no use anymore cause it's not comparing the lenses in the condition they will be used.
I had both! Sold the F.2.8. The F4 is lighter, very sharp and costs money. If you shoot, as said, landscape etc, you don't shoot at F2.8 anyways. For DOF I have faster lenses.
I have the 14-45, bought for city trip /architecture in old European cities where you can't always step back far. Went to Barcelona with it recently and the shots look great, though I havent done the post on many yet.....I don't miss the extra stop of aperture for this use at all (generally f8 or so) but I massively value the lower weight and size, especially now all the airlines are being very stingy on carry on size!
In fact, my carry on was stuffed with this lens +24-105f4 + 35mm prime RF. If I had the larger 15-35 I'd have had to leave the 35 mm at home, and while i have that focal length on the zoom, I use the 35mm at night to get the f 1.8 and a very small camera (on the original EOS R)...definitely prefer to have the prime than the slightly better but heavier of these two for me.
Which one for video?
F4 is great and all you need.
RF 15-35mm F/2.8L Lens is the one I have my eyes on.
To my eyes, the 14-35/4L has higher central contrast @ f/4 than the 15-35/2.8L.
I rarely us 2.8.
The F2.8 is on sale right now for $1900
Pointless comparison when it comes to lens correction. Do you compare lenses on a shelf or on a camera? What forces you to use them without the lens correction? RF 14-35 is designed with it in mind. I was surprised by how 14-35 is weak in close-ups. But honestly, I'd rather barely find the issue on my own having this lens - it's not for close-ups.
Yes. I have 35mm and 100mm RF primes for macro anyway. Macro is not why I bought this zoom.
I am using it on my Red Komodo-X, thats why I need to see lens correction LMAO
Out of those... not sure... for the amount of money you have to pay I'm not impressed with either. But right now all RF lenses feel a bit too expensive.
They certainly are expensive in the the UK! Though I am impressed by the quality. I can save circa 30% using one of the importers who buy in Hong Kong .....good ones pay the duty etc for you and replace the Canon warranty with a sort of insurance policy version (and it's still sbt 30% less!). Not sure how the Canon official supply route will last to be honest when they have very few physical outlets any more and they are offering zero value for the massive markup on some other countries prices
I shoot mostly video with this lens and don't need the extra stop for light or bokeh, so the higher price, size and weight of the f2.8 aren't justified for me.