I do event photography, and the 2.8 its a Must. That extra stop of light will make sure you shot the flash ar a lower potency and you can keep more of the natural light of the venue. Also, with the 2.8 you get an F4 that is incredibly sharp (2.8 is very good, but not breathtaking). With F4 being your base aperture, you can expect to lose some sharpness at the maximum. Only reason Im using the 2.8, is because for low light situations, every little ray of light is the difference on a selling photo, and a dull one 📸👍 Thanks for the video
For vlogging, the 14-35 wins hands down. I use both, and for photography the 15-35 is slightly better in my opinion. Barely noticable if at all. For vlogging and video though, the 14-35 is better even with a loss of one stop of light. Mainly size and weight. Image quality is virtually the same.
Great video Jared, very detailed. I use my 15-35 on my C70 constantly where the 2.8 aperture gives a little bit extra separation over the F4 version. If it wasn't for that, if I was using these lenses only on my full frame cameras I would be using the 14-35. I think Canon did an amazing job with all of the RF F4 lenses. So nice to use.
That is an excellent point. On super 35 sensors that focal length makes a good wide angle and the 2.8 would give great seperation. I have not used it over the last month in real estate because the 14-35 has lived on the r6 II, but I haven’t decided if I am going to sell it or not. How are you liking the c70? I was leaning towards that over the r5c because of internal nd and much better battery life.
Thank you. Another great video - one I was actually could not wait for. Just reasuered me that I have made right choice with 14-35mm. Thanks for RAW files.
i shoot 14mm 95% of the time, f8 or f11 on a manfrotto 055 tripod which is as stable as they get. One thing i've noticed, is if i have to take the shot again, for whatever reason, say someone walked into the shot, the contrast and sometimes white balance may be slightly different, when i'm culling in post. So really these comparisons, not just you, but every youtuber, never take that into consideration that every time we press that shutter, the camera is doing an evaluative metering as well as an auto white balance (unless you're fixed) and results may vary. So in terms of slightly different contrast, that is too be expected. For me, the difference is do you want that extra 1mm ? and if you're shooting on a tripod most of the time, then yes thats the winner. if you're handheld, and doing detail oriented shots then the f2.8 is worth the extra coin. that's really what it all boils down to for me.
My interest is landscape and architecture mostly and not real estate but I’ve considered downsizing my kit to f/4 for the holy trinity. Today I own the RF f/2.8 version for 15mm to 200mm but the f/4 all seem to be well done. The Canon RF f/2.8 are all quite a bit heavier than the Sony GM IIs and I don’t think I will really miss f/2 for how I use my R5. Thank you and take care.
I’ve really grown to appreciate f4. I just shot 24-70 2.8 RF tonight at the park and man that gets heavy after awhile. The 24-105 f4 would have been fine.
The 14-35 is designed to have the distortion and vignetting corrected either in-camera or post. There are some good reasons for this including the fact that it allows a simpler/cheaper design and construction. Considering the price difference, and how easy it is to apply corrections, I think it is a fair trade. Many photographers, in particular the non-professional shooters, feel they need the absolute best. That is fine, but the most important thing is photographers skill.
Thanks Jared, great input - I'm still debating between the two, secretly hoping Canon finally comes with a nice wide angle prime before I make my decision...
I downloaded the raw files to compare and was able to confirm what a lot of other reviews of the 14-35 lens have said-it is more significantly more aggressively corrected in software. It still seems like a good lens, and fine for real estate, however if you uncheck lens corrections for each, you'll see how much more the software needs to crop, stretch, and lift the exposure in the corners of the 14-35. Of course, all that really matters is the end result, but I'm glad I went with the 15-35.
You got a good deal on the 14 to 35, I paid $1499.00 when it first came out. Great lens. The 14 to 35 is a lot lighter than the 15 to 35, I do use mine for a lot of video work on a gimbal, and being that it is lighter makes it a great lens for video.
The 17-40mm f/4. Picked up mine new for $500. 35mm reach is not enough for me. Lot's of time I crop my video to get around 65mm. 17-65mm suits my needs.
Great video! We have the 15-35 2.8 . I thought about getting the 14-35 F4 but opted for the Rf 100 mm 2.8 . Maybe next year I will get the 14-35. I have the EF 16-35 F4 which I love, love. I may download the Raw files but if the 15-35 wide open is as good as the 14-35 at F4 .That is remarkable.
What about the 10-20? Both the 15-35 and 14-35 have their appeal, but I already have a 24-105 f/4 L, so I've got 24-35 covered anyway, seems like the 10-20 gives me ultra-ultra wide angles I can't get with either the 14 or 15, and only "costs" me the 21-23 mm range uncovered, and if I ever needed that bad enough, I have a crop button. But, I can't decide!
14-35 was a big lens purchase for me in terms of not being a pro using it to make money from it. I paid full retail for it unfortunately, but it works well for what I do with it, yeah I wanted the 15-35, but just didn't make sense to spend the extra money.
The 14-35mm f4 is the winner for me. It's one got for my street / architure photography. Plus amazing on the Ronin S3 Mini for video. Not mention so much cheaper.
I absolutely agree! The difference in weight on my crane 2s from the 15-35 2.8 is HUGE. The extra mm is more significant than people may think as well. The fact I bought it brand new at Best Buy for only $850 US is the cherry on top. I love this lens!
I think it really comes down to what you shoot. The 15-35 is a brighter lens to be sure, but as a mostly landscape shooter (at these focal ranges) I really don't have a lot of need for f 2.8. Also, I do a lot of hiking and, given image quality is basically a wash, it only makes sense for me to consider size and weight (the 14-35 is more than half a pound lighter). The 14-35 is considerably smaller and has a 77mm filter thread size. Since most of my lenses are also 77mm, I can use my existing filters. Both lenses have similar optical design (16 elements in 12 groups) and 9 rounded aperture blades. The 14-35 beats the 15-35mm in minimum focus distance (8 inches vs 11) but I doubt that would be a consideration for most people at such a wide focal range. I will eventually be getting the RF 14-35 when I can find a great sale price.
I own all three and use all three. For press/event photography or wide angle portrait, it's the 15-35. For portability and companion to a 70-200 it's the 14-35. For architecture it's the 10-20. All are basically identically sharp.
I've been waiting a long time for a wide angle prime lens for canon L series. So I'm going to buy an RF 35 F1.4, but after understand its real wide angle I realized that it gives too small difference with my current RF 50 F1.2L lens. I definitely like the RF 50 F1.2L for everything but its weight is not convenient for hiking. So always wanted a good fast lens at wide angle. Last year I bought the RF 24 F1.8 but in fact this lens was a compromise, it has very strong geometric distortion on edges and the camera profile stretches the corners a lot which makes many shots look very cheap. Now I want to sell this lens, it is lightweight comfortable IS lens with good aperture but with very mediocre picture and colors. I had already pre-ordered the RF 35 F1.4L VCM and was already thinking of buying it, but the thought that the 35 would be little different from the RF 50 F1.2L made it feel like a worthless purchase. I started researching and came across this lens RF 14-35 F4L IS USM and I was really interested in it as it weighs only 540 grams which is great for hiking and traveling as the RF 35 F1.4L VCM also weighs 555 grams but is not as versatile as the RF 14-35 F4L IS USM. Now I'm back to wondering if it makes sense to go for the RF 15-35 F2.8L IS USM as it is noticeably more expensive and heavier, the lens is definitely outstanding but is the one stop aperture justified in this case as I will have a significantly higher system weight.
I own both these lenses and I always go back and fourth to which one makes the most sense and since I can't decide I just kept both ;). My 15-35 2.8 RF actually lives on my Canon R7 for video. My 14-35 f4 is my work horse for real estate photography and video walk throughs. If shallow depth of field on wide angle is not important to you I would save the money and go with the 14-35 f4 RF. You get slightly wider, which does make a difference and it's light for walking and gimbal work. Refurbished is actually a good deal. amzn.to/3VQXU7F
I think the F4 version is more appropriate if your ONLY doing real estate but If you also do street/cityscapes then the 2.8 version would be better since its sharper. I use to have that 2.8 version before when I had the EOS R as my main camera but I ended up returning it because the IQ wasn't the same or at least as good as my Tamron 35 1.4. Now that I have the R6ii, I'm kinda curious on how the images will render from that camera body since the R was basically a mirrorless 5D4.
@@JaredHoyman hi, if you only had to pick one mainly for real estate photo and possibly video would you still recommend 14-35mm. How often do you have to go down ro 2.8 while doing real estate video?
@@MichalBudzik_ 14-35 F4 all the way for real estate. I’m shooting photos at f8 and f11. When I used the 15-35 2.8 I would stop down only to f4 with video walk throughs because I didn’t want a shallow depth of field. The only reason I still have the 15-35 RF is for that rare reason I will need it for video production and even for that I don’t know if it’s worth hanging onto. I haven’t used my 15-35 for real estate since getting the 14-35.
@@JaredHoyman Great. Thanks again. Basically after your comparison of the two lenses I set my heart on 14-35mm. Only recently someone else confused me saying that when doing RE videos I my need the extra stop of 2.8 in dark rooms etc. I am confident I will be perfectly fine with F4 lens for pure RE photos and hope the videos as well. Can you send any link to you portfolio where you used 14-35mm for video real estate I would love to see it :)
I'd tried these lens, the aperture and the minimal focal are not only these two difference specs. The 14-35 is sharp at 14 mm, but after 20mm lost details, at 35 il little blurred, some quality of the tarmron 35mm prime, for sony ef, after 20mm is not a l serie lens. For landscape is not too much ok, 14 mm are only marketing. The 15-35 il more lens optically correct, is more sharp at all focal and aperture then the 14-35. At 35mm it almost seems like a prime lens, in the edes of frame there is a lost of details, but remanis well done, These are two different lens, different optical performance.
At F8 and above on my 14-35 copy the 20-35mm focal length is very sharp. I wonder if that is a copy issue. The 15-35 needs a lot less optical correction in post, but both lenses are fantastic for their class.
@@marcoblondus3204 for architecture it’s a must to shoot between f8-f11. You want everything in focus. That’s why the 14-35 is ideal for architecture. I still have my 15-35 for video know light and subject low light. Not to mention I bought my 14-35 f4 L brand new at Best Buy for only $850 so it wasn’t that expensive.
@@marcoblondus3204 If you could only have one and you want it to be versatile then I agree...the 15-35 2.8 is optically superior allowing better results in lower light situations too.
I do event photography, and the 2.8 its a Must. That extra stop of light will make sure you shot the flash ar a lower potency and you can keep more of the natural light of the venue. Also, with the 2.8 you get an F4 that is incredibly sharp (2.8 is very good, but not breathtaking). With F4 being your base aperture, you can expect to lose some sharpness at the maximum. Only reason Im using the 2.8, is because for low light situations, every little ray of light is the difference on a selling photo, and a dull one 📸👍 Thanks for the video
For vlogging, the 14-35 wins hands down. I use both, and for photography the 15-35 is slightly better in my opinion. Barely noticable if at all. For vlogging and video though, the 14-35 is better even with a loss of one stop of light. Mainly size and weight. Image quality is virtually the same.
Great video Jared, very detailed. I use my 15-35 on my C70 constantly where the 2.8 aperture gives a little bit extra separation over the F4 version. If it wasn't for that, if I was using these lenses only on my full frame cameras I would be using the 14-35. I think Canon did an amazing job with all of the RF F4 lenses. So nice to use.
That is an excellent point. On super 35 sensors that focal length makes a good wide angle and the 2.8 would give great seperation. I have not used it over the last month in real estate because the 14-35 has lived on the r6 II, but I haven’t decided if I am going to sell it or not. How are you liking the c70? I was leaning towards that over the r5c because of internal nd and much better battery life.
Thank you.
Another great video - one I was actually could not wait for.
Just reasuered me that I have made right choice with 14-35mm.
Thanks for RAW files.
This is an amazing comparison. It’s been so nice seeing actual reviews in software, thank you!
Thank you!
I love the 14-35mm. It’s like combining the EF 14mm with the EF 16-35mm. It’s compact, ultra wide, and versatile.
Very helpful. Thanks Jared. Will go with the 14-35.
You will love it!
i shoot 14mm 95% of the time, f8 or f11 on a manfrotto 055 tripod which is as stable as they get. One thing i've noticed, is if i have to take the shot again, for whatever reason, say someone walked into the shot, the contrast and sometimes white balance may be slightly different, when i'm culling in post. So really these comparisons, not just you, but every youtuber, never take that into consideration that every time we press that shutter, the camera is doing an evaluative metering as well as an auto white balance (unless you're fixed) and results may vary. So in terms of slightly different contrast, that is too be expected. For me, the difference is do you want that extra 1mm ? and if you're shooting on a tripod most of the time, then yes thats the winner. if you're handheld, and doing detail oriented shots then the f2.8 is worth the extra coin. that's really what it all boils down to for me.
My interest is landscape and architecture mostly and not real estate but I’ve considered downsizing my kit to f/4 for the holy trinity. Today I own the RF f/2.8 version for 15mm to 200mm but the f/4 all seem to be well done. The Canon RF f/2.8 are all quite a bit heavier than the Sony GM IIs and I don’t think I will really miss f/2 for how I use my R5. Thank you and take care.
I’ve really grown to appreciate f4. I just shot 24-70 2.8 RF tonight at the park and man that gets heavy after awhile. The 24-105 f4 would have been fine.
The 14-35 is designed to have the distortion and vignetting corrected either in-camera or post. There are some good reasons for this including the fact that it allows a simpler/cheaper design and construction. Considering the price difference, and how easy it is to apply corrections, I think it is a fair trade.
Many photographers, in particular the non-professional shooters, feel they need the absolute best. That is fine, but the most important thing is photographers skill.
Completely agree. There is always the fear of missing out but it really comes to skill.
Thanks Jared, great input - I'm still debating between the two, secretly hoping Canon finally comes with a nice wide angle prime before I make my decision...
I would be curious if they do a 14mm at 1.4. That would mess up everything in head all over again.
I downloaded the raw files to compare and was able to confirm what a lot of other reviews of the 14-35 lens have said-it is more significantly more aggressively corrected in software. It still seems like a good lens, and fine for real estate, however if you uncheck lens corrections for each, you'll see how much more the software needs to crop, stretch, and lift the exposure in the corners of the 14-35. Of course, all that really matters is the end result, but I'm glad I went with the 15-35.
What software do you use for that?
You got a good deal on the 14 to 35, I paid $1499.00 when it first came out. Great lens. The 14 to 35 is a lot lighter than the 15 to 35, I do use mine for a lot of video work on a gimbal, and being that it is lighter makes it a great lens for video.
The 17-40mm f/4. Picked up mine new for $500. 35mm reach is not enough for me. Lot's of time I crop my video to get around 65mm. 17-65mm suits my needs.
That's a good deal. I used to have the 16-35 f4 and that was awesome.
Great video! We have the 15-35 2.8 . I thought about getting the 14-35 F4 but opted for the Rf 100 mm 2.8 . Maybe next year I will get the 14-35. I have the EF 16-35 F4 which I love, love. I may download the Raw files but if the 15-35 wide open is as good as the 14-35 at F4 .That is remarkable.
You can’t go wrong with any of the RF L series lenses. I have torn between 100rf 2.8, 50 1.2 or 100-500 RF for my next. All so different purposes.
What about the 10-20? Both the 15-35 and 14-35 have their appeal, but I already have a 24-105 f/4 L, so I've got 24-35 covered anyway, seems like the 10-20 gives me ultra-ultra wide angles I can't get with either the 14 or 15, and only "costs" me the 21-23 mm range uncovered, and if I ever needed that bad enough, I have a crop button. But, I can't decide!
For me I do a lot of air bb and getting to 35 for detail shots is needed. It seems like a great lens but too wide for what I need.
14-35 was a big lens purchase for me in terms of not being a pro using it to make money from it. I paid full retail for it unfortunately, but it works well for what I do with it, yeah I wanted the 15-35, but just didn't make sense to spend the extra money.
The 14-35mm f4 is the winner for me. It's one got for my street / architure photography. Plus amazing on the Ronin S3 Mini for video. Not mention so much cheaper.
I absolutely agree! The difference in weight on my crane 2s from the 15-35 2.8 is HUGE. The extra mm is more significant than people may think as well. The fact I bought it brand new at Best Buy for only $850 US is the cherry on top. I love this lens!
Thank you for making this video, you got a new sub.
Thank you! Welcome aboard.
I think it really comes down to what you shoot. The 15-35 is a brighter lens to be sure, but as a mostly landscape shooter (at these focal ranges) I really don't have a lot of need for f 2.8. Also, I do a lot of hiking and, given image quality is basically a wash, it only makes sense for me to consider size and weight (the 14-35 is more than half a pound lighter). The 14-35 is considerably smaller and has a 77mm filter thread size. Since most of my lenses are also 77mm, I can use my existing filters. Both lenses have similar optical design (16 elements in 12 groups) and 9 rounded aperture blades. The 14-35 beats the 15-35mm in minimum focus distance (8 inches vs 11) but I doubt that would be a consideration for most people at such a wide focal range. I will eventually be getting the RF 14-35 when I can find a great sale price.
@@basilbcf the deal I got on it was insane. $850 brand new at Best Buy when I ordered in store.
@@JaredHoyman That is insane. I suspect some sort of in-store pricing error. But if I ever see one for that price, I'll jump on it!
which body are you using?
R6ii
Can you review the new wide angle lens RF 10-18mm for video as well
Currently working on it. Should be the next vid. So far really enjoying it. Very unique design which I’m liking.
@@JaredHoyman thank you so much! I’ll be on the lookout for it! I bought it for vlogging and it’s nice so far. Can’t wait to watch your review.
Nice video. Need another video on RF 15-35mm F2.8L VS 14-35mm F4L VS 10-20mm F4L😂😂
I own all three and use all three. For press/event photography or wide angle portrait, it's the 15-35. For portability and companion to a 70-200 it's the 14-35. For architecture it's the 10-20. All are basically identically sharp.
Idk what camera you used these on, but which would you suggest for the r7?
For similar focal lengths on the R7 go for the 10-18 RF-S. Watch my review video. ruclips.net/video/h13-k8cPUE8/видео.html
@@JaredHoyman no RF-S for me. Once I get my FF lenses I’m going FF. I wanna give canon more time to mature before dropping tons of cash on a FF.
How does the 14-35 do with video?
Excellent! Better with IBIS than the 15-35. It's also a lot lighter on my gimbal so easier to control the movement.
I've been waiting a long time for a wide angle prime lens for canon L series. So I'm going to buy an RF 35 F1.4, but after understand its real wide angle I realized that it gives too small difference with my current RF 50 F1.2L lens. I definitely like the RF 50 F1.2L for everything but its weight is not convenient for hiking. So always wanted a good fast lens at wide angle. Last year I bought the RF 24 F1.8 but in fact this lens was a compromise, it has very strong geometric distortion on edges and the camera profile stretches the corners a lot which makes many shots look very cheap. Now I want to sell this lens, it is lightweight comfortable IS lens with good aperture but with very mediocre picture and colors. I had already pre-ordered the RF 35 F1.4L VCM and was already thinking of buying it, but the thought that the 35 would be little different from the RF 50 F1.2L made it feel like a worthless purchase. I started researching and came across this lens RF 14-35 F4L IS USM and I was really interested in it as it weighs only 540 grams which is great for hiking and traveling as the RF 35 F1.4L VCM also weighs 555 grams but is not as versatile as the RF 14-35 F4L IS USM. Now I'm back to wondering if it makes sense to go for the RF 15-35 F2.8L IS USM as it is noticeably more expensive and heavier, the lens is definitely outstanding but is the one stop aperture justified in this case as I will have a significantly higher system weight.
I own both these lenses and I always go back and fourth to which one makes the most sense and since I can't decide I just kept both ;). My 15-35 2.8 RF actually lives on my Canon R7 for video. My 14-35 f4 is my work horse for real estate photography and video walk throughs. If shallow depth of field on wide angle is not important to you I would save the money and go with the 14-35 f4 RF. You get slightly wider, which does make a difference and it's light for walking and gimbal work. Refurbished is actually a good deal. amzn.to/3VQXU7F
Love my 14-35 f4 could not spend the $1000 more for 2.8 and the weight difference
If the 14-35 f4 came out when the 15-35 came out I would have purchased 14-35 instead. Makes sense for most people.
I wonder if the price was reduced thinking it was an EF lens that was being sold as clearance.
I’m not sure. Others have mentioned at the time purchased that if you ordered from Best Buy customer service desk they got the same deal.
I think the F4 version is more appropriate if your ONLY doing real estate but If you also do street/cityscapes then the 2.8 version would be better since its sharper. I use to have that 2.8 version before when I had the EOS R as my main camera but I ended up returning it because the IQ wasn't the same or at least as good as my Tamron 35 1.4. Now that I have the R6ii, I'm kinda curious on how the images will render from that camera body since the R was basically a mirrorless 5D4.
So far I opted to keep both lenses. F4 for real estate. 2.8 for lower light and video.
@@JaredHoyman Not a bad idea. I really like the design of the 2.8 version. I just wish the price tag wasn't so high lol.
@@JaredHoyman hi, if you only had to pick one mainly for real estate photo and possibly video would you still recommend 14-35mm. How often do you have to go down ro 2.8 while doing real estate video?
@@MichalBudzik_ 14-35 F4 all the way for real estate. I’m shooting photos at f8 and f11. When I used the 15-35 2.8 I would stop down only to f4 with video walk throughs because I didn’t want a shallow depth of field. The only reason I still have the 15-35 RF is for that rare reason I will need it for video production and even for that I don’t know if it’s worth hanging onto. I haven’t used my 15-35 for real estate since getting the 14-35.
@@JaredHoyman Great. Thanks again. Basically after your comparison of the two lenses I set my heart on 14-35mm. Only recently someone else confused me saying that when doing RE videos I my need the extra stop of 2.8 in dark rooms etc. I am confident I will be perfectly fine with F4 lens for pure RE photos and hope the videos as well. Can you send any link to you portfolio where you used 14-35mm for video real estate I would love to see it :)
I'd tried these lens, the aperture and the minimal focal are not only these two difference specs. The 14-35 is sharp at 14 mm, but after 20mm lost details, at 35 il little blurred, some quality of the tarmron 35mm prime, for sony ef, after 20mm is not a l serie lens. For landscape is not too much ok, 14 mm are only marketing. The 15-35 il more lens optically correct, is more sharp at all focal and aperture then the 14-35. At 35mm it almost seems like a prime lens, in the edes of frame there is a lost of details, but remanis well done, These are two different lens, different optical performance.
At F8 and above on my 14-35 copy the 20-35mm focal length is very sharp. I wonder if that is a copy issue. The 15-35 needs a lot less optical correction in post, but both lenses are fantastic for their class.
@@JaredHoyman yea, i know. But I don't spend a lot of money on an L lens and then use it at f8 and above.
@@marcoblondus3204 for architecture it’s a must to shoot between f8-f11. You want everything in focus. That’s why the 14-35 is ideal for architecture. I still have my 15-35 for video know light and subject low light. Not to mention I bought my 14-35 f4 L brand new at Best Buy for only $850 so it wasn’t that expensive.
@@JaredHoyman yes, nice price, but 1500 dollars no, there are sample of 15-35 rf, in euros, 1600-1700 euro.
@@marcoblondus3204 If you could only have one and you want it to be versatile then I agree...the 15-35 2.8 is optically superior allowing better results in lower light situations too.
And the winner is the 17-40! ;)
Lol. That is an option. I’m sure the price of that is very affordable now.
@@JaredHoyman nothing wrong with a 5d4 to go with it lol