My used like new zeiss glass cost less than half that, and will outlive me, easily. The plastic canon will be a doorstop once the electronics die and they decide to fuck you into buying a new one by not selling parts at their discretion. I’ll take vintage quality over cheap tech everyday.
The thought of anything I own outliving me is actually kind of depressing. That being said most of the canon lenses I use I have had for 15+ years and they work like new. If one dies or whatever, I’ll just buy a new one.
The Zeiss 15mm looks like a better lens to me. The amount of distortion, lack of colours information and high contrast are wild on the Canon 15-35mm, but that's totally normal in zoom lenses. Thanks for making this video, it's super helpful!
I used to be a fan of Zeiss Batis lenses, I had the 25f2 and the 85f1.8 and they were gorgeous, a joy to use, but this time credit is given to Canon that this 15-35f2.8 itself alone makes the EOS R appealing. I guess Canon optics engineers had now the chance to design a wide lens that exploits the short flange distance of mirrorless camera, while the Zeiss 15 was designed for DSLR. BTW, Eric, you are the only EOS R channel, to which I am subscribed. You are not talking hyperboles and BS, very rare in youtube channels.
That’s great to hear, thanks. I agree I think the #1 thing with the RF lenses is the short flange distance, plus it seems like (I’m hoping!) they’re putting all of their resources into the RF line and taking over the mirrorless market.
@@BillEricPhotography I don't think anyone can take over the mirrorless market, Sony is absolutely very strongly entrenched, and the other competitors are really ambitious, too. The Tamron 1728f2.8 is brutally great lens, too. Definitely the $2300 1535 is the "new wide lens king", but honestly the Tamron 1728 with its affordable price, and excellent performance is a very strong competitor, for example. Actually, I wouldn't care who is selling the most cameras until there is one or two makers that makes products good enough to me.
I used to have Canon EF 15-35mm mark iii but sold it because of the vignetting. And it's about the same or even slightly worse on the RF 15-35mm (because it is slightly wider). I hear you when you are saying that vignetting is easily correctible, which is true but it does so by basically lifting the shadows. So if you are shooting wide open because of the lack of light, say ISO say 3200, then lifting those corners 3-4 stops will mess up the picture. Wide angle Zeiss lenses also tend to have a lot of vignetting but not as much. The Canon is pretty extreme. However the Canon has IS which in some cases lets you achieve a lower ISO and so brightening those corners will be less of an issue. But for this to happen, the shutter speed has to be lower which may or may not be acceptable if there are moving objects in the scene. Corner sharpness as such has rarely been an issue for me, even for a landscape lens.
Good points thanks. I would also say that when shooting high iso, for my shooting, the corners usually don’t need as much brightening because it’s typically a dark scene anyway so I’ll leave those alone for the most part.
@@BillEricPhotography Yes makes sense. I don't know why but having dark corners annoys me. But on balance I think I'd still prefer the Canon for photography. Zeiss used to have a significant competitive advantage in the quality and rendering department but it's a wash now. They do still have an edge for video due to the handling and compatibility of their lenses with a wide range of third party cameras.
I purchased that RF 15-35 for church events and it has been excellent. I also have the RF 24-70 and I'm personally finding it even sharper than the 15-35.
For video Zeiss is the clear winner. Distortion, vinyetting, and f8 has reddish blotchy color spots on the Canon. Minute 7:36 shows that the Zeiss renders more 3 dimensional than the Canon as well. But that is something Prime still have over zooms, which is the 3dimensionality. But I appreciate this video comparison.
I own no other 15 lenses, but I did buy the RF15-35 and love it. I also have the less expensive RF 35 and RF 24-240 zoom and love those also. Great system Canon "R" series
Could you do some infinity tests as well of landscapes or architecture? The Zeiss lenses usually show their strength here, and maybe the difference in the corners won’t be as noticeable here. Most would probably use it for the above anyway. You must of had a good copy of the Canon. The one I had was soft in the corners
I checked the lenses at several apertures and focus distances, I only showed a few here because these examples were typical of the results I was getting. Closer to infinity the differences in the corners was a little less, but the RF lens was still much better. I was really surprised, I have loved the Zeiss lens for years.
Disney Image Makers Yeah, that’s impressive. I hope that it was jusr my copy that was soft. It was soft in the corners at f/5.6 - f/8. I hope that, as I might switch to the RF system later on. If it’s soft on the R, it’s going to be even softer on the R5 and future models. I hope that isn’t the case, as most of my pictures are taking with wide angle lenses, and I really want that corner to corner sharpness. The Sigma 14-24mm is one of the best, so the Canon better be at least close to it at that price. Currently using a Sony a7R IV, but I have always prefered Canon’s lenses and ergonomics. The R5 is nice, but I don’t do videos, so it will probably not be worth it for me if it’s really expensive. I hope they release an alternative that is mostly for stills with 40 - 50 megapixels. I don’t want some overkill 75+ megapixels with a lot of compromises, though. I rather have 40 - 50 megapixels and maybe pixel shift as a bonus. I can probably live with the R for some time, but I will print large later on. I still have the RF 50mm on hand incase I decide to switch. That lens is really something, but I don’t like how it physically focuses in and out. I was actually never a big user of 50mm, but this lens changed that. I usually use something a bit more wide or narrow with like 1/2 or 1/3 reproduction, so that I can get a lot of details when it comes to some street photography, semi macro and what not. So if the R5 isn’t too expensive or if they release a more photo-based camera with a good amount of megapixels, IBIS and good dynamic range, I’m sold. The new RF 100-500mm is also interesting for wildlife and landscapes, and I’m sure Canon got some good macro plans as well. A pancake lens wouldn’t hurt neither for some vacation photography. Excited to see what they will bring to the table.
Great video. I'd definitely sell the Zeiss. The Canon is noticeably sharper edge-to-edge, has IS for low light situations when you don't have a tripod with you (or you want to shoot video) and it's a zoom, so you're not locked into a single focal length. For a zoom to be sharper than a Zeiss prime, that's really saying something.
you are spoilt ahahaha..... Just be happy with what you got. In real world scenarios you would not notice the difference, unless you are pixelpeepers. I would love to see the Canon on 35mm and see if the Canon still performs the same?
I own and love the RF 15-35, but compared to the Zeiss in your video, there was a reddish cast for the Canon on the white doors in your comparison. Probably correctable in LR. But the Canon blows away the Zeiss on the sharpness! The zoom vs prime factor also would also favor the Canon, given the roughly equal image quality. Thanks for your review!
Yeah there were some little imperfections but nothing that made a difference. I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised by the RF 15-35 and I’ve been getting some great shots with it since.
Thank you. I was prepared to get the Zeiss 15mm/2.8 for Nikon D850 and Landscape. Now I will look for an alternative lens that have corner to corner sharpness.
@@BillEricPhotography I don't need 15mm if it can't take grad Lee filters. Two alternatives, upgrade my Zeiss 18mm/3.5 to a Milvus 18mm/2.8 or getting a Nikkor 20mm/1.8 G. I will have to check when I get a D850/D880 camera. Used the 18mm/3.5 on a D300 (DX camera) that broke down in august, the lens shall be les sharp at the edges on a FF camera..
ive always had primes, but have switched to rf 15-30, 24-105 and 70-200 - all outstanding, and has zoom and stabilisation - don't miss 1.4 at all - but are waiting for a longer rf for wildlife...
Whilst I have not shot with either lens, have a M50 at the moment, it made interesting viewing. As you say most things you can alter in Lightroom, except sharpness, and that would be the one thing that I would go with. Have fun deciding.
It doesn't seem like that could be possible. The Zeiss is a much older lens and the Canon is a brand new lens with the latest lens technology. The fact that it's a zoom makes it so much more versatile than just having a 15 mm in my bag!
You do realize that a lot of the zooms today are just as good as primes. They’re just slower. The zoom vs prime debate is something from decades ago when lens engineers couldn’t make zooms at the same quality as primes. Even Sony’s 55-210mm kit zoom is a really sharp lens. Zeiss isn’t meant for everyone, it holds a strong place in video though and it seems like that might be their direction in the future, except for their relationship with Sony. If you ever use a Zeiss you’ll never want to go back until you need autofocus. Also if I’m not mistaken, that Zeiss is still the old lens recipe from decades ago. That’s how good it’s been. Especially the 28mm f2 is still the same formula in the milvus lineup. Milvus is the first in decades that they changed their formulas.
I agree, the quality of the zooms now (I LOVE this and the RF 70-200) is just as good as any prime. The only difference is the wider aperture. And the mindset/approach the primes make you use, which is what I find most useful.
@BillEricPhotography sorry for the dumb question. Does this extrapolate out to mean that all RF L Lenses are going to be better than the equivalent MF Zeis Milvus lenses of DSLR days?
Nice review and I'm sure the RF is a superb lens, but....you couldn't make me give up my Zeiss Milvus 2.8/15mm for anything. I grew up with MF lenses and I love what this lens does on my Sony a7r iii.
The minimum focusing distance is about 11 inches on the RF, but I'm able to definitely get closer in focus sharp shots. I just got this lens and I've been testing MF with this
im looking into the zeiss, i was curious if 4x4 filters would fit the wide field of view without vignetting. do you think that would be a good filter size instead of 95mm circular?
Question - Have you completely parted ways with the 5DIV? This is where I'm running into a problem making a decision on the RF lenses. I picked up the RF 70-200 and can't justify keeping the EF version. I also have the EF 16-35 f4 and really wanted to pick up the Sigma 20 1.4 for some night sky photos. Or do I just sell the EF 16-35 and go for the RF 15-35?
Yes, the 5d4 is gone. The RF lenses are really great. But the sigma 20mm 1.4 is great for night sky. The EF to RF adapter works great so I would recommend using EF mount lenses when needed. There still aren’t many RF lenses available yet but there will be more soon I’m sure.
"Vignette is about the same." NOO! It's not!! there's about 4 stops on Canon and about 2 and something with Zeiss. Even at f8 Canon vignettes like 2 stops. I never cared too much about vignetting, but at this level *IT IS* an issue. Coupled with still not so good ( compared to Sonikon) shadows recovery in Canon cameras in low light that vignette actually devalues some of it light gathering strengths. You have to overexpose at least 1 stop at 15 f2.8 if you _want to have clear, even lit image_ Having said that, Canon is much more bang for the buck and, probably, best UWA lens today.
It seems like the Zeiss has a slight edge on light transmission. Also from what I believe, isn’t this Zeiss’ worst lens? I always forget which one it is but I know there’s one wide Zeiss lens that everyone hates lol. I mean I’m biased though, I love Zeiss and I hate canon. Canons glass is good though. I just really don’t like the company and how they operate. I started using Zeiss classic zf2 lenses on my a6300 and its a crazy difference in image quality. Even compared to my Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8. Those lenses just paint the light in a different way. It’s hard to say until you use it and see if for yourself. I used to think, “why would anyone buy something that expensive for the same result” and when looking at photos online they just seemed like the Zeiss fairy dust was a lie. It’s not. Those classic lenses just have something about them. I’ll take a metal lens with amazing quality over a plastic canon any day. I shoot mainly video though.
I totally agree I was amazed by the Zeiss lens and really considered getting more. But after comparing it to the RF 15-35 I really like the image quality with the canon and the fact that it has IS. It was hard parting with the zeiss thought. One day when I’m older and only carrying around my Canon mirrorless with one lens it’s going to be a Zeiss 50mm.
The Zeiss will outlive the Canon. It is built to last a lifetime .No autofocus, no VR to breakdown. Autofocus is nice to have for moving subjects but for static or mostly stationary subjects, manual focus is still a solid option. VR is a gimmick in my book. With camera bodies that are very capable of handling high ISO, increased shutter speeds (especially for wide angle lenses) should not be an issue. After all, what do most people use wide angle lenses for? Sports and wildlife? I'd rather make the investment on a product that will last my lifetime and probably longer vs a gadget with bells and whistles that will eventually have to be sent in for parts replacement.
@@BillEricPhotography According to the performance test on opticallimits.com, the Distagon 15mm has the same sharpness at different apertures than the original Tamron 15-30mm at 15mm. Test on the Zeiss 15mm lens: www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/988-zeisszf1528ff Test on the Tamron 15-30mm lens: www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/989-tamron153028vcff
@@BillEricPhotography You're welcome. By the way, according to tests on the-digital-picture.com, Milvus 18mm f/2.8 (which I hope to get some day) has much better edge sharpness and less distortion and vignetting than the Distagon 15mm (or even Milvus 15mm): www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-18mm-f-2.8-Milvus-Lens.aspx
@@BillEricPhotography - glad to hear these new lenses were strong enough to move a "prime (mostly)" photog to a zoom. I have the full compliment of zeiss primes btwn 25-135 - but for my Nikon Film camera which is still in regular use. However, ive been planning to upgrade to a mirrorless to repace my Nikon FE. Didn't want first gen, though. i'm waiting to see what second gen provides. The real struggle for me though, was if the new Z lenses were strong enough to supplant my Zeiss lens collection. As i didn't think they would, i did plan to get just a 24-70 2.8 for Z mount, and everything else, just adopt. However, if they turn out to be as dramatic as your experience, i might end up selling the whole compliment as you have. (whoa... cant even think of that right now..... hahaha love my zeiss collection.)
Seems Dustin Abbott disagrees on quite a few variables. He mentions he has seen better for astro, it had lots flare, less contrast. Although it did a superb job on resolution in corner performance at 2.8, it didn't perform overall as well as a prime lens by Samyang (1/4 the price). It also did not do as well at 35mm. Now getting to the Zeiss. It is in a different category (for movie/video), lenses are color matched, accepts lens gears, de-click feature for aperture, long focus throw (manual lens) which is important for astro shooters, landscape guys, and cinema/video, and it has heavy duty weatherproofing. Zeiss also are known for their 3d pop and color science, which you will not see on your monitor at about 100ppi. Therefore everything is dumbed down. Regarding your test samples......your door image comparison is poorly matched, does not show off color quality of each lens (way off). Your house scene also has focus inconsistency for the comparison (see railings, in zeiss image railings are much softer....why?? Is it to blurr the background a bit more for the zoom lens?). How do you expect to make a careful comparison with such sloppy images? Looking at the bird image, the zeiss had better bokeh in the background, and the woodwork was more discernable. . Now the zoom performed well at close distance (book case), but super wides are not designed for up close testing (Imatest), and give incomplete results, although in this test, the zoom won in edge/corner resolution at close distances. However, we rarely use a 15mm at 3 ft and at f2.8 (not what designed for.....get a flat field copy lens). Why no infinity test. You based your decision off very few variables, what kind of performance does the 15-35 have at infinity? Two vids by Dustin Abbott below. By the way, when I first bought the Milvus 15mm, I did a room shot (kitchen cabinets) at f2.8.....superb results edge to edge. Perhaps with zeiss, when you start focusing at 3ft or less there is field curbature on the near showing itself. The images by Dustin will show how well it performs edge to edge, and in corners in landscapes. Especially, go to 13:49, and in this astro image, you see in the foreground the trucks and green shed on the left...and sharp to the very edge at f2.8 (so it does very well at normal distances). You made it sound like this zoom is the great big new thing, and throw everything else in the garbage.. At 35mm, that zoom will not match the Milvus 35mm f1.4 in performance...plus you lose 2 stops. Zooms have improved, but so have Primes. The Milvus 25/35 are designed to be tack sharp at f1.4. You can see a astro image at Dpreview (on Milvus 35/25mm)....shot at f1.4....and a few at I think was f2. At F1.4 it was sharp to the edges, and some coma visible at f1.4 at edges (but not an issue up to 40 inch print size). I want to also say that although I am defending the zeiss 15mm, for anyone that wants a single lens (and for hiking a perfect choice).....this Canon 15-35mm RF is a sure winner....no doubt about it. I want one myself, because sometimes you can't carry a bunch of primes. Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm Review - DustinAbbott.net Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS: Definitive Review | 4K - RUclips Re: Lens Testing the Zeiss Milvus 25mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4: Astrophotography Talk Forum Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) June 28/2018 comment
Thanks for the info and feedback. I clearly did this comparison based on my own shooting and experiences and for what I use these lenses for. Any review is going to be based more on the reviewer’s experiences and needs.
I have the Eos R and the Zeiss 15mm 2.8 prime; using the Adaptor I can not reach infinity focus; it's close, but stars are not sharp! anyone else have this problem and what do I do?
Its a good video but I would compare prime to prime lenses at this point. If there's an RD Prime lens at 15 F2.5 that would be the best comparison between the two.
Interesting review .Always a prime shooter (although have an EF 70 -200/2.8) but with this new generation of zooms from Canon its not such an easy decision as it once was.
@@BillEricPhotography I still have to overcome the mental block when I`m using a zoom. I know it sounds stupid but because I`ve used primes for over forty years I forget sometimes that I have a zoom on the camera . Duh I know but there it is :)
Yeah I think I agree. I’ve always loved the Zeiss though, it’s like having a child that you love but then finding a newer and better child and asking the old one to hit the road.
Ah ive been waiting for a review...I just rented the rf 15-35 and the 70-200 to see what the fuss is about on the Eos R. Im tempted to try the zeiss 2.0 15mm rf to see how that stacks up. I like the 15-35, but i can't justify the price . If my photography brought in a nice salary, then maybe. Edit Venus optics.
It’s not really meant to be a criticism on the quality of the lens itself, but if the images I am getting from each. If I’m getting better results with the 15-35 compared the Zeiss with adapter combo, on my camera, then that’s the lens for me.
So you don't like giving up image quality, but still don't know if you have to switch for the better lens?. I know Zeiss is a really good name in the industry, but never marry a brand, you have the answer right before your eyes.
I enjoyed the comparison. I would have liked you to compare the prices of the two lens. That does affect my decision. Now I have homework and have to look them up. Thanks, good job.
Ravencroft - canon has used this practice for many years. The 24-70 mk 1 was always like this and they didn't change till a couple years ago w the mark 2. Even cooler, the barrel extended inside the lens hood. This wS an excellent and safe design.
Zeiss lenses are well built and are works of art in themselves, however for the quite a while their image quality is not as good as native Sony, Canon & Nikon lenses! Zeiss lenses are over priced.
You obviously never saw their new Zeiss Milvus 35mm f1.4 or the Milvus 25mm f1.4 and the rest of the line. The Zeiss Milvus 15mm is previous generation (just new body, weather proofing, and new T coating), but the Canon zoom at 25mm and 35mm are at f2.8, while the new Milvus for those focal lengths are tack sharp at f1.4. That is very significant, although a more expensive alternative.
My used like new zeiss glass cost less than half that, and will outlive me, easily. The plastic canon will be a doorstop once the electronics die and they decide to fuck you into buying a new one by not selling parts at their discretion. I’ll take vintage quality over cheap tech everyday.
The thought of anything I own outliving me is actually kind of depressing. That being said most of the canon lenses I use I have had for 15+ years and they work like new. If one dies or whatever, I’ll just buy a new one.
The Zeiss 15mm looks like a better lens to me. The amount of distortion, lack of colours information and high contrast are wild on the Canon 15-35mm, but that's totally normal in zoom lenses. Thanks for making this video, it's super helpful!
I used to be a fan of Zeiss Batis lenses, I had the 25f2 and the 85f1.8 and they were gorgeous, a joy to use, but this time credit is given to Canon that this 15-35f2.8 itself alone makes the EOS R appealing. I guess Canon optics engineers had now the chance to design a wide lens that exploits the short flange distance of mirrorless camera, while the Zeiss 15 was designed for DSLR.
BTW, Eric, you are the only EOS R channel, to which I am subscribed. You are not talking hyperboles and BS, very rare in youtube channels.
That’s great to hear, thanks. I agree I think the #1 thing with the RF lenses is the short flange distance, plus it seems like (I’m hoping!) they’re putting all of their resources into the RF line and taking over the mirrorless market.
@@BillEricPhotography I don't think anyone can take over the mirrorless market, Sony is absolutely very strongly entrenched, and the other competitors are really ambitious, too. The Tamron 1728f2.8 is brutally great lens, too. Definitely the $2300 1535 is the "new wide lens king", but honestly the Tamron 1728 with its affordable price, and excellent performance is a very strong competitor, for example. Actually, I wouldn't care who is selling the most cameras until there is one or two makers that makes products good enough to me.
Exactly right, as long as we’re getting good cameras and great lenses it doesn’t matter who it is
I used to have Canon EF 15-35mm mark iii but sold it because of the vignetting. And it's about the same or even slightly worse on the RF 15-35mm (because it is slightly wider). I hear you when you are saying that vignetting is easily correctible, which is true but it does so by basically lifting the shadows. So if you are shooting wide open because of the lack of light, say ISO say 3200, then lifting those corners 3-4 stops will mess up the picture. Wide angle Zeiss lenses also tend to have a lot of vignetting but not as much. The Canon is pretty extreme. However the Canon has IS which in some cases lets you achieve a lower ISO and so brightening those corners will be less of an issue. But for this to happen, the shutter speed has to be lower which may or may not be acceptable if there are moving objects in the scene. Corner sharpness as such has rarely been an issue for me, even for a landscape lens.
Good points thanks. I would also say that when shooting high iso, for my shooting, the corners usually don’t need as much brightening because it’s typically a dark scene anyway so I’ll leave those alone for the most part.
@@BillEricPhotography Yes makes sense. I don't know why but having dark corners annoys me. But on balance I think I'd still prefer the Canon for photography. Zeiss used to have a significant competitive advantage in the quality and rendering department but it's a wash now. They do still have an edge for video due to the handling and compatibility of their lenses with a wide range of third party cameras.
I purchased that RF 15-35 for church events and it has been excellent. I also have the RF 24-70 and I'm personally finding it even sharper than the 15-35.
That’s great to hear. So far I’ve found these RF lenses to be pretty amazing.
For video Zeiss is the clear winner. Distortion, vinyetting, and f8 has reddish blotchy color spots on the Canon. Minute 7:36 shows that the Zeiss renders more 3 dimensional than the Canon as well. But that is something Prime still have over zooms, which is the 3dimensionality. But I appreciate this video comparison.
I own no other 15 lenses, but I did buy the RF15-35 and love it. I also have the less expensive RF 35 and RF 24-240 zoom and love those also. Great system Canon "R" series
I agree these RF lenses are really great!
Could you do some infinity tests as well of landscapes or architecture? The Zeiss lenses usually show their strength here, and maybe the difference in the corners won’t be as noticeable here. Most would probably use it for the above anyway. You must of had a good copy of the Canon. The one I had was soft in the corners
I checked the lenses at several apertures and focus distances, I only showed a few here because these examples were typical of the results I was getting. Closer to infinity the differences in the corners was a little less, but the RF lens was still much better. I was really surprised, I have loved the Zeiss lens for years.
Disney Image Makers
Yeah, that’s impressive. I hope that it was jusr my copy that was soft. It was soft in the corners at f/5.6 - f/8. I hope that, as I might switch to the RF system later on. If it’s soft on the R, it’s going to be even softer on the R5 and future models. I hope that isn’t the case, as most of my pictures are taking with wide angle lenses, and I really want that corner to corner sharpness. The Sigma 14-24mm is one of the best, so the Canon better be at least close to it at that price. Currently using a Sony a7R IV, but I have always prefered Canon’s lenses and ergonomics. The R5 is nice, but I don’t do videos, so it will probably not be worth it for me if it’s really expensive. I hope they release an alternative that is mostly for stills with 40 - 50 megapixels. I don’t want some overkill 75+ megapixels with a lot of compromises, though. I rather have 40 - 50 megapixels and maybe pixel shift as a bonus. I can probably live with the R for some time, but I will print large later on. I still have the RF 50mm on hand incase I decide to switch. That lens is really something, but I don’t like how it physically focuses in and out. I was actually never a big user of 50mm, but this lens changed that. I usually use something a bit more wide or narrow with like 1/2 or 1/3 reproduction, so that I can get a lot of details when it comes to some street photography, semi macro and what not. So if the R5 isn’t too expensive or if they release a more photo-based camera with a good amount of megapixels, IBIS and good dynamic range, I’m sold. The new RF 100-500mm is also interesting for wildlife and landscapes, and I’m sure Canon got some good macro plans as well. A pancake lens wouldn’t hurt neither for some vacation photography. Excited to see what they will bring to the table.
Great video. I'd definitely sell the Zeiss. The Canon is noticeably sharper edge-to-edge, has IS for low light situations when you don't have a tripod with you (or you want to shoot video) and it's a zoom, so you're not locked into a single focal length. For a zoom to be sharper than a Zeiss prime, that's really saying something.
I totally agree it really looks like the Canon is the better way to go for sure. Thanks!
you are spoilt ahahaha..... Just be happy with what you got. In real world scenarios you would not notice the difference, unless you are pixelpeepers.
I would love to see the Canon on 35mm and see if the Canon still performs the same?
I own and love the RF 15-35, but compared to the Zeiss in your video, there was a reddish cast for the Canon on the white doors in your comparison. Probably correctable in LR. But the Canon blows away the Zeiss on the sharpness! The zoom vs prime factor also would also favor the Canon, given the roughly equal image quality. Thanks for your review!
Yeah there were some little imperfections but nothing that made a difference. I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised by the RF 15-35 and I’ve been getting some great shots with it since.
Thank you. I was prepared to get the Zeiss 15mm/2.8 for Nikon D850 and Landscape. Now I will look for an alternative lens that have corner to corner sharpness.
I was always impressed by the sharpness of the Zeiss, until I compared it to the Canon RF
@@BillEricPhotography Will check the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC and compare it to Zeiss
Cannot take filters so I'm back to looking for an Zeiss alternative
That’s one of the hardest parts about finding a good ultra-wide, the front element. That’s what originally sold me on the Zeiss 15.
@@BillEricPhotography I don't need 15mm if it can't take grad Lee filters. Two alternatives, upgrade my Zeiss 18mm/3.5 to a Milvus 18mm/2.8 or getting a Nikkor 20mm/1.8 G. I will have to check when I get a D850/D880 camera. Used the 18mm/3.5 on a D300 (DX camera) that broke down in august, the lens shall be les sharp at the edges on a FF camera..
Forgot to mention: Excellent review, thanks for sharing!
Thank you and thanks for watching!
ive always had primes, but have switched to rf 15-30, 24-105 and 70-200 - all outstanding, and has zoom and stabilisation - don't miss 1.4 at all - but are waiting for a longer rf for wildlife...
Nice lineup! Im loving the 15-35 and the 70-200 too. I’m holding on to my EF primes for now (but I got the RF 50mm 1.2!) and seeing what’s next.
I would sell the Zeiss and put the money towards the RF 70-200
Wow I was thinking the same thing 😄
Whilst I have not shot with either lens, have a M50 at the moment, it made interesting viewing. As you say most things you can alter in Lightroom, except sharpness, and that would be the one thing that I would go with. Have fun deciding.
Thanks!
Wow! When a zoom outperforms a prime from Zeiss! That's crazy!
It doesn't seem like that could be possible. The Zeiss is a much older lens and the Canon is a brand new lens with the latest lens technology. The fact that it's a zoom makes it so much more versatile than just having a 15 mm in my bag!
You do realize that a lot of the zooms today are just as good as primes. They’re just slower. The zoom vs prime debate is something from decades ago when lens engineers couldn’t make zooms at the same quality as primes. Even Sony’s 55-210mm kit zoom is a really sharp lens. Zeiss isn’t meant for everyone, it holds a strong place in video though and it seems like that might be their direction in the future, except for their relationship with Sony. If you ever use a Zeiss you’ll never want to go back until you need autofocus. Also if I’m not mistaken, that Zeiss is still the old lens recipe from decades ago. That’s how good it’s been. Especially the 28mm f2 is still the same formula in the milvus lineup. Milvus is the first in decades that they changed their formulas.
I agree, the quality of the zooms now (I LOVE this and the RF 70-200) is just as good as any prime. The only difference is the wider aperture. And the mindset/approach the primes make you use, which is what I find most useful.
i have the 15-35 and LOVE it!
It’s such a great lens!
Thank’s for this video
Could Be nice to check the zeiss Milvus 15mm vs the canon RF 15-35mm 😁
@BillEricPhotography sorry for the dumb question. Does this extrapolate out to mean that all RF L Lenses are going to be better than the equivalent MF Zeis Milvus lenses of DSLR days?
We think so.
@@BillEricPhotography Thank you for the response!
Happy to help!
Nice review and I'm sure the RF is a superb lens, but....you couldn't make me give up my Zeiss Milvus 2.8/15mm for anything. I grew up with MF lenses and I love what this lens does on my Sony a7r iii.
I can’t argue with that, Zeiss is Zeiss.
The minimum focusing distance is about 11 inches on the RF, but I'm able to definitely get closer in focus sharp shots. I just got this lens and I've been testing MF with this
I’ve noticed that too, I’m able to get closer than I think I should
The MFD is measured from the sensor so that probably explains what is happening. You cannot focus closer than the MFD.
Well done comparison!
Thanks Ryan!
how can you compare a older such old lens with the newer lens ??????
im looking into the zeiss, i was curious if 4x4 filters would fit the wide field of view without vignetting. do you think that would be a good filter size instead of 95mm circular?
The lens hood on the Zeiss is not removable, I’m not sure if that matters for the 4x4
@@BillEricPhotography i see, i just assumed it was like the 18mm ZE, where to hood comes off. Thanks!
The 15 35 image stabilization is a real plus point for video.
Yes I agree it works really nicely
Question - Have you completely parted ways with the 5DIV? This is where I'm running into a problem making a decision on the RF lenses. I picked up the RF 70-200 and can't justify keeping the EF version. I also have the EF 16-35 f4 and really wanted to pick up the Sigma 20 1.4 for some night sky photos. Or do I just sell the EF 16-35 and go for the RF 15-35?
Yes, the 5d4 is gone. The RF lenses are really great. But the sigma 20mm 1.4 is great for night sky. The EF to RF adapter works great so I would recommend using EF mount lenses when needed. There still aren’t many RF lenses available yet but there will be more soon I’m sure.
"Vignette is about the same." NOO! It's not!! there's about 4 stops on Canon and about 2 and something with Zeiss. Even at f8 Canon vignettes like 2 stops. I never cared too much about vignetting, but at this level *IT IS* an issue. Coupled with still not so good ( compared to Sonikon) shadows recovery in Canon cameras in low light that vignette actually devalues some of it light gathering strengths. You have to overexpose at least 1 stop at 15 f2.8 if you _want to have clear, even lit image_
Having said that, Canon is much more bang for the buck and, probably, best UWA lens today.
I didn’t have the same experience while using both lenses. I love the Canon but if you told me I had to use the Zeiss I wouldn’t say no.
It seems like the Zeiss has a slight edge on light transmission. Also from what I believe, isn’t this Zeiss’ worst lens? I always forget which one it is but I know there’s one wide Zeiss lens that everyone hates lol. I mean I’m biased though, I love Zeiss and I hate canon. Canons glass is good though. I just really don’t like the company and how they operate. I started using Zeiss classic zf2 lenses on my a6300 and its a crazy difference in image quality. Even compared to my Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8. Those lenses just paint the light in a different way. It’s hard to say until you use it and see if for yourself. I used to think, “why would anyone buy something that expensive for the same result” and when looking at photos online they just seemed like the Zeiss fairy dust was a lie. It’s not. Those classic lenses just have something about them. I’ll take a metal lens with amazing quality over a plastic canon any day. I shoot mainly video though.
I totally agree I was amazed by the Zeiss lens and really considered getting more. But after comparing it to the RF 15-35 I really like the image quality with the canon and the fact that it has IS. It was hard parting with the zeiss thought. One day when I’m older and only carrying around my Canon mirrorless with one lens it’s going to be a Zeiss 50mm.
The Zeiss will outlive the Canon. It is built to last a lifetime .No autofocus, no VR to breakdown.
Autofocus is nice to have for moving subjects but for static or mostly stationary subjects, manual focus is still a solid option.
VR is a gimmick in my book. With camera bodies that are very capable of handling high ISO, increased shutter speeds (especially for wide angle lenses) should not be an issue. After all, what do most people use wide angle lenses for? Sports and wildlife?
I'd rather make the investment on a product that will last my lifetime and probably longer vs a gadget with bells and whistles that will eventually have to be sent in for parts replacement.
I blown away! I thought the Zeiss prime would blow the Canon zoom out of the water!!
I felt the same way. Very surprising!
@@BillEricPhotography According to the performance test on opticallimits.com, the Distagon 15mm has the same sharpness at different apertures than the original Tamron 15-30mm at 15mm.
Test on the Zeiss 15mm lens: www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/988-zeisszf1528ff
Test on the Tamron 15-30mm lens:
www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/989-tamron153028vcff
Interesting thanks for sharing
@@BillEricPhotography You're welcome.
By the way, according to tests on the-digital-picture.com, Milvus 18mm f/2.8 (which I hope to get some day) has much better edge sharpness and less distortion and vignetting than the Distagon 15mm (or even Milvus 15mm): www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-18mm-f-2.8-Milvus-Lens.aspx
I wonder if Canon considers an f4 version of that lens. F2.8 is great, but not really necessary on a wide-angle for me.
I’m sure there will be an f/4 version in the next year or so
I don't own either, but having watched this video, it's a no brained- RF CLAER WINNER - both on paper and in IQ
Yeah I was amazed but it’s really no contest. I loved my zeiss but sold it pretty quickly.
@@BillEricPhotography - glad to hear these new lenses were strong enough to move a "prime (mostly)" photog to a zoom.
I have the full compliment of zeiss primes btwn 25-135 - but for my Nikon Film camera which is still in regular use. However, ive been planning to upgrade to a mirrorless to repace my Nikon FE. Didn't want first gen, though. i'm waiting to see what second gen provides. The real struggle for me though, was if the new Z lenses were strong enough to supplant my Zeiss lens collection. As i didn't think they would, i did plan to get just a 24-70 2.8 for Z mount, and everything else, just adopt.
However, if they turn out to be as dramatic as your experience, i might end up selling the whole compliment as you have. (whoa... cant even think of that right now..... hahaha love my zeiss collection.)
Seems Dustin Abbott disagrees on quite a few variables. He mentions he has seen better for astro, it had lots flare, less contrast.
Although it did a superb job on resolution in corner performance at 2.8, it didn't perform overall as well as a prime lens by Samyang (1/4 the price). It also did not do as well at 35mm. Now getting to the Zeiss. It is in a different category (for movie/video), lenses are color matched, accepts lens gears, de-click feature for aperture, long focus throw (manual lens) which is important for astro shooters, landscape guys, and cinema/video, and it has heavy duty weatherproofing. Zeiss also are known for their 3d pop and color science, which you will not see on your monitor at about 100ppi. Therefore everything is dumbed down. Regarding your test samples......your door image comparison is poorly matched, does not show off color quality of each lens (way off). Your house scene also has focus inconsistency for the comparison (see railings, in zeiss image railings are much softer....why?? Is it to blurr the background a bit more for the zoom lens?). How do you expect to make a careful comparison with such sloppy images? Looking at the bird image, the zeiss had better bokeh in the background, and the woodwork was more discernable. .
Now the zoom performed well at close distance (book case), but super wides are not designed for up close testing (Imatest), and give incomplete results, although in this test, the zoom won in edge/corner resolution at close distances. However, we rarely use a 15mm at 3 ft and at f2.8 (not what designed for.....get a flat field copy lens). Why no infinity test. You based your decision off very few variables, what kind of performance does the 15-35 have at infinity? Two vids by Dustin Abbott below. By the way, when I first bought the Milvus 15mm, I did a room shot (kitchen cabinets) at f2.8.....superb results edge to edge. Perhaps with zeiss, when you start focusing at 3ft or less there is field curbature on the near showing itself. The images by Dustin will show how well it performs edge to edge, and in corners in landscapes. Especially, go to 13:49, and in this astro image, you see in the foreground the trucks and green shed on the left...and sharp to the very edge at f2.8 (so it does very well at normal distances).
You made it sound like this zoom is the great big new thing, and throw everything else in the garbage.. At 35mm, that zoom will not match the Milvus 35mm f1.4 in performance...plus you lose 2 stops. Zooms have improved, but so have Primes. The Milvus 25/35 are designed to be tack sharp at f1.4. You can see a astro image at Dpreview (on Milvus 35/25mm)....shot at f1.4....and a few at I think was f2. At F1.4 it was sharp to the edges, and some coma visible at f1.4 at edges (but not an issue up to 40 inch print size). I want to also say that although I am defending the zeiss 15mm, for anyone that wants a single lens (and for hiking a perfect choice).....this Canon 15-35mm RF is a sure winner....no doubt about it. I want one myself, because sometimes you can't carry a bunch of primes.
Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm Review - DustinAbbott.net
Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS: Definitive Review | 4K - RUclips
Re: Lens Testing the Zeiss Milvus 25mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4: Astrophotography Talk Forum Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) June 28/2018 comment
Thanks for the info and feedback. I clearly did this comparison based on my own shooting and experiences and for what I use these lenses for. Any review is going to be based more on the reviewer’s experiences and needs.
I have the Eos R and the Zeiss 15mm 2.8 prime; using the Adaptor I can not reach infinity focus; it's close, but stars are not sharp!
anyone else have this problem and what do I do?
That’s weird I didn’t use the zeiss enough with the R so I guess I never came across this problem. Hopefully someone can offer some insight.
I saw a problem with new RF 15-35. There more flare and ghost the the EF 16-35 f2.8 III.
I never used the EF 16-35 so I can’t compare, but I haven’t had any problems at all with the 15-35
@@BillEricPhotography when you have sun full face and like f16 for sunstar, the new RF give pore ghost and flare. It's sure trust me.
Its a good video but I would compare prime to prime lenses at this point. If there's an RD Prime lens at 15 F2.5 that would be the best comparison between the two.
Interesting review .Always a prime shooter (although have an EF 70 -200/2.8) but with this new generation of zooms from Canon its not such an easy decision as it once was.
So true. For me shooting primes used to be about image quality and wider aperture, not it’s basically just about the wider aperture.
@@BillEricPhotography I still have to overcome the mental block when I`m using a zoom. I know it sounds stupid but because I`ve used primes for over forty years I forget sometimes that I have a zoom on the camera . Duh I know but there it is :)
Lighter, and sharper for edge to edge. Why wait? Go for better lens.
Yeah I think I agree. I’ve always loved the Zeiss though, it’s like having a child that you love but then finding a newer and better child and asking the old one to hit the road.
Ah ive been waiting for a review...I just rented the rf 15-35 and the 70-200 to see what the fuss is about on the Eos R.
Im tempted to try the zeiss 2.0 15mm rf to see how that stacks up.
I like the 15-35, but i can't justify the price . If my photography brought in a nice salary, then maybe.
Edit Venus optics.
I haven’t seen a zeiss 15mm f2?
Also, how about that 70-200?? Pretty amazing lens...
The adapter could be causing a soft issue, you need the proper SLR camera. Not apples to apples reviews.
It’s not really meant to be a criticism on the quality of the lens itself, but if the images I am getting from each. If I’m getting better results with the 15-35 compared the Zeiss with adapter combo, on my camera, then that’s the lens for me.
So you don't like giving up image quality, but still don't know if you have to switch for the better lens?. I know Zeiss is a really good name in the industry, but never marry a brand, you have the answer right before your eyes.
You’re totally right. The zeiss has already been traded in (it served me well for years). I’m still amazed at the quality of the canon RF lenses.
I enjoyed the comparison. I would have liked you to compare the prices of the two lens. That does affect my decision. Now I have homework and have to look them up. Thanks, good job.
Thanks! There are links to both lenses in the description, will take you right to Amazon where you can see the prices.
I obviously don't need to watch this to tell you that the RF is significantly better.
Yes it certainly is. You can watch it if you want though.
Do you want to sell the Zeiss? Im buying.
My mind was blown when I noticed the 15-35mm was widest fully extended and at 35mm at its shortest. Canon please obey the laws of physics next time! 😁
I know right?!?!
@@BillEricPhotography Something magical happens while it extends that half inch, but we all know this lens is pure sorcery. :)
Haha exactly! I am pretty floored by this lens.
Ravencroft - canon has used this practice for many years. The 24-70 mk 1 was always like this and they didn't change till a couple years ago w the mark 2. Even cooler, the barrel extended inside the lens hood. This wS an excellent and safe design.
Zeiss lenses are well built and are works of art in themselves, however for the quite a while their image quality is not as good as native Sony, Canon & Nikon lenses! Zeiss lenses are over priced.
I agree, I think there was a time when zeiss lenses were better, but the camera companies caught up, and developed better specs and tech
You obviously never saw their new Zeiss Milvus 35mm f1.4 or the Milvus 25mm f1.4 and the rest of the line. The Zeiss Milvus 15mm is previous generation (just new body, weather proofing, and new T coating), but the Canon zoom at 25mm and 35mm are at f2.8, while the new Milvus for those focal lengths are tack sharp at f1.4. That is very significant, although a more expensive alternative.