Full Frame Calling all RF 14-35 f/4 owners

[BasilFawlty]

I shoot mostly landscapes and currently the widest zoom I have is the RF 24-105 f/4.
I’ve been thinking about getting something like the RF14-35, or the RF15-35 f/2.8 or possibly an EF equivalent. The RF14-35 is the one I’m mostly leaning towards.

Anyone here with this lens who can chime in with your impressions: the good, the bad and the ugly? I don’t think I need 2.8 because I’d mostly be shooting landscapes and if I needed a bit more exposure in low light I feel I could always bump up ISO on my R5.

Comparisons I’ve seen between the 14-35 and rf 15-35 f/2.8 suggests that the IQ is very similar, with the more expensive 15-35 having an ever so slight advantage in the edges.

Thoughts on this lens vs other options (again for mainly landscapes)??

 

[Kamoshika]

I went through the same deliberations in my head before I bought mine. I don't do mostly landscapes, but it also comes in handy for architectural photography. Haven't found anything ugly about it...it's been a good lens for me. Here's a recent shot I took with it (processed a little with DXO). Ultimately, the decision came down to price and weight (especially weight, saving an extra 300g) when choosing the 4 over the 2.8.

 

[BasilFawlty]

I went through the same deliberations in my head before I bought mine. I don't do mostly landscapes, but it also comes in handy for architectural photography. Haven't found anything ugly about it...it's been a good lens for me. Here's a recent shot I took with it (processed a little with DXO). Ultimately, the decision came down to price and weight (especially weight, saving an extra 300g) when choosing the 4 over the 2.8.

The weight and size is definitely a factor in my consideration. There are also EF versions such as the 16-35 f/4 that can be had used for even less money, but then I'd be giving up 2mm on the wide end. How much of a problem is the distortion and vignette that must be fixed in post?

 

[RedCobra]

Looking at corner sharpness and the extra stop of light, I bought the RF 15-35 f/2.8

 

[BasilFawlty]

Looking at corner sharpness and the extra stop of light, I bought the RF 15-35 f/2.8

Can I ask what sort of genres do you mostly shoot and how often do you use f/2.8?

 

[Bucolic Old Sir Henry]

I shoot anything that’s in front of me that looks interesting, and I love the f4. Great image quality, perfect size for a city walkabout lens. I’ve never had any issues with vignetting or edge sharpness, because they either get fixed in LrC, or automatically in ex-camera jpegs. My standard travel kit is now the 14-35 and a longer zoom lens - 70-200f4 if size/weight is an issue, or the 100-500 if there animals in the offing. I might throw in the 50mm f1.8 in as well, because why not?

 

[RedCobra]

Can I ask what sort of genres do you mostly shoot and how often do you use f/2.8?

Landscape. Critter silhouettes.

 

[TrentAJ]

You should consider looking at the Lens Sample Image thread for the RF 14-35

Full-Frame - Canon RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM Image Thread

Thought I would get this lens started. A few shots around Nagoya the other day. I do really like this lens.

rfshooters.com

Unfortunately, I didn't see one for the RF 15-35.

 

[BasilFawlty]

You should consider looking at the Lens Sample Image thread for the RF 14-35

Full-Frame - Canon RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM Image Thread

Thought I would get this lens started. A few shots around Nagoya the other day. I do really like this lens.

rfshooters.com

Unfortunately, I didn't see one for the RF 15-35.

Thanks. Always helps to see actual image taken. I think I’m probably going to pull the trigger on the 14-35 for a Christmas gift to self. Hopefully there will be some sales for the holidays .

 

[TrentAJ]

Thanks. Always helps to see actual image taken. I think I’m probably going to pull the trigger on the 14-35 for a Christmas gift to self. Hopefully there will be some sales for the holidays .

There are also several good comparisons between the RF 14-35 and the RF 15-35 on YouTube that would probably be helpful in your decision.

 

[Kamoshika]

The weight and size is definitely a factor in my consideration. There are also EF versions such as the 16-35 f/4 that can be had used for even less money, but then I'd be giving up 2mm on the wide end. How much of a problem is the distortion and vignette that must be fixed in post?

Uncorrected, there must be the odd bit of distortion and vignetting, but I import everything directly into DxO with optical corrections applied automatically, so I never really see the distortions uncorrected. I guess I could take a peek.

Edit: Okay here are raw two shots straight out of camera, uncorrected and optical corrections only (applied by DxO).

 

[BasilFawlty]

Uncorrected, there must be the odd bit of distortion and vignetting, but I import everything directly into DxO with optical corrections applied automatically, so I never really see the distortions uncorrected. I guess I could take a peek.

Edit: Okay here are raw two shots straight out of camera, uncorrected and optical corrections only (applied by DxO).View attachment 31909View attachment 31910

Hmmm I don’t see a lot of difference

 

[BasilFawlty]

There are also several good comparisons between the RF 14-35 and the RF 15-35 on YouTube that would probably be helpful in your decision.

I’ve actually looked at some of those.

 

[Kamoshika]

Hmmm I don’t see a lot of difference

Okay, here is another example where you can see the dark corners of the uncorrected shot. So, when DxO corrects the image (or whatever program is used) you're going to lose a couple of mm of focal length, but this is probably true with the 2.8 as well.

Uncorrected

Corrected

 

[Bucolic Old Sir Henry]

Here's a couple of mine - a sunset from a friend's house in Nelson...

Uncorrected (at 14mm):

With LrC profile applied:

There's a little bit of geometric correction, but a fair bit of vignetting has to be fixed by the profile. The "raw" optics are probably a bit wider than 14mm, and so get cropped a little when the profile is applied. As I said before, this doesn't worry me. I shoot in RAW or cRAW, and I have an LrC import profile which applies lens profiles automatically on the way in.

 

[BasilFawlty]

Okay, here is another example where you can see the dark corners of the uncorrected shot. So, when DxO corrects the image (or whatever program is used) you're going to lose a couple of mm of focal length, but this is probably true with the 2.8 as well.

Uncorrected
View attachment 31925

Corrected
View attachment 31926

You can really see the vignette in the uncorrected shot.

 

[BasilFawlty]

Here's a couple of mine - a sunset from a friend's house in Nelson...

Uncorrected (at 14mm):


View attachment 31929

With LrC profile applied:


View attachment 31930

There's a little bit of geometric correction, but a fair bit of vignetting has to be fixed by the profile. The "raw" optics are probably a bit wider than 14mm, and so get cropped a little when the profile is applied. As I said before, this doesn't worry me. I shoot in RAW or cRAW, and I have an LrC import profile which applies lens profiles automatically on the way in.

Nice sunset! The vignette is a lot more noticeable than the distortion