Full Frame RF 14-35 f/4 vs RF 16-28 f/2.8

[BasilFawlty]

Last fall I had posted asking about the RF 14-35 f/4 vs RF 15-35 f/2.8 thinking I was going to pull the trigger as a Christmas present to myself last year.
Well, Christmas came and went but, due to some other unexpected expenses, I wasn’t able to buy anything at that time.
Now, I still want to get a wide Zoom, but have decided the RF 15-35 f/2.8 is more than I want to spend.
In the meantime, Canon now has the RF 16-28 f/2.8 as an option.

From some of the reviews I’ve seen, this new lens has IQ that is on par with the 14-35.
The pros:
Good IQ
Less money
Brighter than the 14-35
Lighter weight

The cons:
Not and L lens (but is weather sealed)
Not as wide
Also loses a bit on the far end (but not huge issue since I also have 24-105)

Thoughts?

 

[David Stallard]

Wife has the RF 15-35 2.8 and loves it for landscape / walk about. As far as lenses go the only advice I would give is 'save up for the best you can afford' lenses will outlast the bodies if looked after - "there is NO substitute for good glass" Not much help sorry ;-)

 

[BasilFawlty]

Wife has the RF 15-35 2.8 and loves it for landscape / walk about. As far as lenses go the only advice I would give is 'save up for the best you can afford' lenses will outlast the bodies if looked after - "there is NO substitute for good glass" Not much help sorry ;-)

For me there are also other considerations, such as size and weight. Since I do a lot of backpacking I'd like to keep the weight down a bit, which is another reason I'd probably pass on the RF 15-35.

 

[Ferenc MÓGOR]

Last year before Xmas I was in your shoes. I already have an RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM lens which I love for it 10x zoom capability, especially for travel. However, I wanted a wider lens, mainly for landscapes, architecture and occasionally indoor family shots. Read a lot of reviews and finally decided on the RF 14-35 mm F4 IS USM lens. Guys convinced me that every millimeter on a wide angle lens counts!! As regards brightness F4 is no problem for me, I don't really need shallow DOF for wide angle anyway. Good luck with your decision!

 

[BasilFawlty]

Last year before Xmas I was in your shoes. I already have an RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM lens which I love for it 10x zoom capability, especially for travel. However, I wanted a wider lens, mainly for landscapes, architecture and occasionally indoor family shots. Read a lot of reviews and finally decided on the RF 14-35 mm F4 IS USM lens. Guys convinced me that every millimeter on a wide angle lens counts!! As regards brightness F4 is no problem for me, I don't really need shallow DOF for wide angle anyway. Good luck with your decision!

The RF 14-35 f4 is probably what I’ll end up with, although the 16-28 f/2.8 is still a possibility I think since I like to shoot milky ways as well and f2.8 would be better for that.

 

[BasilFawlty]

Last year before Xmas I was in your shoes. I already have an RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM lens which I love for it 10x zoom capability, especially for travel. However, I wanted a wider lens, mainly for landscapes, architecture and occasionally indoor family shots. Read a lot of reviews and finally decided on the RF 14-35 mm F4 IS USM lens. Guys convinced me that every millimeter on a wide angle lens counts!! As regards brightness F4 is no problem for me, I don't really need shallow DOF for wide angle anyway. Good luck with your decision!

I think it’s fair to say that the RF 14–35mm is probably the most likely lens that I will get, however that new RF 16-28 f/2.8 is a little bit tempting for a couple of reasons. First while it does not quite have the focal range of the 14–35, it is an F2.8 which means it could also be a good choice for night photography which I also enjoy doing. Currently my only lens for Milky Way photography is a rookie non-14 mm prime F2.8. It’s not a bad lens for what it is, but it is manual focus and sometimes I think I would like to have something a little less wide for the night photography, depending on the scene.
Another reason the RF 16–28 is tempting is the simple fact that it’s a little bit less expensive. I know it’s not an L ends, but it is at least whether sealed or so they say.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I've always been an f/4L shooter. The f/2.8L lenses are faster and sharper and top of the line, no doubt. But for what I shoot smaller and cheaper and plenty sharp works out better for me.

Of the Canon trilogy of zooms, the ultrawide is the one I use least, so I haven't upgraded from my EF 16-35/4. But I'm still kinda in the market for an RF 14-35/4L. I outfit all my hobbies with used gear so I've been keeping an eye out for a good deal on a used 14-35. The problem is there just aren't any on the used market. That tells me that people are buying them and using them. High praise. I see plenty of RF 15-35s for sale, but not the 14-35.

Another lens that falls into that category is the RF 100-400. People are buying them and keeping them. They sometimes show up on a Canon refurb list and they sell out within minutes.

 

[Dean Wilson]

RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L was my third RF lens. I probably use it just as much as my other L-series glass.

 

[Bryan Conner]

For me there are also other considerations, such as size and weight. Since I do a lot of backpacking I'd like to keep the weight down a bit, which is another reason I'd probably pass on the RF 15-35.

The 16-28 does sound good...especially from the standpoint of weight. I know that I may be younger than some here, but I can sure tell that I can't carry the weight as easy as when I was younger. Or, maybe it because of after almost 60 years travelling around the sun, I am getting smarter. I like to think the latter.
We just got back from Jersey, where most days I felt like a pack-horse (or donkey). My 26L Mindshift backpack had my gripped EOS R with rf-ef adapter, my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2, Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 II, and my EF 17-40 f4. Along with my Solmeta GPS, extra batteries, sd cards and my tripod, it was over 9 kilograms. There was one day that I had to take a break and carried only my Sony RX-100. I really enjoyed that day, but missed my big boy camera for sure.

 

[snegron]

My RF 16-28mm f2.8 is super sharp, but there is only one thing I find annoying; you have ti "unlock" it every time you use it. So, to go from "storage mode" (lens is retracted past 16mm), you have to rurn the zoom ring. Not sure why Canon chose to design it that way since it only extends about 1/4" at 16mm.

 

[BasilFawlty]

The 16-28 does sound good...especially from the standpoint of weight. I know that I may be younger than some here, but I can sure tell that I can't carry the weight as easy as when I was younger. Or, maybe it because of after almost 60 years travelling around the sun, I am getting smarter. I like to think the latter.

LOL, I'm 71 so my desire to keep the weight I lug around is even more important!

 

[BasilFawlty]

UPDATE: It's been 2 and a half years since I've purchased a new lens for my R5 (it was the 85mm f/2)
I have been wanting a wide angle zoom (RF mount) for a long time and, as I discussed in my original post, I've been negotiating with myself for a while now on what wide angle zoom to buy. The contenders were the RF 14-35 f/4, the RF 15-35 f/2.8 (probably used), or the relatively new RF 16-28 f//2.8.

Today I pulled the trigger on the RF 14-35 f/4, for a variety of reasons:
1. It will be used mostly for landscapes and I won't often have need for f/2.8.
2. It's a little wider on the wide end than either of the two other options
3. The filter size is 77mm - same as most of my current filters, so that makes using filter easy without buying a new set or using a step-down ring.
4. While it's not as small and compact as the 16-28, it does have more zoom range and is still much smaller and lighter than the 15-35.

Now the waiting....