Canon RF 14-35mm f4 L IS

The Weasel

The Weasel

Messages
1,254
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Looking for a landscape lens for my R5mk2 and my heart is set on the RF 14-35 f4 L IS.

So...are there other alternatives in the same sort of price range that offers the same quality?...also I don't need a f2.8 which would be well out of my price range anyway.

If you can offer any insights that would be appreciated...if you can't then no worries.
 
Thanks @isobarik

I must admit to being totally sold on it...but thought I'd better ask for alternatives if there are any others that can come close.
 
I have the 15-35 and without doubt it’s one of the most versatile, and fun lenses I’ve ever owned. Use it all the time, if you don’t need 2.8, then the f4 is quite a bit lighter…. I played with both but decided on the f2.8.

I’d 100% recommend it. I suppose the other one to look at is the 24-105 f4 if you don’t need the ultra wide end.

Personally, I’d love to see a 20-70 f2.8, that would be a great compromise.
 
The Weasel said:
Looking for a landscape lens for my R5mk2 and my heart is set on the RF 14-35 f4 L IS.

So...are there other alternatives in the same sort of price range that offers the same quality?...also I don't need a f2.8 which would be well out of my price range anyway.

If you can offer any insights that would be appreciated...if you can't then no worries.
Click to expand...

Great landscapes with wide angle are not easy by any stretch, as I'm sure you know, just repeating that in case. Personally, I mostly use longer focal lengths for landscape. I do have ultra wide but only very specific situations.

One more option to throw in is the EF 16-35 f2.8 M3 which looks to be about the same price as the wider RF if you would like the 2.8 and don't need the 14mm.
 
TimHughes said:
One more option to throw in is the EF 16-35 f2.8 M3 which looks to be about the same price as the wider RF if you would like the 2.8 and don't need the 14mm.
Click to expand...
I would not call it suitable for 45mp sensor. It barely resolves on R6.

But then I would not touch the fisheye distorted 14-35 that gets stretched back by really a lot. You lose 20-30% of resolution right there. So you buy R5 and these lenses to end up with R6 and good lens output.

15-35 is not too stretched. It is still has a ridiculous vignette, even more than 16-35 iii which was already ridiculous 5 stops at 16mm.
You really want to be shooting sony if that sort of lens is very important. Canon never managed to make a really good and honest wideangle. Now they just started openly cheating.

You can tell I don't love canon lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top