Canon RF 14-35mm f4L REVIEW vs 15-35mm vs 16mm

[@cameralabs]

My in-depth review of the Canon RF 14-35mm f4L vs the 15-35 and 16mm! Canon RF 14-35 f4L at B&H: bhpho.to/3sqvfbU / WEX UK: tidd.ly/3JW6pGO Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop Gordon’s retro gear channel: kzbin.info Lost photos? I recover mine with: www.dpbolvw.net/click-100568658-13808570?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stellarinfo.com%2Fphoto-recovery-software.php Equipment used for producing my videos Sony A6400: amzn.to/3hul53c Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): bhpho.to/3HiafJL 00:00 - intro 01:46 - RF 14-35mm design and controls 04:22 - RF 14-35mm autofocus 05:01 - RF 14-35mm distortion compensation 10:23 - RF 14-35mm resolution landscape quality 15:20 - RF 14-35mm portrait quality 16:32 - RF 14-35mm bokeh balls and rendering 17:26 - RF 14-35mm sunstars and diffraction spikes 17:46 - RF 14-35mm video autofocus 18:25 - RF 14-35mm focus breathing 19:14 - RF 14-35mm vlogging comparison 21:26 - RF 14-35mm verdict and sample images Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

[@XcessCapital]

Every time I see a Gordon Laing review I always hesitate for just a second because they are twice as long as any other review out there. Then I watch it and end up getting four times the information from the review. Great one again!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! Interesting comment though about being put off by the length. I'm thinking of making shorter videos as longer-form reviews just don't do well for me on YT, it's the wrong platform for it.

[@summerfazed]

I don’t need 2.8 but that 15-35 looks way more expensive. Anyone notice that it looks warmer too?

[@Aurele84]

I‘m in Rome at the moment and taking pics with my R6 and the RF14-35. Taking sharp pictures with 1/20s is not a problem with this lens, what helps a lot for hand-held night photography. The focal range is ideal, because in many places you can‘t stand far in the background. Yes, there are image corrections to be made…. Yes, this lens is not cheap… But it‘s a versatile, compact lens with good image results that I really enjoy!

[@cameralabs]

Great suff, and enjoy Rome, it's a fantastic place!

[@Aurele84]

@@cameralabs Thx Gordon! Oh yes, we will! :)

[@christhompsonphotography6783]

Thank you for the slow zoom in at 10:50 thats what I've been dreaming of for reveiws.

[@WhoIsRicardo]

I have the 14 25 and 16, i used them mainly for real estate photography. The 16mm is great for video, it's so light and the f2.8 def helps. I wnated to go with the 15 35 but the weight kept me away. Doing a lot of video work, the 16mm is perfect

[@nomad0714]

Hi Gordon, Another comprehensive review! I would add for those deciding on either RF zoom lenses: 14-35/4: for those landscape photographers who need: 1) the extra 1mm; and/or 2) don’t need lowlight as they shoot at f8 or above; and/or 3) lighter lens and cheaper alternative price Note: For the wide end of 14mm with correction, I think it adds about 3% crop which makes it ~14.42mm. For vignetting in the corners, I guess when possible to keep this in mind, take one step back (so it is 12-13mm) so when you crop into 14mm, the corners has no sign of vignetting. It’s an extra step but an option to solve for it 15-35/2.8: agree with everything you said in the video. If budget is not an issue and you need that extra stop of light and IQ (portraits, food, street, and/or large print work), then this is a no brainer. I use all EF lenses but wondering when to switch to RF trio lenses. I already have the 16-35/4 with IS and 70-200/2.8 iii IS and with a metabones speedbooster, I get another stop of light. So my question would be, would it be better to start with the 24-70/2.8 (I already have the RF 24-105/4) and work my way to the other 2 zoom lenses or start with the RF 15-35/2.8. I shoot mostly stills for food, portrait, street, sports, but now considering Corporate videos (mostly interviews and talking heads and no cinemas or short films) so I’m back and forth on 15-35 or 24-70. Any suggestions would be helpful?

[@cameralabs]

I think it really depends on your subject size and distances, probably a 24-70 would be more practical than a 15-35 for interviews.

[@mikaelhylander6321]

Great comparisonvideo. I will probably buy one of these in the future, mainly for landscape. Since I will use F8-F11 and after watching this I guess I will be more than satisfied with the 14-35 f4 lens.

[@przybylskipawel]

I find this distortion an advantage actually. Angle of wiew is declared for jpg after all. All the rest is a bonus. And in wide angle lens it is all about... the wide angle. Of course you have to straighten image up if you shoot architecture or a group of people, but when you shoot landscapes it is not always neccessary. Aspecially if you want to deliver in 16:9, where vignetting is less of a problem.

[@rudyreimer302]

Thank you for such a detailed and great review. I have all three and use them for a variety of reasons. I agree the 14-35mm f4 is in the sweet spot. Due time I check out your store. Cheers!

[@cameralabs]

Cheers! And bonus points for owning all three!

[@shieldaigbencher]

I have the 16mm, which is super cheap, small and light. I also have the 15-35 2.8 LBoth are great. The 2.8 L is worth carrying the extra weight but the 16mm on my RP is also a good option.

[@przybylskipawel]

BTW... Have you took a look on IQ of 14-35 @15mm? How does it do comparing to 15mm on 15-35mm. I heard that this massive vignetting of 14-35mm is reduced significantly at 15mm. I wonder if other aspects improve as well and if corner sharpness improve too.

[@jaysonaquino9541]

Was looking forward for your detailed review of the lens and as always, it was worth the wait. I was pondering if i should get this as my UWA or the 15-35 when i finally move to the R6 and I guess i will eventually get the 2.8 glass, al things considered. Thanks Gordon!

[@HenryOrtlip]

(Video Shooter) I used the EF 16-35mm 2.8 II for over 10 years. Switching to RF-- I chose to mix it up going with the 14-35mm and the 35mm 1.8 vs the RF 15-35mm 2.8.... Best of both worlds for me as the 35mm works great for gimbal work and interviews. The 14-35 is lightweight and is great for documenting in tight interiors and getting unique wide shots-- also it has a 77mm ring which helps with ND workflow. Great Review Gordon! :)

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@steventaylor1649]

Excellent thorough review - thanks Gordon

[@raulgolfs]

Great lens for vlogging! I got the 24-105 when I vlog and debating on getting the more expensive 14-35 f2.8, I wonder if it would be worth the price for golf and lifestyle vlogs??

[@cameralabs]

Sure, or even the RF 16

[@borutgr]

Sooo about 14-35. If I use this lens on crop sensor the vignetting thing can’t be so strong? 🙂

[@cameralabs]

Correct. Just look at my results and imagine taking a crop from the middle of the frame. 14 will become equivalent to 22.4mm.

[@borutgr]

@@cameralabs tnx for fast reply 💯🇸🇮

[@simonbanfield6949]

Brilliant and comprehensive analysis. Much appreciated

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome!

[@gregscott2330]

Every time I see a Gordon Laing video on Canon gear I want to get the charge card out. Always has a good unbiased review.

[@ayfj4572]

Best review of this lens on the net by a country mile, well done,

[@siegfriednoet]

Very thorough review again Gordon as always, thank you ! But still in doubt though if its worth buying

[@memorable111]

i own the 16. I am quite satisfied with it. i have been considering the 14-35 so that my landscapes might be a bit wider. And I wondered if the image quality would be a cut above with the L series lens .... it sounds like i might not find the upgrade worth it....

[@browniepinoy]

This video is the one I was waiting for. Thanks again for another awesome review and comparison. I have the 15-35. But, when the 14-35 came out, I was intrigued. After watching this video, I am more confident that I’m keeping my 15-35.

[@cameralabs]

It's a good, solid lens!

[@scottgmaclean]

Thanks Gordon - I always appreciate your thorough deep dive into new gear and how you go outside and shoot pics and footage to provide real world samples. I am a happy owner of the 15-35mm 2.8 and consider a lens to own for a lifetime.

[@cameralabs]

I'd say you have a winner there - great lens!

[@magiccarpetrider4594]

I’d rather have lenses that don’t need digital enhancement as much. My original DSLR kit had a 16-35 2.8II on the wide end, but was really unhappy with its distortion and softness. I ended up trying a few Zeiss primes and that was the end of Canon wide-angle zooms. I kept the zoom for convenience, but after adding a 15mm Zeiss to a 21, 25, 28 wide kit, the zoom went away… I’m a stills guy that likes to focus.

[@charliobrown3960]

Totally the same here, my zeiss 15mm is way better than any wide angle zoom. Also keep my 16-35ii that has better colors and more consistent image rendering than this two RF lenses. (I have the rf 14-35 and is not as good as the old 16-35ii)

[@KevinNordstrom]

If you vlog, that 14-35f4 is a great investment. Especially for landscape photography once fixed in LR

[@DanYosua]

Great, thorough review, as always. Thanks for creating for us! Very intrigued by this one. I'm not at all worried about the corners, the correction, etc. By all accounts so far, Canon's giving L quality, some great versatility, and making it happen in a great form factor. Would have loved to see $1399, but alas. I have the 24-105 F4, the 70-200 F4 and I've contemplated what to do at the wide end. I have the Samyang 14 and the Canon 35... so having a zoom isn't a NEED right now. I'm happy to wait as long as I need to make a choice, but I would prefer to consolidate those two primes into one lens in my bag. Long term, I'm hoping someone makes a 28mm f1.8 or f1.4 - good for youtube talking head, landscape, astro... and I'll just live with 24 as my widest at that point.

[@cameralabs]

I am SURE some wide L-primes will come, but when is who's guess. If you can't wait, it's a good option!

[@RussianBot-0509]

I wouldn't buy any lens before watching your review! Great job!

[@cameralabs]

That's what I'm here for!

[@tomasadameccom]

Hi Gordon, this is the best review of this lens yet because i needed to know how bad the vignetting and distortion is. However, I still can't decide which RF lens for architecture (photo and video). Canon RF 15-35 is too heavy for a gimbal... I'm afraid that the RF14-35 is not suitable for architecture at all (good photos from 16mm+ and video will need to correct barrel distortion )... what is the best wide lens for RF mount right now ??? Laowa Zero-D with manual focus? I really don't know what to choose... i try EF17-40 (good distortion, bad wide angle) and Samyang 14mm (good angle, bad distortion and colors)

[@cameralabs]

It's a tough decision. The 15-35 is optically the best, but it is heavy. Everything else I've tested needs software correction, so it depends how you feel about that. It's not ideal, but it's a compromise I've learned to live with if the other factors are worth it. I've not tested any others yet I'm afraid.

[@tomasadameccom]

@@cameralabs Thank you. I understand. My job is to photograph interiors and shoot real estate videos. I've tried several lenses and so far it seems better to have two or three combinations like Laowa 12mm + Canon 14-35 + tiltshift, but I still don't see any 1 lens that would be suitable for reality, reportage, photo and video... everyone it has some big negative. I wouldn't mind if the lenses were cheap. Canon RF lenses are very expensive considering how much they need software correction.

[@pmc7105]

I'd be very interested to see how this 14-35 compares to the 14-30mm from Nikon.

[@cameralabs]

This might help www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s-review/

[@DNdavidsonsnation]

I'm glad the R5C doesn't have IBIS, the wobbling is killing me and would avoid at all cost buying the R5 and R6 for this reason.

[@onnonugteren2935]

Great review again.Thanks, greetings, Onno Nugteren the Netherlands.

[@cameralabs]

Many thanks!

[@lynsmith1096]

Good review Gordon

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@southbridgeforestHOA]

i love how people complaint about the weight. I guess they never used the DSLR equivalent 11-24mm lens was 1180g. RF wide angle lenses will always be better than DSLR ones because no retrofocus design is needed to compensate for mirror box. the 14-35mm is half the weight!

[@cruisingoffthedeepend1059]

I had the RF15-35 and used it for 18 months (R5) before swapping to the 14-35 - mainly for the smaller size and reduced weight. The software corrections don't worry me. I would rate the 14-35's overall performance as basically equal to the 15-35's. A tiny bit worse in absolute resolution but worth it due the benefits in portability. I no longer find I have to um and ahh as to whether to carry it in my kit as I did with the 15-35 and a lens you have with you gives 100% better results than one you don't! Gordon can you say if the the 14mm focal length is determined before or after the software correction? That is, is the RAW, uncorrected image 14mm or say 12mm?

[@cameralabs]

It's great to hear from people who've owned both! I'd say the quoted focal range is AFTER corrections, as the uncorrected 14 image I showed looks extremely wide.

[@cruisingoffthedeepend1059]

@@cameralabs Thanks Gordon, that what I thought.

[@sgwardo1953]

Thanks. Appreciate the inclusion of the 16mm.

[@mrjuno1]

Thank you for this. I’m an R6 owner about to buy the 14-35 4.0 as a post-Xmas gift to myself, and I have two questions about outfitting the lens. Question 1: I wonder whether buying a step-up ring (in brass) from 77mm to 82mm and an 82mm clear filter to gain a bit longer barrel has any value as a sun shield substitute. (I don’t like the look or feel of the petal sun shield.) I would buy a supply of cheap pinch-type 82mm lens caps to stick on top of the filter. Question 2: As an ambitious amateur who shoots RAW in M mode and post processes in Lightroom, your review makes me think this lens is a good candidate for all-the-time f4.0 aperture priority bokeh (staying with RAW and Lightroom). Does that mean I should also buy a neutral density filter for summer candid/travel/beach/boat shooting, or is f4.0 narrow enough that it won’t overexpose at auto ISO without a neutral filter? Thanks!

[@cameralabs]

I think you'd be ok to use a step-up filter ring. As for shooting only at f4, I don't think that's a great idea. For starters, you'd be operating at the minimum depth of field all the time which may not be appropriate, plus, possibly missing out on the best quality from the lens under certain conditions. I'm all for RAW and manual, but I'd manually set the aperture and shutter and leave the camera to judge metering with Auto ISO. But that's the beauty of photography, as there's 100 ways to achieve the same end result, so go with whatever works for you.

[@ashleymadison9380]

I rented the 15-35 2.8 to shoot an indoor event and really enjoyed it. However, i don't need that focal length often so after seeing your review, i think I'll go with the cheaper one. I HATE the idea of digital lens correction! However after seeing your review of the 16mm, i bought one! It's a fun cheap lens.

[@cameralabs]

Exactly, I also hated the idea of lens corrections, but unless you want large, heavy and expensive lenses all of the time, it's the only solution. I'm at peace with it now. The end result is what counts.

[@johnjon1823]

Makes the Panasonic Lumix 7-14 a real bargain by comparison, that little lens while you need to take care of flares is an outstanding performer in contrast, color, sharpness, a little gem. Makes me rethink if I ever want to go to the R range. Personally I think staying Canon DSLR and L lenses makes a lot of sense for most people into Canon still photography, depending on what you shoot. To me, at least, camera and system prices have escalated too quickly.

[@cameralabs]

I still have my Lumix 7-14!

[@pizzasaurolophus]

also check out the Oly 8-25mm lens, not exactly budget, but 16-50mm focal length range is insane from a single lens

[@cameralabs]

@@pizzasaurolophus I reviewed that one here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKW8dKivhsaBZqs

[@joshrose3195]

The RF 16mm on the RP is an unbelievably light combination for a full frame camera.

[@cameralabs]

It sure is!

[@williamshowers3438]

Nice Review of the RF 14-35 compared to the 15-35. In the end the best lens is the one that gets used, and the wt difference is significant for me. Thanks

[@cameralabs]

Exactly right!

[@EmeraldAudiovisual]

Related (or unrelated) question: does IBIS also get switched off, when you switch IS off on an EF lens using the Canon adapters ?

[@cameralabs]

I think so

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

Thank you very thorough. I have the EF 16-35 f/4 IS which which I'm generally satisfied in terms of IQ (although on a few occasions I wish it was a bit faster; e.g. nite time urban, street, interiors of castles and churches, caves) and I have been debating in my head if I should go for one of the 3 lenses in your review. I have the RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS so a bit of overlap there as well. I use my camera mainly for stills, so the video issues and features not that important. I wish there was an RF 15 or 16 L series. At any rate even after seeing this excellent comparison video work of yours, I'm still uncertain if I should upgrade and to which lens. Any advice welcome. In the meantime I shall be probably waiting for an L-series fast(er than 2.8?) ultra-wide prime.

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome! I would guess there will definitely be some L series wide primes in the future, but who knows when?

[@philipbraun]

Hey thanks for the review. I love to take picture at night and have the 16mm 2.8 already what's your thoughts between these 3 lenses? Would it make sens to go for the 15-35 F2.8 in addition of the 16mm to have something small and light? Would I see a big difference of quality of the picture, at night at 2.8 on the 15-35 then on 16mm at 2.8 as well? and on the 14-35 at f4? thanks a lot for your help.

[@cameralabs]

The 15-35 is optically best, but heaviest and most expensive. Depends how much you want to spend and carry. Also consider new 10-20

[@philipbraun]

@@cameralabs thanks a lot!

[@joejoe8948]

I’m looking at the the RF 14-35 and 15-35 for event shooting. Can someone tell me if the slower 14-35 would be at an AF disadvantage in low light compared to the faster 15-35?

[@cameralabs]

Yes, the brighter aperture always helps BUT the newer bodies are very good at focusing in low light to start with, so I'd say you'd be fine unless it's really dark. I'd recommend hiring or trialling first though.

[@animusfault]

Love your content!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@zarumanpanzio8840]

Hi there Gordon, i have seen your reviews on/off since i bought a canon 5d mk 2 ( when that was a new hot camera ) so today it is my pleasure to give a 👍, subscribe and buy you a cup of coffee. Have a nice one

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou, much appreciated!

[@andyv6127]

Love your work. It must take ages to put this together. I have 14-35. It’s main flaws for me are weak lens hood (mine broke inside bag) and cannot take multiple exposures. Luckily Canon suggested a fix. Buy the 15 - 35!! Can the 16 take multiple exposures? Canon said it cannot supply a matrix of R5 lens capability and restrictions

[@JohnMacLeanPhotography]

Serious question, what does the lens have to do with multiple exposures? I understand the body being a limitation, but not clear about the lens.

[@andyv6127]

@@JohnMacLeanPhotography well that is exactly what I thought. That’s why I asked Canon in case there was a firmware update coming. The recommended fix is buy the 15-35. You could say I was a bit disappointed in their response esp. since this is a expensive, new, L lens. Hopefully someone with more clout than me can get a better response?

[@JohnMacLeanPhotography]

@@andyv6127 thanks for your reply. I don’t do in camera multiple exposures, but it’s interesting to know.

[@cameralabs]

I have never heard that about multiple exposures! I will ask Canon for you.

[@andyv6127]

@@JohnMacLeanPhotography to be honest I probably won’t use the feature much either. I saw an interesting video on it and thought I might give it a go. I’d rather the fix for the R5 0.5 sec electric shutter to 30 sec

[@davidmpoliveira1]

Hmm could it be that the 16mm prime lens is actually wider than 16mm (without distortion correction?) It seems to be. The field of view is very similar to that of the 14-35mm, and it's definitely wider than the 15-35mm.

[@TheHybridSongwriter]

Thank you!

[@woutervermijs1826]

Thanks Gordon for this excellent review. I am keen to add this lens to my RF f4 collection expensive though it still is. Appreciate your high quality detailed reviews.

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome, glad to help!

[@matt79hz]

Hi. I'm sorry if I missed it in the video. I've just acquired the 14-35 primarily for real estate photography. I really don't need 2.8. But I'm finding the lens profile in the latest camera raw a little inconsistent. Hard to keep straight walls throughout an entire shoot with the same setting. Is this normal to have to adjust the profile "distortion correction" amount between shots ? Never had this problem with ef 16-35. I'd like to keep the lens but not sure if I can put up with differing profile settings across each set of images per job. Thanks for any info. PS. Canon customer service are zero help. Dont even know what a lens profile is ! . Cheers..

[@cameralabs]

As you know from my review, this lens has a lot of distortion that needs to be corrected by the software profile. I rarely shoot raw so can't comment on variations in different versions, but that sounds a bit odd. Try shooting RAW+JPEG and see how the in-camera correction on JPEGs compares to RAWs with the Adobe profile.

[@matt79hz]

@@cameralabs interesting.. I could try that yes, but I haven't shot jpeg ever tbh. Maybe the dynamic range is good enough these days. Yes it all looks very straight through the lens (via canon correction). Thank you

[@cameralabs]

@@matt79hz you're welcome. I try to only shoot JPEG as it saves me time and I can normally achieve the result I want. I only shoot RAW when I need to make a lot of adjustments, like long exposures, astro, tricky lighting etc, but I do appreciate real estate can be tricky with brightly backlit windows. Maybe shooting JPEG bracketed could be a solution until you find a RAW profile you're happy with.

[@matt79hz]

@@cameralabs it's doing my head in. Will give it one more shoot tomorrow and try to decide. Don't like returning as I wouldn't like purchasing a returned lens, but gotta get the right gear. Yes I always bracket 7 images and then get flash exposures. Don't think I could live without RAW. Considering returning and exchanging for ef 16-35(backup) plus a 35 1.8 for the kids, and an ef adapter with control ring. Thanks again :)

[@cameralabs]

@@matt79hz I know it's heavy and expensive but the RF 15-35 is geometrically well-corrected. But yes, I'd also investigate some of the EF versions too

[@AndreiGrigorean]

Hi Gordon, what picture profile do you use for your a6400?

[@cameralabs]

Always the standard one - I do no grading or anything clever, it's all OOC with default settings.

[@dandyweng]

This is exactly the review I needed, very informative! I've decided to go with the 15-35 now. Thanks a lot!

[@cameralabs]

Glad to help!

[@E6MND]

The biggest drawbacks for the budget line are: 1. Motor noise, which is horrible for VIDEO 2. Lack of weather sealing

[@FlatWaterFilms]

Me likes the 17-40mm EF because it's cheap, light and it works. How hard is that?

[@cameralabs]

I owned and loved my 17-40 f4L, but my copy became soft in the corners at 40. At least 17 on mine was nice and sharp, as that's what i really wanted!

[@pkmexplorers]

Could you do review like this comparing Canon RF 14-35mm f4L vs Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S

[@cameralabs]

I could, but to what end? Most people aren't likely to switch systems, so it would just serve to annoy one of those groups, assuming one was better than the other.

[@pkmexplorers]

@@cameralabs There is many people who still want to choose system or change from old DSLR. I would like t o see a test at 14 / 20 mm for landscape photography ... Distortion, corners sharpness and overall performance. Following what you said you just annoy one of the groups ( owners of 14-35 or 15-35 ). Thanks for this review btw

[@cameralabs]

@@pkmexplorers I can do it, but it wouldn't get enough views to justify the time - each of these reviews takes me about a week to make, so as my full-time job, I'd need a week's worth of revenue from it. It would need to be a patreon-based thing to work here.

[@pkmexplorers]

@@cameralabs Understand..once you get a little bored, maybe then. I will need to try myself and see the results

[@saulekaravirs6585]

Figuring that a lot of people here have quite a bit of experience with digital cameras, do any of you have suggestions for high quality camera system (body + lens ecosystem) for someone coming into the 21st century from the 1980s? I may be 24yo, but I've been learning photography on my dad's 1980 Canon A-1 35mm film camera. The A-1 is great, and I'm doing some work to make it bring it back into spec by replacing the light seals and cleaning it up. The A-1 got me hooked, and I love shooting on film, I'm an Analogue Man still using a flip phone, but I'm getting kind of tired of having to wait 2-5 weeks to see the pictures that I've shot. I'm willing to save up for a decent camera that will last me for 10 years making top computer monitor resolution images.(at least 4K, 8K preferable I think... still figuring that out) I like shooting nature, cars and airplanes as my main subjects with other stuff scattered in here and there. I like the idea of a full frame sensor so that the FOVs remain similar to what I'm used to with the A-1. I started looking into this when the Canon R3 hype train was going, but that camera is probably a bit beyond my budget. I've been watching videos here and doing some research on my own. I like the performance stats of the Canon R5 as shown on this awesome channel, but I feel like I would take five to ten times as long to set up a shot if I have to navigate all of those menus rather than just turning the dials on the lens for focus and rapidly changing my Av/Tv with just my index finger without taking my eye from the view finder. The mechanical nature of the thing is easy for me. Are their any high quality cameras that don't seem to require me to go into menus to change these settings? And I misunderstanding the R5's system based on my inability to get my mom's EOS M100 to do what I want? Any suggestions and help would be great. I don't believe in brand loyalty, just in getting the best camera for the person using it, and at this point, I'm just lost on how to do that. I just want something that will compete the better or maybe out perform the best film rolls that I can buy if it turns out that just competing is actually not that hard. I have some friends with some of the older cropped sensor cameras from about 10 years ago and their performance is similar to lower end film rolls that I can get. I don't want to feel like I'm stepping down to go digital. At this point I don't know if I'm making sense, of if what I'm looking for is out there, but if anyone knows something, I' open to suggestion. Thanks for any responses.

[@cameralabs]

Hi there, if you find the M100 hard to use, then you'll have similar problems with a lot of digital cameras, although the higher-end ones you're considering do have more dials, so you should be adjusting aperture, shutter by dial alone, and things like WB, ISO etc with a button then a dial. If you prefer an experience closer to an old film SLR, maybe consider one of the Fujifilm bodies as they have aperture rings on lenses and shutter speed dials. Look at the X-T4 and X-T30 for instance.

[@saulekaravirs6585]

@@cameralabs Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into them.

[@saulekaravirs6585]

​@@cameralabs I took the suggestions here seriously and looked into what specific camera I would get. I really liked the X-T4 as suggested above, but when I went and held on in a camera store it was uncomfortable in my hands. But I wanted to go back and see if maybe I was just holding it wrong, at this point, I liked the idea of the Fuji Ecosystem based on this suggestion and my further research. At this point I was saving up for a camera in the X-T4 price range, but had yet to buy anything. Then the X-T5 came out and changed everything for me. I could tell just from the pictures that what was uncomfortable about the X-T4 was fixed with the 5. Back in the December 2022, I got my first interchangeable lens digital camera. I am now the proud owner of a Fujifilm X-T5. I am enjoying the camera a lot and beginning to collect glass for it. First I got an adapter for FD mount lenses which I have a few of now; a fun combination with the Acros film simulation. I just ordered a Catadioptric 300mm F6.3 lens from Rokinon and I'm super excited to go shooting with it this coming weekend. Then I want to get the Fujinon 90mm F2 since it will fill the role of the film era 135mm "Boke Beasts." I started with the 16-70mm f/4 kit lens which is leagues sharper than any of my 1980s lenses. Anyway, I wanted to give you some feed back on your suggestions as it helped me find the right kind of digital camera for me. I don't think I would have found out about Fujifilm as a viable option otherwise. Even the APS sensor size is bettor for most of the shooting that I do, with the acceptation of night time. But even at night, it's plenty good enough.

[@cameralabs]

@@saulekaravirs6585 glad to hear you're happy with it! Thanks for the feedback, and hope you enjoy my other Fujifilm lens reviews here and at cameralabs.com

[@dfj555]

Would you prefer the 15-35 F2.8 with a 50mm F1.2 or the 28-70mm F2?

[@cameralabs]

Personally? The 15-35 and 50, as the 28-70 is a beast

[@melvinjohnson7033]

Interesting comparison.

[@cameralabs]

My RF 24mm f1.8 review will also be ready soon, so look out for it!

[@Date08202011]

Are there common reasons why someone would purposely shoot so wide at f2.8 (unless necessary for light gathering)? I would think photographers generally want to increase depth of field with wide shots and will also generally stop down a few stops from max aperture to maximize IQ?

[@cameralabs]

Some people desire shallower depth of field effects, so they will always desire the larger aperture lenses.

[@Axonteer]

Soon i have my 20y aniversarry in my company and i know "roughly" what i will get (not going to spoil it for myself to check the regulation beforehand ;) ) . I thought, lets buy something i wouldnt regularily do rather than just dumping the money on my bank account and forgetting about it. I was on the fence between upgrading from my R6 to an R5 or, getting the 15-35 2.8 (or f4). (i own the old EF 16-35 f4). As much as the R5 costs (incl CFexpress cards) ... i feel i would get more out of my money spent with the above two options. Adapting a lense is a bit... fiddly, but i rarely use the 16-35 f4 as a "quickdraw" lense so its much less of an issue. What would you think? As for corrections, i dont mind em as long as they are done well, if you loose a lot of visible corner sharpness then its just a design flaw of the lense. But then again as you say "the question is, what is acceptable". Sometimes... i even like the natural vignietting. Anyway, thanks for the review!!

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

Similar boat here (all I say is mainly for still I don't care/shoot video much): although I do have the R5 and I regularly use my EF 16-35 f/4 IS for stills. I also have the RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS so not that bad but I'm still uncertain which way to go. Ideally I'd like a RF 16mm f/1.4 or 1.8 L or equivalent but it doesn't exist (yet :-) Let us know which way you go and if your choice turned out to be a good one.

[@cameralabs]

Do you rarely use your 16-35 because of the adapter or because you don't find the range that useful? If the latter, then I wouldn't bother with the RF versions. The R5 is a brilliant camera if you desire 45mp stills and or 8k video. If you're happy with the quality from your R6 maybe the answer is to spend the money on a nice photography trip (or on a hugely generous coffee donation for a reviewer!)

[@Axonteer]

@@cameralabs Thanks for the Reply :) I dont use the old Ef that often, as i rarely go to places where i specifically plan to use it. Plus, i feel i lack a bit of skill to use 1x-35 for general purpose photography. In recent months i started to rely more on 50mm or longer panoramic stitches to circumvent the EOSR6 lower Mp count for Landscape pictures , but that does not work in all scenarios, and is a bit of a hastle at times. (For Astro, i have other lenses like my sigma 20mm f1.4) Im not much of a travel person, for various reasons. Its not about the money, lack of free time is one of the issues. I dont shoot video at all, so it would be mainly stills. (this is also why i would love Canon to release a cheaper R5p, as they did with the R5c ;-) ) Its difficult to judge really with 45mp. If i have it available to me, i will definitely use it, but if i only have 20mp at my disposal... its what i have to work with. If you can follow my thought process. Oh... i want to see you down a R5 sized cup of coffee... :D

[@stevemehew2888]

Another fascinating insight, thanks Gordon. How do you think the older EF 16-35 f4.0L IS USM would fare against the RF 14-35mm ? Having a few older lenses which I think work really well for me, it's difficult to know how they compare to the new RF lenses without renting the RF for a week. Another comparison would be the excellent EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM against the RF 85mm f2.0 - what is the real world difference apart from bokeh ?

[@cameralabs]

I'm hearing from a LOT of people with the EF 16-35 f4, so I feel a comparison is in order for a future video!

[@stevemehew2888]

@@cameralabs That would be fantastic ! I'm wondering if the RF lenses are really worth the extra cost - they are clearly better than their EF counterparts, but the EF L lenses are genuinely good, don't need in camera processing and don't extend when focusing or in some cases zooming. Is RF a case of the emperors new clothes ?

[@DarkPa1adin]

thanks Gordon! your reviews/demos are great! the AF/focus pulls makes this lens hot for video!

[@cameralabs]

Glad to help!

[@rrrteee8405]

copied and pasted from your RF 16 review. Gordon, I'm a big fan of your work. I bought a kindle version of your book.... and then a real printed hardcover version because I wanted to see big, printed images. FWIW, I find the hardcover version to be superior. May I ask some advice? I have owned the RF 16 for a few years. helluva little lens. I love to shoot landscape photos. I looked at the 3 lenses u mentioned here quite a bit. I cannot imagine that I would need the wide aperture on the 15-35. I am leaning toward purchasing the 14-35 but wonder if I will see a significant improvement in photo quality over the prime that I now own. Next January I hope to photograph the NaPali coast from the sea. I have done this twice and both results have been ....good. I want to create a really excellent image. Am thinking of perhaps a few photos at 14 mm stitched together.... or maybe quite a few photos at 35 mm stitched together. I'm a serious amateur with enough discretionary income to buy either of these zooms... just undecided if I really want to spend that extra money for the 15-35

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! This video is the only comparison I've made between these lenses, so after watching it, you'll know everything I know! As I recall, the 14-35 didn't stand out as much as I hoped in optical quality, so if you're looking for a big improvement in image quality, I'd go for a prime lens instead, even one of the cheaper STM models. If you're stitching, it's best to avoid really wide focal lengths anyway as there's too much distortion. So maybe go for the 35 STM

[@rrrteee8405]

@@cameralabs Thank you!!

[@lesfisher8941]

Thankyou Gordon for the great review of this lens, this is a perfect companion for me to go travelling with and is an excellent replacement for the Canon 17-40 f4 I owned 10 years ago. It would be nice if it was about £250 cheaper but I’ll just have to bite the bullet on that, who knows there might be a Canon cashback sometime.

[@cameralabs]

I had that 17-40 too

[@blaizerb]

Offset the price selling the EF. ?

[@oneofdaves]

great review, thanks for putting it together. I wonder if anyone has used the 14-35 with filters and a polariser. I'm curious on how much vignetting takes place at 14mm.

[@markanderson3376]

Very informative review. Thanks for posting it.

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@shieldaigbencher]

To be fair, if I had been aware of the f4 lens being available when I bought the 15-35 I would have bought it. Both L series the f4 weight and size advantag would have won me over.e

[@monsieurgeertmans]

Still in a pickle, wether I want to buy this lens, the 15-35/2.8 or keep my EF 16-35/4. Your review has been super informative, but I somehow still can't make up my mind. I do architecture and real estate (so naturally, the lens corrections are essential) and the 14mm doesn't seem to be a LOT wider than the 15mm when both are corrected. It really makes me wonder if Canon bases the 14mm on pre- or post lens correction. If its the former, the difference between that and a corrected 16-35/4 may not be worth investing in. I don't need the extra stop since I mostly work from a tripod anyway, but from what I've read/seen in other reviews the sharpness at close distances @35mm seem to be a bit concerning (especially for a hefty £1700/€1850 price tag lens). Which in turn makes consider the pricier RF 15-35. So I guess what I'm asking you is, do you think it's worth upgrading from the EF 16-35/4 IS to the 14-35 or the 15-35 if you do architecture and real estate? R6 shooter here, so no insane megapixels (yet!). The budget for either of the two is available, but I'd rather not spend €1850 for the "cheap" option and come away dissapointed in the actual post corrected reach and/or sharpness. Last but not least, keep up the incredible work. Your reviews are always a joy to watch and! Thank you very much!

[@cameralabs]

I'm going to save you some money here and suggest you stick with the EF 16-35. As you've identified, the 14-35 is wider, but not hugely so, and for your subjects you won't be seeing any of the benefits of better AF. Ultimately are you happy or unhappy with what you're getting from your 16-35?

[@monsieurgeertmans]

@@cameralabs Hiya, thanks for the reply. I have been happy with the 16-35 ever since I replaced my 17-40 with it. It was a big step up in sharpness and the added IS has been a surprisingly handy bonus that I wouldn't like to work without anymore. Having said that, I already own one RF lens and I quite like the new control ring (which I use for quick exposure compensation). Then there's just the wear and tear of heavy use; the rubber of the focus ring that is slowly starting to let go and the AF/MF switch that's getting harder to operate, which also makes me look at future options. Furthermore I think the adapter is becoming a little obnoxious and I may be getting a little more money for it right now than in, let's say, a couple years should I trade it in. I also wonder how much better the IS of the RF lenses cooperate with the IBIS than the EF versions. I guess it's a bit of a luxury problem, and as any photo nerd I love to look out for new tools. But sticking with the current lens may seem like the most sensible option. Thanks for the tip :-).

[@cameralabs]

@@monsieurgeertmans I'm going to look into making a comparison between them in the future!

[@monsieurgeertmans]

@@cameralabs Awesome, looking forward to it!

[@amitchattopadhyay9367]

Really in depth, thanks for publishing

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@halfpinoy4162]

Brighton Palace Pier is in-front of my flat.

[@cameralabs]

Nice view!

[@sholaallen4873]

Excellent review currently considering a wide angle lens purchase but I am curious if the new RF 15-30 non L is close enough to this or not. Any idea on when you will be able to review that lens? Cheers!

[@cameralabs]

Yeah, I'm wondering about that one too. I plan on testing it but not sure when

[@novainvicta]

I think we all need to resign ourselves to the new world of optics. Olympus and Panasonic have been doing this for years so it’s no surprise that Sony, Nikon & Canon mirrorless optics have followed suit. The RF 16mm f2.8 is a steal price wise whereas the RF 14-35mm looks expensive when compared to it and the former EF 16-35mm f4L which was a great lens and much cheaper. Canon have really cranked up the price of L lenses for the RF mount even though in theory they should be cheaper to design and produce with a shorter back focus and if they wish to retain customers they really need to expand the non L lenses whilst not sacrificing too much quality something they have pulled off with the RF 100-400mm f5.5-8 IS USM lens. So they likely need a non L 16-35mm lens at some point.

[@cameralabs]

I agree, the prices have gone up, but that could be due to multiple factors - new EF lenses of a similar spec might also have cost something similar. I think there were rumours of some non-L wide zooms in the future, but I have no roadmap. Canon are committed and will eventually release every lens you desire, although they may not be cheap!

[@omranmohammed8134]

Gordon thanks for this video 😍😍 is the 16 mm or 24 mm 1.8 sharper than the 14-35

[@cameralabs]

Still to test the new 24, but soon i hope!

[@miganmago]

Great video, as always. One question: it is true that the 35mm FL is the worst of this lens?. Is there much difference in sharpness compared to 24 or 14mm?

[@cameralabs]

Generally zooms are worst at one end of their range. I think i showed how this lens performed across its range didn't I?

[@franzrabe4584]

Thanks for the smashing review, Gordon! I'm an architectural photographer, using the Olympus EM1 Mk2 with the Olympus M.Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 PRO lens mostly - IDEAL setup for walking long distances, but still great optical/image quality. It would be fascinating to see a test between the Canon RF 14-35mm f4L & the Olympus M.Zuiko 8-25mm F4 Pro lenses - to maybe finally put to bed FF vs M43..?!

[@cameralabs]

That argument will run forever!

[@raylander6329]

What exceptional review, AGAIN !!! WOW

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, glad you found it useful!

[@bentonbrightwell8953]

Is anybody else completely turned off by the bokeh from the 15-35? I can always tell when a vlog is filmed on the 15-35 because the bokeh and rough. This video just confirmed my observations. I’m not typically a bokeh son by any means, but the 15-35ms just really irks me for some reason. Even as an event shooter myself, I think I would still gravitate towards the 14-35 simply for the smoother bokeh.

[@charliobrown3960]

I find my old 16-35II adapted is way better rendering lights and colors than this two. Also I have the 14-35 rf and colors are no consistent.

[@catalyst_6]

Very comprehensive. Thanks!

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@AjaySingh-228]

Super Sir..beautiful beach

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, it's in Brighton UK

[@AjaySingh-228]

@@cameralabs you are welcome sir.. oh nice

[@sharpskilz]

for me at least it has to be the 16. the price and the size. the price and the size, the price and the size.

[@PaulBawby]

Thank you very much for this very interesting and useful review. I appreciate the efforts you put in making your videos and into sharing your wealth of knowledge and experience. 👍👍

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, you're very welcome!

[@stephenpartridge686]

Great review, would be very interested to see a comparison between the RF14-35 F4L and the EF16-35 F4L!!

[@cameralabs]

You and half of the other comments here it seems! I'll try and do one in the future!

[@stephenpartridge686]

@@cameralabs Look forward to it!! Currently I use the 16-35 F4L on my RP....

[@joeaddison]

Both L lenses are great but for most the decision seems to be coming down to which lens is available to buy at this time. I know the 15-35mm 2.8 is unavailable to buy in most places, whereas the 14-35mm is more available

[@cameralabs]

Good point.

[@tonymckeage1028]

Great Video, Brilliant review of the 2 zooms, I am curious about a wide angle lens for Vloging, Thanks for sharing New Sub here

[@cameralabs]

Thanks for the follow! The 16 - as I think you know now - is an ideal choice for vlogging without breaking the bank.

[@EggsOverSleazy]

Anyone else getting impatient with Canon lens releases? Where are the wide angle Primes? 24, 28, a decent 35? Instead they launch an 800mm lens. I really like my R6, but I'm getting tired of waiting for the lenses I want.

[@cameralabs]

Blame it on the global chip shortage. There's no point producing something they can't sell, so I suspect the recent run of specialist lenses has been due to them not needing to make many of them. I do agree though, the system does need some mid-wide-primes, especially a 24 and 28.

[@cameralance]

Thanks for the review Gordon. I'll just wait for the RF 24 1.8 and look back at this video again for comparison 😁

[@cameralabs]

I don't know anything about this lens.

[@workingwiththelight3119]

Great lenses but prices are prohibitive for enthusiasts or content creators. Sony with sigma is more reasonable priced.

[@kenmonahan9924]

Great review as always, Gordon. I was lucky enough to pick up a “as new” 15/35 last July on eBay for £1600 from a genuine seller. Think I will stick with that love it!

[@cameralabs]

That's a good price!

[@kenmonahan9924]

@@cameralabs I have to say I was amazed (and delighted) and the guy delivered it personally quite a well respected bird photographer……

[@R0dan]

Very helpful review. I just ordered this lens because of Canon’s $100.00 off sale.

[@pergunnareriksson]

Read the thumbnail as "Canon 14-35 faiL". Gotta check my eyesight and most likely get a new pair of glasses! :)

[@cameralabs]

Hah! You wanted it to lose before even watching it!

[@BenMarar]

Looks like 15-35 has warmer tones

[@cameralabs]

Yes, I noticed a colour difference too

[@EugeneMaynard]

👍🏾🙏🏾

[@vancitycanucks]

16mm ftw

[@cameralabs]

It's a fab little lens and easy to forgive any limitations.

[@vancitycanucks]

@@cameralabs got mine 2 weeks ago based on your reviews. Thanks!

[@DoveSharma]

Just call them 14, 15 and 16 mm lenses and the video takes half the time

[@cameralabs]

I know, it's a pain saying their names, but if I don't, I get comments from others who don't know which I'm talking about as there are so many similar sounding models.

[@dayeah765caoni3]

@@cameralabshaha you can’t please everyone until you sell lemonade. Even that is not a guarantee 😂 thank you as always 🎉

[@pongokamerat8601]

Many RF lenses are a disappointment. As this one. Expensive, focus shift, terrible vignetting, to name a few.

[@cameralabs]

To be fair, most new lenses across a variety of systems exhibit focus breathing and vignetting.

[@pongokamerat8601]

@@cameralabs But some RF-lenses are over the top.

[@cameralabs]

@@pongokamerat8601 which specific models are over the top?

[@frankluo230]

@@cameralabs the biggest issue is people wanting it a bit cheaper

[@cameralabs]

@@frankluo230 I can see that, definitely.