Canon EF VS RF Wide Angle Lens Shootout - RF 15-35 & RF 14-35 vs EF 16-35 2.8 & f4 (Free RAW Files)

In todays video, I take a look at four Canon wide angle zoom lenses for landscape and portrait photography, as well as video. I compare the older EF 16-35 2.8 III and 16-35 F4 lenses to the newer RF 15-35 2.8 and RF 14-35 F4 using both the Canon R5 and R6. Are the newer RF lenses worth it or do the older EF lenses perform just as well for a fraction of the cost?
Free RAW Files Download: files.jamesreader.uk
DISCLAIMER If you post these files online and/or to social media, please link back to this channel or my instagram. The RAW files must not be used for any commercial purposes and I remain the copyright holder.
My Favourite Conversion LUTS:
Best CLOG/CLOG3 to Rec709 LUTS for R5, R6 and R7 - geni.us/CLOG3LUT
Best CLOG 2 to Rec709 LUT for C70 - geni.us/CLOG2LUT
My Favourite Creative LUTS:
606 LUTS - geni.us/606LUTS
Kinetic LUTS - geni.us/KINETICLUTS
Get the cinematic look with Dehancer:
Get 10% off your purchase of Dehancer using JAMESREADER at checkout - www.dehancer.com/
VIDEO CHAPTERS
00:00 - Intro
00:45 - 15mm vs 14mm
1:05 - Widest Focal Lengths
1:35 - 24mm Compared
2:08 - 35mm Compared
2:39 - R5 Closer Look
4:21 - R6 35mm Compared
4:51 - R6 Closer Look
6:15 - RF vs EF Lens Corrections
6:58 - Quick Summary
7:23 - 35mm Portraits
8:03 - 24mm Portraits
8:34 - Wice Angle Portraits
9:00 - R5 Video Comparison
10:35 - C70 Video Comparison
11:08 - Handling
12:30 - Portrait Results
12:58 - Video Results
13:36 - Landscape Results
14:40 - RAW Files and Outro
Model Instagram:
/ rach.reader
Follow me on Instagram:
/ james.reader
Gear Used:
Cameras:
Canon EOS R5 - geni.us/TfEW
Canon EOS R6 - geni.us/jn9XS
Lenses:
Canon RF 15-35 2.8 - geni.us/Gf9se
Canon RF 14-35 F4 - geni.us/oXBX
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 III - geni.us/el5QNK
Canon EF 16-35 F4 IS - geni.us/QoChu
All My Gear
Camera Setup:
Main Camera: geni.us/TfEW
Backup Camera: geni.us/jn9XS
Travel Camera: geni.us/vVtw
Favourite Lens: geni.us/nl45
Best Portrait Lens: geni.us/f3LlvrT
Favourite Video Lens: geni.us/fGKWOBw
Wide Angle Zoom: geni.us/Gf9se
Telephoto Zoom: geni.us/KKu0gJX
Best Budget Prime: geni.us/wMjtBXg
Action Camera - geni.us/qSlY
Drone - geni.us/GAgpbbi
Accessories
Best Dreamy Lens Filter (Not pro mist!) - geni.us/RM98X
Best Travel Tripod: geni.us/QnVaZ0
On Camera Monitor: geni.us/IDfvo6
CF Express Card: geni.us/J3aI
Best Vari ND Filter: geni.us/Ohm1nqQ
SD Card: geni.us/8aHess
My New Favourite Camera Backpack: geni.us/rpXQwz
Travel Camera Bag: geni.us/dCAcv
Camera Sling Bag: geni.us/bQSHA3B
Tech Pouch: geni.us/SFQ7
My Favourite Camera Strap: geni.us/1SqH2M
Gimbal: geni.us/PGPkW
Lighting Setup
Key light: geni.us/KhtpOfm
Panel Light: geni.us/VyJGO
Tube Light: geni.us/vaLB8x
Mini Light: geni.us/qCZt44
Studio Strobe: geni.us/Olwk
Audio Setup
Studio Mic: geni.us/1KEWY
On Camera Mic: geni.us/FPX0ij
Shotgun Mic: geni.us/AeWAo
Lav Mic: geni.us/W6MBr
Audio Interface: geni.us/CeBPEOe
** Please note, clicking any of these links above and buying from Amazon helps support my channel as I get a little commission from each order at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support. **
My Website: www.jamesreader.uk
For business enquiries: [e-mail]
- Xander. - cabin fever part 3- Provided by Lofi Girl - Watch: • xander. - cabin fever ...

[@angelotodaro1475]

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III is simply the finest wide angle zoom I’ve ever used. In particular, it’s sharpness, flare resistance, contrast and saturation never cease to amaze me.

[@Necron990]

1st time viewer, very impressive work, thanks so much for this. Subscribed!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching and subscribing!

[@felipecastro8668]

Your reviews are just perfect.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@mevana81]

thank you for all the effort you put into this video

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching!

[@jasyamaha]

That was an excellent review and comparison. Thank you

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@behystudio]

Awesome video man! Really appreciate all the work you've put into this high-quality compression video. I'm actually considering getting the EF 16-35 L F2.8 III USM for my EOS R.

[@felipecastro8668]

I have this lens and this camera and everything works perfectly and the focus is instantaneous. And it is very sharp and has a very beautiful bokeh even though it is a wide angle.

[@KatieF307]

Your reviews are a tremendous help. Well done!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much, really glad they helped!

[@michaelduhaney5525]

Fantastic job in this great review. I used the video to help decide whether to replace my EF 15:23 16-35 2.8 or not. I’m sticking with my EF despite the size “penalty” of the adapter. Thanks for the great job!

[@kevind6006]

Hi James, many thanks for this comparison! I must say I really appreciate the extent and quality of your work! Fact based and insightful! Jared Polin is for the fun, you're for the real deal. The more I watch your videos, the more you become my number one choice for photo reviews. Cheers and keep up the good work!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much! That is really encouraging to hear.

[@photographybydaniellee]

Great video! I have the RF 15-35. I rented it a couple of times and decided that I needed to own it. It is a great real estate and architectural photography lens. And, it is also great for shooting large groups and dance floor photos.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Daniel! It's such a versatile lens, glad to hear you are enjoying it just as much as me.

[@srinimaverick]

Very helpful review

[@tokyorose1123]

Great review. A lot of work went into this and it shows. I have the RF f4 trinity and I love the size, weight, and body similarities, as well as the consistent thread size throughout. f4 suits about 80% of my needs but I do wish I had a stronger background separation for portraits and wildlife. I have most of the RF f2 or f1.8 primes (35,50 and 85) but craving that 28-70 f2 or 50 and 85 f1.2 combo…

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Brandon! Canon killed it with the RF F4 trinity. The only one I haven't tried is the 24-105 F4, but by all accounts seems to be great too. I think the 50mm 1.2 would be a great additional option for your kit for a little more background seperation, alternatively hang on for that 35mm 1.2.

[@maximlukyanenko1076]

Thank you so much for this video. It helped to me make a choice

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching - I’m really glad it helped!

[@dramitvaghela3989]

Impressive content Had to subscribe ✌️

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@ekaterinasolnechnaya250]

Thank you for RAW!!!🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡 I use canon r6, now looking for new wide lens 🤗Have a nice day!

[@DefiNoblesse]

thank u so much for this!

[@catalyst_6]

Another excellent comparison. I chose the RF 14-35 because of its size and weight advantage over the RF 15-35. Glad to see there’s very little compromise in IQ, and that extra 1mm really is nice sometimes.

[@thelookoflifefilms]

You just convinced me to go with the RF 14-35 , I don't see myself needing the 2.8 aperture with what I would be using this lens for , and the price and weight are also big selling points

[@audreyrice996]

Thank you for the great comparison video! I've own the EF 16 - 35 F4 lens for years and absolutely love it. However, I recently went digital and wanted a lighter, more compact lens. I did my homework, and finally decided to take the plunge and buy the RF 14 - 35 f4 lens, and I'm glad I did. I am impressed with the image quality, and sharpness of this lens, and of course the weight is a lot more manageable. I like to travel and I shoot mostly architecture, so having a light kit is very important to me, especially as I get older. I haven't noticed any vignetting, and Lightroom does a great job correcting everything else. I love the fact that I can include so much more within my frame using the 14 - 35, and this video confirms that my decision to purchase this lens was the correct one. Anyone who is thinking of buying it should just do it! It's definitely worth it.

[@Simon-SBL]

I'm only really interested in the f4 lenses, for me, f2.8 zooms are not worth the extra money, I use primes mostly, but sometimes a three-in-one zoom is worthwhile for portability, I think the images will make up my mind, thanks!

[@TheThomas2411]

Thank you ! It s a beautiful Work . Comparaison with 11-24 ?

[@fragu123]

I seldom shoot wide angle, so decided for the RF16mm prime… thx. for your efforts btw, always great reviews you do!👍

[@JamesReader]

In hindsight it would of been interesting to include that lens! Thank you for watching.

[@fragu123]

@@JamesReader …thought so too…

[@tom_k_d]

@@JamesReader It would have been - if the less versatile, non-weathersealed STM-driven RF16mm 2.8 outperformed any of the RF L-series zooms optically - but this seems not to be the case according to Gordon Laing, see kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5LdeaWMbt1lfbs . Thanks for your excellent and very helpful review - I think it's a complete package as is! I'd consider the RF15-35 2.8, given price uplift over the RF14-35 4.0 is small here in Europe - and if I'd want to pack light, I'd choose the RF 24-105 4.0.

[@JamesReader]

@@tom_k_d Thank you Tom! It really is a great lens, probably one of my top two RF lenses. It's just so useful. Thank you for watching!

[@emillfemamda123]

@@JamesReader gģģģgģgģggģgģggģggģģggģggggggggggggggggggggggg6xt

[@timgatz4219]

Hey James! Thanks for your awesome video - you definitely gained a new follower. :-) I have the EOS R6 Mark II and can't decide whether I should go for the R15 or R14.. I would like to do landscapes but also sometimes the sky at night - what do you recommend? I could get the RF15 for about 300 dollars more than the RF14 btw.

[@JamesReader]

I would go for the 15 if you do any night time shooting! Sounds like a great deal too

[@MoveXcellent]

Hi James, thanks for this super clear and helpful video! I’m on the verge of upgrading my DSLR to my first full frame camera. I have been doubting between the Canon R8 and Sony A7IV for a long time and I was leaning towards Sony because of the broader (affordable) lens options. But am I right you are basically saying in this video you can use the EF/RF adapter without any issues or quality loss. This would open the door to a lot more lens options. Thanks!

[@JamesReader]

Hey there! Thank you for watching. The EF lenses are excellent and absolutely a great way to go and I have had no issues at all when using Canon EF lenses and Sigma EF lenses. I can’t vouch for Tamron and other brands.

[@cesarlorca_]

You’re making me miss my canon body bro 😢😂

[@bunkermagnus]

My choice was the RF 14-35 two years ago, the weight and minimum focusing distance was for me the deciding factors. I use it for travel photography and landscape on R5 and R6 and I’ve never been disappointed by it.

[@JamesReader]

Glad to hear you’re liking it - It’s an amazing lens, one of my favourites on the RF Mount.

[@realtalkIG]

Hi, Thanks for your videos. I found them very helpful in my decision to move to Canon. Did you use an ND filter for any of these videos,? Which one would you recommend for the R6 mkii

[@JamesReader]

I'm really glad you found the videos helpful, In terms of ND Filter I use the NiSi True Colour variable ND Filter. I've tried quite a few and that's the best out there in my opinion. Hope that helps!

[@gustavoumeno]

Great video, James! I was wondering how RF 14-35 performs with Canon R7...

[@JamesReader]

I think it would be a great combo. The 15-35 is amazing on the R7 so I think the 14-35 will perform just as good.

[@justesmond]

I own the EF 16-35 Mk II. I use it for real estate work where I’m typically shooting at f8. It’s good enough and I don’t really need more. I tried the RF 14-35 for real estate. It’s great for that. But at 14mm there’s so much corner distortion that the extra mm on the wide end is not useful to me IMO. Occasionally I may use the 16-35 for a wide shot at a wedding, but I have better option for portraits than a wide angle lens.

[@itzika2879]

Thanks for your comment. I have the same situation. I am using the 16-35 EF on the R5 body. I was wondering if its worth the money to upgrade to 14-35. I shoot interior design. Honestly in my shoots i dont use much the 16 mm only when i shoot a bathroom from very close. So i am not sure how much the 14 mm will help me here. And from this video i learn that the image quality is pretty similar anyways

[@oceanview418]

First time watching. Great video with a fantastic amount of info. I have the R6 but no RF glass yet but canon only the Samyang RF 85 1.4. I'm coming from a 800d which I have the Canon 18-135, 50 1.25 macro, 40mm, and 24mm pancake. I have the adapter for the EF-RF and love the range of my 18-135 but want something on the R6 equivalent. Do you think buying the 3 budget RF 35, 16, and 50 or a telephoto like the 24-105 f4 is a better first buy? I was also looking at the RF 24-240 but not sure about the quality?

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching! What kind of stuff do you shoot? You can't beat the versatility of the 24-105 F4. I would suggest you pick that up along with something like the RF 50 1.8 or RF 35 1.8. A very versatile combo.

[@oceanview418]

@JamesReader So I have the rf 50 1.8 and the Samsung 85 1.4. I love taking pictures of my kids who are 6 months and 3 years old. I also recently started getting into macro and astro. I was looking at the 24- 105 f4 or the 24-70 2.8. My 2 favorite lens on the other camera were my 18-135 because I had range and macro capabilities and my 50mm that also had macro capabilities.

[@JamesReader]

@@oceanview418 It sounds like you like the range so I would go for the 24-105 F4, since you have the primes for low light/portraits. With the money saved maybe try the RF 35mm 1.8 too since it has macro functionality. Ideally the RF 85mm F2 might be the better macro lens but you're already covered for 85.

[@oceanview418]

@JamesReader I was just worried about the f4 and if I am inside or in a low light scenario. With the R6 will that be a issue?

[@JamesReader]

@@oceanview418 I think the 50mm 1.8 covers you in real low light scenarios. Otherwise you can push the R6 to high ISOs without having to worry too much.

[@mamorutsunoda4844]

Thank you very much for your comparision. Recently I perchased R6 and am trying to change all my lenses from EF to RF. I am wondering how to deal with EF 16-35 L F2.8. Should I use it with the adapter or should sell for RF either 14-35 L F4 or 15-35 L F2.8 ??? Now I decided to buy RF 14-35 L F4 instead of other 2 options. For me the quality difference between 14-35 L F4 and other 2 is negligible, and I felt 14mm wide angle is the most important for my landscape photography style. Also, thank you for the posted raw files with which I could really compare the image quality after the retouch. I really enjoyed your beautiful sample images, too. Again I really appreciate your great work.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching Mamoru, I’m really glad the video and files helped! I love the 14-35 f4 - I think you made a great decision and will love that lens!

[@poorbadger]

Re: vignetting … maybe I’m crazy but I add it digitally if it doesn’t exist - draws the eye to the center of the frame

[@mrebel1992]

Hi James! What first lens would you recommend for a fashion photographer? I would mainly shoot full body shots/waist up. Thank you!!

[@JamesReader]

For a first lens I would recommend a standard zoom whether that be 24-105 F4 or 24-70 f2.8. Absolute staples in fashion photography that many pros build their career on. From there I would add a 70-200. If you’re looking for a budget option, the RF 35mm 1.8 is a very versatile prime. Hope that helps!

[@mrebel1992]

@@JamesReader thank you! I was thinking in order 35mm, 50mm, then maybe the 85 or 70-200 (that 85mm is so beautiful but the versatility of 70-200 is unmatched, I can’t decide haha) I haven’t considered 24-70, I’ll definitely look into it!

[@lukshan.wickramasekara]

I have RF-24-105 mm f4 lens..I need to buy f2.8 lens. I have two option .First one is Rf 24-70 mm f2.8 lens. Second one is RF 15-35 f 2.8.. With 24-105 mm lens what is the best option of those two options?? And i need new lens for event photography, wedding and outdoor casual shoots..please give me best option..

[@JamesReader]

I think the 15-35 would be the best way to go! You have all of the 24-70 range covered by the 24-105. The 15-35 covers all your wide angle needs. Seems like a great combo to me!

[@novainvicta]

Back in the day the reviewers were really praiseworthy of the EF 16.35mm f4L IS USM. I had an example of this lens which I convinced Canon to loan me so I could project it at Panavision and run tests. That lens was super sharp right into the corners so Im wondering whether the example you had was a poor copy. Ultimately though I rarely shoot wider than 24mm basically because polarisers dont work on anything past 24mm. So on moving to RF mount I bought the relatively cheap RF 16mm f2.8 and will not be buying either the RF 15-35mm f2.8L or the RF 14-35mm f4L.

[@JamesReader]

I was impressed with it, the only obvious weakness was those 24mm corners and it very well could of been my rental copy. How do you like the 16mm 2.8? Thank you for watching Jeff!

[@novainvicta]

@@JamesReader The RF 16mm f2.8 is a functional lens that gets the job done without winning any star prizes (it’s heavily corrected). That said for the money it costs it’s worth having. Good job with these videos I always find them interesting.

[@apiluckthammawimutti8770]

How about chromatic aberration of those lenses?

[@JamesReader]

CA is very well controlled on all these lenses, thank you for watching!

[@doktorr23]

Does the 16-35 f2.8 iii has clicking sound during video autofocus ?

[@JamesReader]

It did, quite common with some of the USM lenses.

[@doktorr23]

@@JamesReader thanks!

[@BleepingWorld]

these are EF L or EF non-L?

[@JamesReader]

They are all EF L

[@piotrwiniarski7495]

I've come across multiple copies of EF 16-35/4 and also RF 15-35/2.8. And in my opinion such comparisions are pointless, because the copy variations with UWA lenses are very often so big, that you almost can't say definite opinion about IQ. Generally speaking, RF 15-35 is the sharpest, altough it happens to be decentered (and your copy likely is at 15mm - judging by corner sharpness). The most consistent lens I've had (when it comes to sharpness across the frame and focal lengths) was the 16-35/4 and it was nowhere near as bad as presented copy.

[@JamesReader]

The more I have learned about the RF 15-35 I think you definitely have a point. I actually sent my lens in to Canon to be checked and “recalibrated” it has certainly helped with consistency in sharpness across the frame. I suppose the risk of hiring a lens like the 16-35 f4 is that who knows how well the hire company are maintaining it, how many times it’s been dropped etc.

[@FlashlightTech]

IMHO something is not right with your EF 16-35 F4, mine is sharp through all focal range

[@Chris-NZ]

Hi James , I have the 14-35 on an R5 body, very happy with it for the work I do.

[@JamesReader]

It's an awesome combo! Thank you for watching

[@documentaryshow]

Canon's mathematics with the RFs is off. Whom do they want to purchase thhat expensive glass?

[@charliobrown3960]

if you have a R5 buy a fixed wide angle and crop if needed

[@lbeetech]

You don't need F2.8 for landscapes...

[@dramitvaghela3989]

That's for nightscapes

[@erikkuypers7629]

Hi James, thanks again for this great video! Seems almost on demand ;). Have you noticed any field curvature on your RF 15-35 2.8? I've noticed this effect especially on 35mm on lower apertures, when focusing on the center really close to your subject, then the corners are not sharp, and vice versa. This also occurs with landscape photography and lessens when stopping down firmly. I noticed this with some landscape shots and this started my journey to find out what was going on. I found a couple of links which explain this phenomenon. I also noticed some "restlessness" in the RAW files of the 15-35 which I also seem to have with my copy. See the 123A9155.CR3 file and look at 100%. I don't think it's movement unsharpness, or out of focus unsharpness, it seems just to be something within the lens, and saw this on several shots with several copies of the 15-35, and also mine. About the field curvature, see these two links: photographylife.com/what-is-field-curvature#how-to-find-out-if-a-lens-has-field-curvature and this discussion: www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65158140

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching Erik! I did read about that issue when I first bought the 15-35, but never tested my lens or particularly looked for the issue in my images. I would be interested to see if mine is effected, I might take some photos of a test chart and compare it to my RF 24-70 at 35mm.

[@erikkuypers7629]

@@JamesReader I did some testing myself with a test chart, with my R6 on a tripod and my 15-35 on 35mm @ 2.8 and manual focus turned on. If I want both the center and corner sharp, my test chart needs to be in angle between 5 to 10 degrees, when moving the AF point from center to corner. Never seen this before. Curious about your results.

[@JamesReader]

@@erikkuypers7629 Hi Erik, I tested the same. At 35mm I had quite a lot of softness on the right side of the frame, centre was okay and so were the extreme corners. But everything in between quite soft from 2.8-f4 in those parts of the frame. Similar results at 24mm too, just not as bad. My RF 24-70 is significantly better at those focal lengths. I actually sent it in to Canon so they could let me know if it’s normal. They said the lens needed “optical calibration”. I have it back now and the issue is definitely improved but not perfect.

[@erikkuypers7629]

@@JamesReader Wow, that makes me wonder about the quality controls of Canon. I went with my copy to the store where I bought it and compared it to another copy of a 15-35 on my same R6 and we had the same results. So, we figured the issue is "normal" for this lens. Seems the issue you ran into is a little different, with only a part of the frame not being sharp, mine just gets unsharper when moving to the corners. But after reading this, maybe I am reconsidering sending this lens back to Canon also. Just not sure if anything will improve...

[@JamesReader]

@@erikkuypers7629 it seems as if people are having a range of issues with the 15-35. I found Canon very helpful but you risk a big service charge for very little improvement. I’ve just resigned my self to the fact that my lens is very strong at the wider focal lengths which is most important to me.