Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L / Ultra-Wide Angle for Landscapes, Architecture and more

The Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L is an ultra-wide, variable zoom lens in a compact body. Ideally for landscape, architectural, interior and real estate photography, the RF 14-35 offers photographers plenty of compelling reasons to upgrade their Canon lenses and camera bodies. In this review, I run the lens through a variety of tests, show example images and video, and end with a final recommendation for whether it’s worth buying.
Disclaimer: I purchased this lens with my own money. Canon has not sponsored or endorsed this video. All opinions are my own.
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS USM
geni.us/Ll8A
Sample image download
(14mm corrected, non-corrected, RAW)
bit.ly/3hJTvQM
=============================
Chapters
=============================
0:00 Intro
2:19 Focal Length
3:51 Using Filters
7:37 Image Quality
11:34 Image Stabilization
14:11 Focusing
16:08 Is It Worth Buying?
20:34 Outro
=============================
Gear Used to Create This Video
=============================
Camera: geni.us/x1qWvob
Lens: geni.us/DlD0
Microphone: geni.us/qmVjq63
Audio recorder: geni.us/ABAEu
Key light: geni.us/cElYW
Fill light: geni.us/sxel38
Accent light: geni.us/gHsO5iV
Complete gear list: kit.co/todddominey
⬇️ My C-Log to Rec.709 LUTs for the R5/R6
dominey.gumroad.com/l/yqCnV
=============================
Follow and Contact Me Elsewhere
=============================
Instagram: / dominey
Twitter: / tdominey
Blog: dominey.blog
Photography: dominey.photo
Email: [e-mail]
=============================
Music
=============================
All music via Musicbed. 30-days free through this link!
www.musicbed.com/invite/uxZ1j
=============================
Affiliate Disclosure
=============================
Some of the links in this description will direct you to online stores where I may earn referral credits from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you. If you want to shop and support this channel, you may also use the following storewide links.
🛒 Amazon: geni.us/gotoamazon
🛒 B&H: geni.us/shopbandh
🛒 Adorama: geni.us/shopadorama

[@TheOriginalGregToo]

Fantastic review! You covered absolutely every question I had in a super concise and interesting fashion. Thank you so much Todd, really appreciate what you do.

[@laurormrz]

Excellent review, Todd! Very informative and well presented.

[@zenseekerEric]

Todd, you're the best. For real. You provide such a wonderful amount of helpful info in your videos, and you deliver it all with class and charm. Thank you!

[@richritter]

Nice review with good samples. I think I may now order this one instead of the 15-35! Thanks Todd for great comparisons.

[@accountability2000]

Another great review. Seriously, you are one of the better KZbinrs, who is a Canon shooter, providing non-bias and well-organized reviews with a high production level. Keep it up!

[@chuan-kangshih78]

Excellent review! This a model that all KZbinrs should emulate, almost every word is pertinent to what the viewer is interested in knowing, well organized content, clear and concise presentation.

[@jonashuck]

Excellent review. First review that answered interesting questions that actually matter. Thanks a lot!

[@fettslaveone]

Amazing review! I loved how you compared it to other lenses. Thank you!

[@TheElsematter]

Amazing Review! Thanks so much for the tests!

[@spl4028]

This was an awesome review Todd, thanks !

[@fromshadowlands]

My copy arrives early next week! Looking forward to it. Awesome review!

[@kevindiossi]

Todd, great video and you’re probably the first person I’ve seen make a proper video about this lens that actually understands it. There are really only 2 (maybe 3) areas that we can criticize this lens. The distortion correction needed and the price. Well, once the correction profiles are released, this won’t be relevant because the corrected end results are incredible. It’s obvious that Canon chose to create a lens that sees wider and then essentially correct away some of the worst parts of any wide angle lens - the edges. This helps with filters, as you clearly demonstrated. Many people think it’s more like a 16mm when corrected, but it is indeed a 14mm as it sees wider than my 15 and much wider than 16mm. Price will eventually come down, but I do believe it should have been a $1500 lens TOPS…I say that now, but I would literally buy a second one at $1700 because I find it so useful for work. P.S. your correction profiles just saved me HOURS of time during video correction last week and will do the same again this week. Very happy with my purchase.

[@colmeg]

Love the review! looking forward to getting one of my own. Cheers!

[@FranciscoAlvarezTV]

Great review, Todd. Loved everything about this video. Subbed!

[@dominey]

UPDATE (11/6/21): Latest version of Adobe Lightroom now includes lens correction profiles for this lens. UPDATE (9/19/21): A number of people have asked about losing field of view at 14mm when lens correction profiles are applied. 1) Check the video description for a download link to three example images - 14mm uncorrected, 14mm corrected, plus the original 14mm RAW file. I'm sharing these so you may see the difference in field of view when an ultra-wide angle image is corrected using Canon's profiles. 2) Is it really 14mm, or more like 15/16? A corrected 14mm image loses ~3% of the image around the corners and edges, so it's not possible to get a true, distortion-free 14mm shot. 3) In practical use, this boils down to keeping important information away from corners and edges. Just remember to give your image a little extra breathing room (by physically backing up a step) when shooting ultra-wide if corner detail is important.

[@trevor9934]

I provide support on the Canon Community site and my sources indicate that, like the RF 24-240, the RF 14-35 actually shoots a tad wider at its minimum FL, about 3mm, that includes the vignetting, and then the correction algorithms use that 3mm to make the optical corrections and render the FoV appropriate for the lens FL specs. This is really a fairy tame example of computational photography that has long been a hallmark of cell phones and is coming more and more to dedicated camera systems. It is a much more cost-effective and easily updated method of correction compared to putting a lot more glass in there. The way it is applied makes it really hard to pick up, which is really a good thing.

[@kellenholt6655]

I posted a rather critical comment about Canon on your video at the time of the release of this lens, but I will give them their due here - this is a strong performing lens, and the use cases you lay out are spot on - for anyone regularly shooting at f/8 or higher, there's no reason to spend the extra for the 15-35 f/2.8. This is truly the landscape/architecture/real estate photographers holy grail lens in terms of features. I still think Canon has some work to do in terms of offering non-L series offerings for RF mount, but you do get what you pay for when you buy the red ring in RF...

[@wcroth4518]

Very helpful review, especially your comprehensive qualifiers. (PS Enjoyed your Oregon & Iceland videos.)

[@dgc9301]

Very good review, really professional. Thanks.

[@deepgreenphotography]

Great review, Todd, both the info and the production! I'm just waiting for this lens to be in stock :-)

[@davidj.7906]

I LOVE shooting wide. My favorite lens, oddly enough, is a VERY cheap Canon 10-18 Crop Sensor lens, which translates to about 17MM on the low end on my Canon R. I also have another (very cheap) Sigma 12-24 that i like, but image quality is kinda cheesy at times. This 14-35 lens your reviewed is probably the ticket for me. Another GREAT review, Todd!

[@scottmanthey3549]

Very good and complete review. You picked up a new sub. Thanks.

[@cesarebonazza]

Great review absolutely spot on I do own this lens and use it on my R5 and don’t have any complaints. But what I will tell this is a hell of a lens for street Photography because is such a small zoom and so easy to use it.

[@2k9flash]

Very good and professional review, thx

[@JohnMacLeanPhotography]

Mine should be here tomorrow! I'll be comparing it to my EF 11-24 and 16-35 f/4. Looking forward to your review. Thanks!

[@arnolttbromanskie9733]

Thanks for testing this new lens with filters. I will upgrade from my beloved EF 17-40 L IS USM

[@Gil_Note]

Great review. I love it!

[@catalyst_6]

Best review I’ve seen of this lens. Thanks for your efforts and insights. You’ve earned a subscriber.

[@user-ze7rc1wc5x]

Great review! Thanks

[@CineDesi]

Hey Todd, just wanted to commend you on your thorough video. It's quite obvious the painstaking efforts you have gone through to make a high quality video and it's very much appreciated. I actually had this lens and initially really liked the weight and form factor, but decided to return it. I got obsessed with finding a way to Peter McKinnon my R5 and make it a vlogging tool, but realized the weight just made it not fun. Just like every millimeter at the wide end of the focal spectrum is more pronounced, every 10th of a pound matters for vlogging. And the combined weight of the R5 and 14-35mm didn't feel good to hold in selfie mode for extended periods even though the lens alone weighs only a pound. But I'm looking forward to the RF16mm which I've already pre-ordered! Anyway, again, thank you for the cool video. Even though I returned the lens, I just like gear videos, so it was fun to watch yours.

[@dominey]

Thanks! And yes, I hear you on vlogging. I recently reviewed the Canon 16mm hoping it would make the R5/R6 viable vlogging cameras. It certainly makes the camera lighter and easier to carry, but the IBIS doesn't work well.

[@spl4028]

This was fantastic, thanks!

[@jerrylags]

Nice review.thanks

[@blaizerb]

Great review.

[@markustappeser841]

Hi Todd, first i need to say, great video you showed the advantages and disadvantages of this lens. In general I need to say my rf lenses are, my opinion, great. Sharper than the ef counter parts, but also more expensive. But this lens now, I'm struggling, 800€ more expensive than the ef version. And with this "heavily" vignetting, that's an no go. And this post-correction, maybe I'm blind, but the corrected fotograph you showed is only a cropped fotograph (15mm, or 16mm). Anyway, the ef 16-35 f4 is sharp enough, I'll stick with here. Cheers

[@shupingyin8082]

Awesome review

[@lqr824]

To put a circular polarizer on wide-angles, I had a 77->82mm (I think) step-up adapter, then a pretty expensive Nikon polarizer that itself was a special thin design to avoid vignetting.

[@AugmentedGravity]

Looks so good

[@ianmeissner]

Great video! I wasn’t clear if the vignetting at 14mm could be corrected when you are shooting video?

[@njrivetelite]

I just ordered this from Adorama.. it is in stock. I needed a light wide angle lens that excels in photo and video.. My Tamron 15-30 2.8 G2 is a good lens.. bit has some distortion, I can't use normal filters, it's jerky with video.. plus it's a bit front heavy on my gimbal.. especially with an adapter. Stabilization is a plus as well. My ultrawide shots are generally above F/5.6 even in low light. I'm picking it up tomorrow in store.

[@SebastianBevanPhotography]

Great review, Thankyou , looks like I will be going shopping

[@dominey]

On sale! 400 off last I looked. 🤑

[@SebastianBevanPhotography]

@@dominey managed to order a brand new one for £1374.00, camera shop in UK, result

Congratulations, perfect video. What do you think about RF loawa 12mm f 2.8?

[@cnicholls1988]

Brilliant video, will be upgrading my 16-35mm EF mount to this lens now I've moved to an R6, liked and subscripted. thanks!

[@billrhea]

I will love this lens if I ever get it.

[@lqr824]

Nice review in all ways except the most important: compare and contrast vs. the 15-35/2.8.

[@migsflicks]

This review made me subscribe. Cheer

[@raulgolfs]

Great lens for vlogging! I got the 24-105 when I vlog and debating on weather the more expensive 2.8 is worth the price for vlogs and out golfing!

[@jessejayphotography]

I would say, no it wouldn't. The 24-105 is an excellent lens and with it on the R5 and especially R6 bumping up the ISO is not a problem. Depth of field...not that big of a difference between 2.8 and 4.

[@KevinNordstrom]

The 2.8 is significantly larger and heavier as well

[@DropbearDigital]

Thanks for the detailed review. You said it wasn’t the best for video… what RF lens would you recommend for video?

[@DRB-qz2vh]

Hi Todd, very well review. My question is will it be better to buy a new 14-35 mm than used 15-35 mm ? It happens to be in the same price range in my town.

[@hunglemed]

Next time please review the distortion of wide-angle lens, great video btw

[@zyncmaster427]

I'm curios to know if stacking two or three 77mm filters cause vignetting that cannot be corrected by the lens profile?

[@ironian24]

great video but as a landscape photographer myself I bought this lens and now I am trying to find a 150 size filter holder and ring adapter. any suggestions would be great.

[@frankanderson5012]

Very useful review. I was interested in this lens being a replacement to my EF17-40 lens, but was concerned about the vignetting. It would have been nice to see a before and after correction to see how the correction has effected the image as it is presumably cropping the image slightly, so would loose some of the additional focal length view?

[@dominey]

Yes, you do lose some image information in the corners and edges when barrel distortion is corrected. At least that's the case with Canon's lens correction profiles. I guess we'll wait and see if Lightroom, C1, DxO handle the lens differently. Glad you enjoyed the review!

[@matt79hz]

As a real estate shooter, without a second wide lens, this was a no brainer. Purchased after 5min research knowing my existing lens is a few yrs old and not wanting to get caught out with a failure.

[@dsa4931]

TAMRON HAS 10-24MM G2 ULTRAWIDE ANGLE LENS WHICH TOO CAN TAKE CIRCULAR FILTERS WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM . THAT LENS IS IN THE MARKET SINCE LONG. IN THAT TAMRON LENS ALSO THE GLASS DOES NOT BULGE OUT TO INTERFERE WITH THE FILTERS.

[@09goral]

How much of that focal length is cropped when you apply the barrel distortion correction? It looks like it cuts of A LOT.

[@bpatelphotography]

Nice review! I'm really curious about how this lens would be for interior videos captured on a gimbal. Anyone with some feedback?

[@markshirley01]

The price difference here in the UK from the grey importer I buy from between the 14 35 and the 15 35 is only £120 because the 14-35 is new - so itll only make sense in a year or so.

[@jdpst20]

I know this is an older video but I'm considering selling my RF 24-105mm F4 and buying BOTH the RF 14-35mm F4 & the RF 70-200mm F4. I always LOVE the 24-105 focal length as it pairs well with my R5C in both video and photos. I don't NEED F2.8 and if I want some portraits I have my trusty 50mm 1.8. I've owned both EF versions of the 24-105 on several cameras in the past as it's so versatile for walking around, travel ect. I just want something compact with a bit more reach. I would consider just adding the 100-500mm but I don't really NEED that much reach and it's massive compared to the 70-200F4. I do enjoy taking WIDE landscape photos too from time to time and I'm sure it will look great for focal length in 4k and 8k video as well. Sure I Could just get the 70-200 but really ONLY would be gaining 95mm of zoom and still limited at 24mm as my wide end. Where I can get two small lenses ADD 10mm on the wide end and achieve my reach goals. TEMPTING>

[@aassra]

If you are landscape photographer shooting towards the sun, the EF version of 16-35 F4 doesn't give you perfect sunstar like ES 16-35 F2.8, I am wondering how is the sunstar with 14-35 RF lens?

[@Pastry.Boy.Tim_]

Hey Todd, just saw your review. Can I say how well put this video was made? In comparison to other USM lenses, did you find that the Canon RF 14-35mm made any significant noises that were picked up in your video when shooting with autofocus? As someone who tried to shoot with the EF 16-35mm with a mount, I had a lot of trouble vlogging as my external mic would pick up the sound every time I was shooting on autofocus. Would love to know your thoughts!

[@browniepinoy]

Awesome review. The best there is. If you have the opportunity to get ahold of the rf 15-35 f2.8, can you please do a stills and video comparison video between those lenses?

[@dominey]

I would LOVE that. Maybe someone (*cough* Canon) would graciously send one out to me. ;)

[@andrewmayo7457]

Will this lens still get a vignette if on the R7 with a 1.6x crop factor?

[@JohnMacLeanPhotography]

4:52 what aperture were you at? I'm hoping LrC can correct this.

[@jessejayphotography]

Man, this is a killer landscape lens. Really has me thinking if the 15-35 is worth the extra money. A 14-35 and 70-200 F4 kit is super packable but the f2.8 lenses make the difference for video in a lot of cases, especially at dusk or dawn.

[@dominey]

Agreed, it's hard to pick. The 15-35 has similar coverage and a larger aperture, and might be better if you only wanted to bring a single lens. Or, if you're okay with two lenses, you could use the 14-35 and a separate prime lens with an even larger aperture (f/1.4) if shallow DoF is what you're after.

[@magiccarpetrider4594]

@@dominey Years ago I had a 70-200 f4LIS and loved it. My wide zoom was the 16-35LII ( handy but not amazing IQ) and I carried a fast 50. I soon replaced the f4 zoom for the 2.8LII and went to ALL Zeiss primes for the wide end. The weight of my bag got very heavy, so heavy that eventually (as I got older with bad joints) I didn't carry the 2.8 zooms at all. I had to give that prologue. I just sold my 5D4, picked up an R5 to go with an R I tried, primarily for focus peaking benefits, and living with adapted EF lenses. I'll never sell the Zeiss primes, but I just picked up the RF70-200f4, and I'll pick up this 14-35f4 soon. I'll still take a fast 50 and be done for street work and travel. If I know what I'm shooting, or studio, I'll have all the subject-isolating f2 Zeiss's. For all the trashing of these RF lenses that rely on in-camera rather than optical corrections/perfection, there's a place for this in my 3-lens bag.

[@DDCyprus1Click]

Can this lens be use for virtual tours(360 photos) with Multirow pano head??? How many photos will be needed for a 360 photo?

[@gusthecanonrebel]

I wonder how the vignetting will be with a larger filter on the face Sorry not done with the whole video so I may have this answered later as I watch but thought I should note that

[@michael0803aa]

Really like this review! I can feel you put the effort to make unbiased comments and suggestions! I really want to buy this lens, but it's smaller aperture at F4 makes it a bit harder for astrophotography. Do you have any suggestions on RF lense around this price range to achieve that?

[@dominey]

Thanks. :) For astrophotography you may be better off with a prime lens with a larger aperture (f/1.4) so the shutter speed doesn't have to be as slow (which can cause stars to drag and get blurry). I don't have a lot of experience with astro but I've always been under the impression you need bigger apertures than f/4 and f/2.8.

[@YanFries]

Learn to use a star tracker and get the f4 zoom. Best of versatility and image quality

[@DangLeProject92]

Are you recommend this 14-35 f4 or 16mm 2.8 for wedding photographer?

[@archascents5157]

how does it compare to the z 14-30 f/4?

[@Indyk12pl]

What lens y recomend for recording? Y sey the are better chooses

[@lovelawns]

Hey Todd, fantastic video thank you for sharing your thoughts. Just wondering if you noticed any of the corner wobble in video at wider focal lengths like the 15-35 has..? Thanks mate.

[@dominey]

I haven't tested the 15-35, but I know what you're talking about. There is corner wobble on the 14-35 when shooting handheld video with IS turned on at wide angle focal lengths. Hard to decide in that instance whether stabilized wobble or shaky footage is better.

[@lovelawns]

@@dominey thanks for your reply Todd, much appreciated mate. 👍🏻

[@nomad0714]

@@dominey, sorry coming to this video late. I don’t have either the 15-35 or 14-35 to test but if the wobble is on both, can you try turning off the OIS on the lens and the Digital IS in camera. Then it’s only the hardware IBIS and it doesn’t have to fight with the other stabilization. I wonder if that works. I know the other way around works as that’s how Canon has decided to implement the R5C and remove the IBIS. So you only have the OIS lens + Digital IS that the operator can control to turn on or off as needed. The hardware IBIS cannot be turned off. So I would definitely choose handheld shake over wobble stabilization because you can add warp stabilizer or use a gimbal to stabilize the footage. I don’t know how to get rid of the wobble unless you crop in from 14-15mm to 24-26mm. Would appreciate if you can test this and let me know as I’m looking to add the 15-35 to my lens kit as I’m using EF lenses with the metabones speedbooster and getting 1.13x crop but if the stabilization, IQ, and AF is better, maybe it’s time to change to RF lenses with more affordable options

[@MikeChudley]

I'd love to know what your audio setup is. This video sounds amazing haha.

[@dominey]

Check my videos on my channel. There’s a video in there about audio for KZbin that includes my setup.

[@BenMarar]

Nice review. I wish you were compared it with EF16-35 on the wide end. Wondering if the 14 is true 14mm after correction. Thanks

[@lqr824]

Canon (and I assume all manufacturers) have a specific cheat factor they use. You'll see in a Canon patent that compares say three 400mm designs, they're all actually 386.73mm or something. I don't think any lens labeled 14mm is actually 14mm. While you lose another 3% or so in correction, that's probably true of any other lens at 14mm too. I shot my old 14/2.8 a scary amount in the 90s and loved it, but the question isn't "is it really 14mm?" It may have been say 14.88mm or something, almost 15mm, but then the 17-35 was really almost 18mm so the DIFFERENCE was still there.

[@bentonbrightwell8953]

The rings aren’t just closer because of the nature of the lens - they’re closer e cause canon moved the switches on most of their new RF lenses to before the zoom ring, placing them closer to the body, and putting the zoom ring up against the manual focus ring. Compared to EF lenses, the switches were often found between the zoom and manual focus rings, leaving some free space on the barrel separating them. This is something that really annoys me about the new RF design.

[@mordavian]

Is it worth to upgrade from Ef16-35 f4?

[@Totte.Lundgren]

Nice review. The price tho.. Might as well get the 2.8

[@villageblunder4787]

If it's cropped, is it still 14mm?

[@scottmanthey3549]

Note, the link you provided for purchasing the lens goes to the 2.8 version not the F4 lens you reviewed. Just thought you should know.

[@shawnbrockman9729]

Why are you talking at me like my 6th grade science teacher?...God video sir.

[@paullooper1090]

No distance gauge on the lens?

[@Tainted-Soul]

Thank you for the review Ive been trying to pick which one to get the RF15-35 F2.8 or the F14-35 f4 . Ive got to say the cost difference Im not thinking of . I agree that for the most part it will be used with a F8 for either , but ..... yes I cant stop thinking would I need the F2.8 sometime ? also is the 14-35 as sharp as the 15-35 cause that is what matters if they are so close then the smallest lightest F4 is what ill get but if the F2.8 is sharper then it looks like my bag is getter heavier . but as it will be replacing the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 G2 which also heavy lol

[@stefan4831]

I'm just baffled at how huge the difference is on the examples you gave. No way this is only 3%. If you look at the tree on the top right hand corner you can see what a large chunk is cut out to allow for distortion correction. I wonder if there is even 16mm we're left with let alone 15mm? Also, you mention the extreme vignetting is optical whereas apparently it is "fysical", the data simply isn't even there. So I am really in doubt about the real usage of the lens and your review seems not to address any of the most important issues

[@Tainted-Soul]

@@stefan4831 I don't know but I went for the RF 15-35 f2.8 in the end it's great so if your in doubt don't be.

[@njrivetelite]

While my Tamron 15-30 2.8 G2 has served me well, the bulbous front end keeps me from adding filters. Plus it's bigger than my 24-70 2.8 and nearly as heavy as my EF 70-200 2.8 IS III.. And for what I do.. I shoot at F5.6, F8, F11 mostly. Plus I'd like the slight boost in focal range of the 14-35 F4 which Is also is more compact & lighter. It would be worth it to upgrade.

[@ralphsaad8637]

I'm thinking about buying a Tamron 15-30mm as it is getting cheaper. Would you recommend it for someone who's on a budget and seeking the F2.8 aperture?

[@njrivetelite]

@@ralphsaad8637 it's a great lens as long as you are ok with Not using filters, and ok with it being large and almost as weighty as a 70-200 2.8 IS III I do get fantastic results from it though.

[@njrivetelite]

@@ralphsaad8637 well.. I'm selling mine now that I bought this 14-35mm.. It's great for photos... I primarily used it for real estate and It's gotten me on many agents request list. Note* it's a heavy lens. I am doing a lot more video shot on a gimbal lately and needed a lighter lens.. the Tamron makes my ronin s motors cry a bit lol.

[@Guio95]

Is it just me or... You have the exact same voice of Dwight from the Office? :D

[@trevor9934]

Thank you for your excellent and very balanced reviews, which I always look to. I have had the RF 14-35L for about a year now and use it mostly for landscape, architectural and getting images in some really, really cramped places. I don't do those kinds of shots often enough to want to spend the extra for the f/2.8 unit and I don't need the extra stop. I recently had to use it to get photos of a bio researcher doing work with their arms inside a protective plexiglass case while they and I were on the outside. For that I really needed the 14mm, and used it with a circular polarizing filter to reduce the otherwise massive reflections on the canopy and protective glasses of the brightly-lit experiment. It worked perfectly.

[@mma171]

My RF 14-35 lens cuts off the corners at 14mm when hand holding with IS on but doesn't when on a tripod with IS off.

[@garycanazzi5304]

Have you tried it handheld with the "Digital IS" setting on the body turned off? It may make a difference.

[@thenostomaniac2571]

Hey, Todd. great summary. FYI, the links go to the 15-35, not the 14.

[@dominey]

Oh my - THANK YOU for catching that and letting me know! 🙏

[@brianbeattyphotography]

I still love using my 16-35. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see enough of a difference in IQ at overlapping focal lengths to justify the big price increase. 14mm would be nice, but 16mm already feels very wide for 99% of cases when I'm out shooting.

[@dominey]

I hear ya. I own the 16-35 f4 as well. Great lens. One big difference is weight, for the 16-35 is chunkier, plus the weight of the adapter. That plus the slightly wider focal length and sharper optics are the main things I notice. Otherwise, can’t go wrong with the 16!

[@brianbeattyphotography]

@@dominey Yeah, I can see a huge benefit to the weight savings. Possibly if I need a replacement in the future!

[@robgerety]

Does the lens correction software just reduce the lens to a 15 in stead of 14 a practical matter?

[@dominey]

You lose some field of view when correction distortion at just about any wide angle angle focal length. So if an image was shot at 15mm, it too would lose some bits of information in the corners and edges.

[@melvinjohnson7033]

A lot of money for a lens with distortion so nasty at the wide end that the in camera distortion correction is forced on for JPEC with the resulting loss of resolution. The RF 15-30 is even worse so you will have to accept lower resolution. For an optically corrected wide lens thats needs minimal digital correction for a crutch go with the RF 15-35 f/2.8

[@KaiTiura]

Your product link goes to the RF 15-35 f/2.8 lens...

[@asystasyorg]

Also worth remembering that EF lenses are essentially obsolete insofar as they're being phased out and will eventually no longer be supported by Canon (and others). Good reason to future proof!

[@hunterVworld]

Hi, May I ask if this lens is suitable to shoot astro photos, milky way, and northern lights?

[@hunterVworld]

Or 15-35 F2.8 would be better for the above mentioned?

[@Cherub72]

you linked the wrong lens in your description

[@chris-nj3vg]

Are these real 14 mm after Adobe’s correction?

[@frostybe3r]

Sold my RF 15-35 and got this

[@nativesugarshack9328]

Great review! I use the EF 16-35 because I need the ND behind the lens. If you check my channel you’ll see that I shoot under very bright LED full spectrum lights. A front mounted ND reflects the light bars on video. If I could solve that I’d upgrade to this RF. Thanks for the great review!!

[@robmcd]

I need to vent. Canon really needs to release a 24 and 35 1.4 L before these fancy lenses! Lol

[@davidlee9153]

I REALLY like this review BUT you made one mistake. The focus is "Nano USM" not USM and yes there is a difference :) I do own the RF 14-35 f4 it replaced my EF 16-35 f4

[@Abdi_Mohamed_]

Such a shame about the price, as a R6 shooter I was genuinely hoping it would be around 1100 mark at this price you might sswell get the canon 15-35 Guess I’ll be looking at the prime RF 16mm f/2.8 😔

[@dominey]

Agreed. Looking forward to more affordable RF lenses.

[@MrDvaz]

is it really 24...many users report that it actually is a 16....

[@steveb013]

hi Todd, you did put a filter holder and square filter in front ? its vignetting ?

[@dominey]

I did. I used the PolarPro Summit. In the uncorrected RAW image there was more mechanical vignette than a circular filter, but again when barrel distortion was corrected in Canon's software the black edges went away. This might be an issue for someone who wants to KEEP the natural distortion, but I would imagine most people would want their ultra wide angle images corrected.

[@steveb013]

@@dominey ok thanks It seems to be more thick than my nisi v6 , do you only see it at 14mm, and also when the image corrrected in dpp do you think that the image become a 16mm instead of a 14 or it was maybe a 12-13mm before corrected and after dpp become a 14? Do you think that canon have think of that before with the vignetting ?