Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8L REVIEW: Best wide zoom for EOS R

[@cameralabs]

My complete review of the Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8L vs EF 16-35mm f2.8L! Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/2xXev2n // WEX: tidd.ly/6c0c90c0 Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Cameralabs merch: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop

[@3BMEP]

Always appreciate your reviews, Gordon.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks Hugh! Hope you're keeping well, it was nice to see you on Andrew and Denae's recent video!

[@maxwellwellmax878]

Hold That Thought!!!

[@3BMEP]

Gordon Laing Right back at you, Gordon!

[@3BMEP]

Maxwell Wellmax 😊👍🏻🖖🏻

[@PPYTAO]

Optical quality aside, the new RF lenses hardware design language is beautiful 👌They really do look next gen. Another great review :)

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, and I agree on the design front too!

[@JedimEmO]

This lens is a beast. It only leaves my EOS R for when I need to use the 85 for portraits, I use this for everything else. It is also a very good 4k lens for the EOS R specifically, since it delivers a very good image, and the width lets you compensate for the 4k crop.

[@adude394]

I was lucky enough to find a used 15-35 for a great price at B&H, and immediately added it to my kit. It just came yesterday, and I'm in love.

[@j.adanga9787]

Fantastic Gordon yet again. Thankyou for your thorough tests and demos. The EF comparisons are perfect.

[@mohakhu]

Excellent Review, I have R6, and I was hesitant to buy RF 15-35mm because it's very expensive, but I need this wide-angle 💔; I found 16-35mm (almost new) with half the price (1250$), so your Review makes me buy it (with the adapter of course). Thanks so much Gordan 🙏

[@arthurmermelshtein1767]

Good review as always Gordon. If I didn't have the 16-35 L EF this would be the first RF lens of the "trinity" I'd buy.

[@tunggf]

Nice review Mr.Gordon. But you should put the "IS" in the title of the video. I remembered it has IS & I have made a quick look on Canon website. It is true, this lens has IS.

[@cameralabs]

It does have IS and I've tested it in the video. There's only one RF 15-35mm f2.8 and I don't think there'll be another without IS, so we're safe for now!

[@cagf2013]

No mention of vignetting?

[@TayouTroy]

Great review thanks, I'm buying that lens tomorrow

[@NewTechGuatemala]

just bought it, and it is perfect for my type of work.

[@GregThurtle]

great review Gordon. appreciate the time taken on this review! My thoughts are Digital stabilisation still seems prone to big shifts when you are walking - maybe you have similar stealthy footsteps to me :D It's interesting that all the new RF zooms have moved away from internal focusing to favour a moving barrel - maybe the dust ingress isn't the issue many think it is? for RF owners seems a no-brainer - going to be interesting to see how these lenses are on a 40+ mpx sensor or the mythical r5

[@cameralabs]

Thanks Greg, yes I was surprised to find the extending barrel again. i wonder if this is an RF design strategy, we'll see on future models. I'm enjoying going back and testing them, so maybe I'll do the other models too.

[@exploringsouthernjapan3890]

Great review Gordon. I've been using this lens for the past few months and concur with your findings.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! I really enjoyed shooting with it - do you have any of the other Rf lenses?

[@exploringsouthernjapan3890]

@@cameralabs The only other RF lens I have is the RF 35mm 1.8 and I always have this lens with me.

[@cameralabs]

@@exploringsouthernjapan3890 I like that 35mm.

[@AyushDj]

Best review yet!!! Thank you Sir! 🙏

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@sethmoyer]

I wonder how the IS in this compares to the IS in the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS. I've heard good things about the stabilization in both.

[@SinaFarhat]

Thanks for a great review! I used the 16-35 2.8 mark II on a canon 1dx mark 1 and I love the ultra wide look! Keep up the good work and stay sane!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! I lost my sanity a long time ago

[@jerryeisner1]

@@cameralabs You are as Sane as a Saint in my book!

[@TheMagdiragdag]

Great review (as always) and I think Canon is on the right track again, especially when this type of lenses is used on the upcoming R5; the F2.8 trinity is very good, pricy, but good. What I must say about the stabilization: It is good, but I can't help being more and more impressed with the IBIS of my Olympus system. And no: this is not meant as Canon bashing or opening the boring discussion about MFT vs Full frame, it is just something I notice. Curious what it will be with the R5 when the optical stabilization will be paired with the IBIS of the R5.

[@cameralabs]

Yes, I find the IBIS on the Olympus bodies bets of all, but equally they are only shifting a smaller sensor.

[@thepanel2935]

Price is a _secondary_ consideration for me. All I need to know is the lens's *_performance_* and its abilities *compared to earlier versions* of similar lenses such as the 16-35/2.8 III.

[@cameralabs]

I show that

[@justin-botha]

great video! this lens is sooo tempting! im currently using a mark 1 16-35 and I've been trying to pluck up the courage to upgrade, as I got my EOS RP recently, I was speaking with the canon live chat and they told me that this lens is also image stabilised, after watching your video I think im going to make the jump!

[@cameralabs]

I really liked it! PS - if you're ordering online, consider using my price check links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!

[@DevinePhotography]

Gordon, nice review as always! Another alternative super wide angle worth mentioning is the Sigma Art 14-24 mm f2.8. I own the Sigma and use it adapted on the EOS R. I am still amazed at just how sharp the Sigma is corner to corner throughout the zoom range at virtually every aperture from F2.8 through f16! It does not have IS but for all but a few IS will probably make little difference. The Sigma is also about half the price of the Canon! Keep up the good work.

[@cameralabs]

Yes that is a good option too. I wonder if Sigma will do native Rf in the future. I would guess so.

[@lowrider130]

I'd love to see a detailed comparison of this Sigma. I know the RF glass is crazy sharp, but I also like the idea of the Sigma with the filter adapter. The R is my first FF body since my film days, so I'm most interested in how often I'd miss the ability to hit 35mm without switching lenses.

[@cameralabs]

@@lowrider130 don't forget I have loads of detailed lens reviews at www.cameralabs.com/sigma-lenses/

[@shieldaigbencher]

I am sorry, I have used both, and the Canon lens destroys the Sigma on every level on all EOS R cameras.

[@sidbrun_]

How does this compare to other brands like Sony/Nikon? From what I gather, Sony's 24-70mm f/2.8 G Master lens is somewhat soft compared to Canon's EF/RF 24-70mm offerings (Which are tack sharp especially the RF) so I wonder if it's the same story here.

[@pushpdeeppandey]

Hi Gordon! Been a sub for some time. Your videos are always amazing and this is the 2-3rd time I'm revisiting this one. I had the 16-35 f4 and planning on shifting to the 1535. Could you share some findings on if I would be paying a price (in terms of sharpness) when shooting landscapes?

[@mikewinburn]

You've done it again, Gordon! Excellent job. My 2pence: none of the stabilization modes are "really effective" when moving, though I must say, the "digital stabilization" is almost as ineffective as being completely unstabilized. The picture quality looks almost the same btwn the EF and the RF version. RF clearly has benefits making it a better choice with th R SYSTEM. But not sure it would be worth upgrading to if one owns the orig version... but an easy win for the price for those upgrading to the R system who don't own the EF version. I keep hoping canon will be able to reach the IBIS quality of my Sony AX-53... when on, now THATS stabilization for video.

[@martian-sunset]

The RF lens IS and camera's digital optimization turned on together produced excellent results and handily bested the EF lens with camera D-IS only. Would have been curious to see if that "enhanced" digital IS would have made a difference. I suspect not.

[@cameralabs]

I find enhanced stabilisation doesn't offer much more to my kind of camera shake but YMMV

[@barlehner8011]

Is it possible to turn off IBIS completely? And whether the WOBEL was caused by IBIS or the wide angle. I want to buy an R5 and that's right what keeps me from buying and debating whether to buy the SONY A7 iv Or R6 instead of what I look like. (I do not currently have a make or camera but I am not a beginning photographer

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

Optical IS definitely trumps digital. Digital and optical combined are the best, but the image jumps when you pan. I look forward to seeing how mechanical IBIS works on the R5 and R6, especially combined with optical lens IS. That said, if I get an RF body I'm keeping the 16-35 F/4 L IS I already have.

[@Lunstagramer]

‌ Another quality review as usual ! :-) ‌

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@AugmentedGravity]

Probably the greatest ultrawide zoom ever made regardless of system

[@cameralabs]

It's certainly up there!

[@p_adam19]

Quite surprising how well the electronic IS works on its own with the EF 16-35/2.8 III I've seen in an other video that it is actually better than the EF 16-35/4 with IS and this confirms it.

[@cameralabs]

It can work well for some things. Certainly a useful option.

[@edadan]

Excellent review!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! Hope you enjoy my other RF lens reviews!

[@capture_the_stoke9646]

Hi Gordon, did you compare the rf14-35 f4? would like to know your thoughts on how the f4 version holds up against this one..

[@cameralabs]

I'm testing it now but in the meantime I have some results in my RF 16 review already.

[@jetle2009]

what is the book used in 5:02 for the stabilization shot?

[@cameralabs]

It's an old Agfa type reference book! I used to be a real font nerd.

[@bnkakl]

hi gordon! i just bought this lens 10 days back - and i feel this with the r5, underexposes by about a stop! is this a character of the lens? quite frustrating! have you noticed anything similar while using/testing the lens? am i doing something wrong? Cheers! TIA!

[@cameralabs]

Hi, I didn't notice that, but then I've only tested it on the body in the video. It shouldn't underexpose on the R5, but maybe check the metering mode? Sorry I can't be more illuminating!

[@sergioconceicao2774]

hello, you can use 100mm filters?

[@doug_EX]

The 15-35 seems almost parfocal. Did you notice this also?

[@michaelwhiles5282]

Another stunning design - Canon are on a roll with their new R system. Sadly rather expensive but it shows what can be made - are you keeping up Nikon ? Great review - Keep safe, keep well Gordon.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@truckernige]

ho Gordon.. vey nice review and comparison.. well done sir.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@barlehner8011]

And if the WOBEL only appears at wide angles and I buy the 15-35 and turn off the stabilizer, I will not use the WOBEL, so it frees me from the fetch, right? In the rest of the long lenses I do not have the IBIS stabilizer will be without WOBEL because it will be from 50mm and up.

[@cameralabs]

On the Canon system you can either have ALL stabilisation enabled or all disabled.

[@nomad0714]

@@cameralabs, There are 3 stabilization on R5/R6: - IBIS, which is hardware or a.k.a. sensor shift stabilization cannot be turned off; and - OIS, which is stabilization on the lens and can be turned off with the switch as you’ve shown on the video; and - DIS, this is software and can be turned off when switched to video mode (menu -> camera -> tab 7 -> IS mode -> Off/On/Enhanced It seems on the wide end (15-24mm), it wobbles but is stabilized footage, so I think there is only two ways to deal with this: - shoot 24mm or above (if possible); and - try turning off OIS and DIS so the IBIS does not get confused and if there isn’t enough stabilization, use a gimbal Note: this pertains to video only and only my assumptions as I don’t have the 15-35/2.8 but I do have the 16-35/4 with IS with EF to RF adapter. Hope you can test out my assumption if you still have this lens. Keep the good contents coming!

[@cameralabs]

@@nomad0714 actually that's an interesting idea: compare 24mm without much IS vs 15mm with everything turned on... I'm publishing my long-overdue 14-35 review today, so it's too late for that one, but maybe for a future one...

[@nomad0714]

@@cameralabs, great. Would appreciate that to see if the wobble goes away either at 24-26mm or if you turn off OIS and DIS at 15mm and see if the IBIS does not acted up and wobble. Then at least we know how to workaround the wobble. Thank you!

[@ApertureApex]

This video made my day :)) Thanks Gordon

[@cameralabs]

I made it just for you!

[@wpkambiancesounds]

Thank you Gordon. Waiting on the EF version but i was second guessing if i should have bought the 15-35. After this comparison, i don't see a huge difference between the two lenses besides the wider field of view. With the R and the digital is i think i would be ok. Thanks again.

[@AugmentedGravity]

I'd deffinitely buy this, the RF obe over any of the EF versions.

[@cameralabs]

As I mentioned in the verdict, if you had neither, I'd go for the RF, but if you already have the EF - even if it's still on its way - I think you'd still be very happy with it.

[@AugmentedGravity]

@@cameralabs Yeah deffinitely. I would go as far as to try to sell the EF version if i have an EOS R camera though. I just hate the need for an adapter mainly because it makes the lens so much longer and stuff. I like having native lenses i guess.

[@wpkambiancesounds]

@@AugmentedGravity Well with the ef, ill be able to mounted on my APSC cameras. With the RF, for odvious reasons i won't.

[@AugmentedGravity]

@@wpkambiancesounds Well if you have an APSC camera in addition to your R then yes.

[@davidanderson8381]

Thank you for the excellent test of the extreme corners. This is often ignored yet a common issue with zooms.

[@mirasga]

Are you going to review the RF 14-35mm F4L?

[@cameralabs]

I'm actually doing it now!

[@mirasga]

@@cameralabs can't wait to see it!

[@cameralabs]

@@mirasga can't wait to finish it!

[@nigelwest3430]

Obviously this is an old video BUT I'm hoping I might get a reply (From Gordon) I'm purely an amateur who shoots for fun, I have the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 (Latest one) I'm thinking of getting the RF15-35, In your opinion, In the real world will I notice the difference ?

[@cameralabs]

You'll get better focusing, wider coverage, constant f2.8, and I would think slightly better quality too.

[@PanzerIV88]

Very good review as always! While this is the most impressive wide-angle lens I've seen, it is also the priciest so it is to be expected. However when you consider the Tokina being 2000$CAD instead of 3000$CAD which is already a lotttt less, then toss away that IS which you don't need as much on a wide angle and even less with a camera with IBIS such as the new R6, and then you get to the 8 years old (Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 AT-X Pro FX) I bought for about only 800$CAD back then! Honestly how can you justify more than twice the price just for 1-2mm + IS is beyond me :\

[@modeverything9949]

Great video sir

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@maxipadthai]

RF looks amazing wide open.

[@cameralabs]

It's a quality lens alright!

[@shieldaigbencher]

Brilliant lens. Bloody expensive though and I believe there is a newer lighter cheaper L series lens with similar focal legnth zoom. I have the 2.8 so I'm not buying the f4 but if I didn't, I would buy the cheaper L lens.

[@akagodofheaven]

RF seems a bit .. Soft Especially on the ruler example, check the 200 on the right

[@cameralabs]

Yes it did look a fraction softer, but it wasn't decisively so, and this was with both lenses pushed right up to the absolute minimums.

[@NicoManansala]

They put fcpx digital inside the lens..this is same aha

[@matthewsequoyah2665]

If you have a 24-70 why would you need a 15-35 zoom? The majority of usage with this lens would be at the widest setting so Just get a 16mm prime and save a ton of money, weight and space! 😃👍📸

[@benharveyphotography]

I have already sold all my spare organs....damn I should have saved some of them!

[@cameralabs]

It's that tough moment when you start to look at the rest of the family...

[@esphilee]

Canon lenses are much better when shooting into the sun and creating sun star. Nikon lenses suffer from flare, and no sun star.

[@wpkambiancesounds]

Did you know that to get a sun star you need to be at f16 f22? Maybe you know that but just in case.

[@okaro6595]

It costs more than my entire system.

[@ryanyu5051]

Let’s keep the ZERO dislike

[@cameralabs]

Really, no dislikes? That is unusual, but then it's not had as many views as I'd hoped.

[@yosefco]

the EF lens seem to be sharper. for landscape photographers who uses filter system - the EF is much better, because the lens is not extended.

[@cameralabs]

Did you watch the part where the EF was definitely NOT sharper? Also, why would a lens that extends a little affect a filter system? I use the Lee system all the time and it doesn't get in the way...

[@yosefco]

@@cameralabs I did. But in my eyes the ef looked sharper. Regarding the system - ok, didnt know that.

[@kingsamvisuals]

Yosef Cohen but you’re watching compressed KZbin video while he has the raw files

[@ahmonon4352]

EF 16-35 produces significantly smoother bokeh

[@cameralabs]

In my test or your test?

[@ahmonon4352]

@@cameralabs your. RF bokeh looks harsh to my eyes

[@aus_vlog]

omg this lens IS is so bad... $4000 AUD.....

[@kodyadams5561]

CANON RF LENSES ARE THE BEST LENSES ON THE MARKET, YES THEY ARE EXPENSIVE, BUT THEY ARE MADE WITH ULTRA HIGH PREMIUM GLASS, YOU PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET. GET CANON R6 WITH RF 15-35 f/2.8 RF 28-70 f2 , RF 70-200 f/2.8 AND YOU HAVE A GREAT SET TO LAST A LIFE TIME.