Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS: Definitive Review | 4K
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 жов 2020
- Build and Handling 03:31 | IS Performance 10:38 | Autofocus Performance 11:45 | Image Quality 14:10 | Summation 29:13 | Read the Text Review: bit.ly/RF15_35LReview | Visit the Image Gallery: bit.ly/RF15_35IG | Purchase a Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo bhpho.to/3ddlrJ3 | Amazon amzn.to/36Ncc13 | Camera Canada shrsl.com/2jqu0 | Amazon Canada amzn.to/2GNEJsC | Amazon UK amzn.to/3lykIp1 | Amazon Germany amzn.to/36MAWXc | Ebay bit.ly/RF15_35
Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo bhpho.to/3iMH18x | Amazon amzn.to/33L3D53 | Camera Canada shrsl.com/2jqth | Amazon Canada amzn.to/3iEo6wE | Amazon UK amzn.to/3jLHol4 | Amazon Germany amzn.to/3nxaE1h | Ebay bit.ly/EOSR5dla
Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo bhpho.to/3lrufxW | Amazon amzn.to/2GEVd6o | Camera Canada shrsl.com/2jqu9 | Amazon Canada amzn.to/3dh7kTk | Amazon UK amzn.to/3dbD0sY | Amazon Germany amzn.to/36NG8Kp | Ebay bit.ly/RF70_200
Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at:
B&H Photo: bhpho.to/1TA0Xge
Ebay: bit.ly/DustineBay
Make a donation via Paypal: paypal.me/dustinTWI
Get a discount off all Skylum Editing Software (Luminar, Aurora HDR, AirMagic) by using code DUSTINHDR at checkout: bit.ly/LuminarDLA
Become a Patron: / dustinabbott | Check me out on: Personal Website: dustinabbott.net/ | Sign up for my Newsletter: bit.ly/1RHvUNp | Instagram: bit.ly/DLAinsta | Google+: bit.ly/24PjMzv | Facebook: on. 1nuUUeH | Twitter: bit.ly/1RyYxIH | Flickr: bit.ly/1UcnC0B | 500px: bit.ly/1Sy2Ngu
My filming setup: Sony a7R III: B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2D6ibNO, Camera Canada shrsl.com/2ikpr, or Amazon: amzn.to/2CNxOvH | or | Sony a9 @ B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2HyWIyt, Camera Canada shrsl.com/2ikpx, or Amazon: amzn.to/2s1vYE0
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2FA00la, Camera Canada shrsl.com/2ikq2, or Amazon amzn.to/2G2kaEr
Lights: Rotolight AEOS @B&H Photo bhpho.to/2IK7mqV | Genaray Contender @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/33HbGNM | and Aputure AL-MW: bhpho.to/2N3MtZV
DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Keywords: Canon 15-35, 15-35mm, RF 15-35, 15-35L, 15-35mm, F2.8L, IS, USM, Review, RF 15-35L Review, Canon EOS R5, EOS, R5, EOS R5, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R5 Review, Canon R5 Review, Canon EOS R5 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Dynamic Range, Tracking, Focus, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, Astro, 45Mpx, RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS, Canon - Наука та технологія
DA's reviews are one of the only ones you should be taking seriously. A professional, working photographer that has extensively used gear in the field, as opposed to UA-camrs testing them out.
Thanks for the nice feedback.
He is about the only one I pay strict attention to. I'm comfortable that he gives honest opinions.
DA's reviews are excellent, and have guided a fair few of my purchasing decisions so thanks again to Dustin for the great content. But, UA-camrs testing and doing reviews can also provide a lot of value I think. I'm happy to hear what someone who uses cameras, lenses and makes videos for a living has to say about gear. The level of detail compared to DA's reviews are often worlds apart but some UA-camrs have some very good b-roll sections which show how the lens/camera performs in cinematic sequences which I find very useful. Of course, for those with no interest in video than I can understand why that wouldn't be of much use. But for the definitive review, you're always coming back to DA's channel 😉.
Totally agree, Dustin has a great delivery and plenty of great info on gear. Gordon Laing out of Brighton in the UK is also excellent. Always worth hearing their thoughts on gear when considering what suits you best.
As always Dustin, fantastic insight and balanced, practical perspectives. Thankyou
My pleasure. This is meaningful feedback to me, as it is what I strive for.
Great review! This will be my next lens. Thank you for the time, research, and effort you put into all of your reviews. Always objective reviews. Always the best.
My pleasure!
Sir, I am blown away by the quality of your reviews, thank you!
Glad you like them!
Thanks Dustin. I have the R5 and 24-105L f4 under the Xmas tree. Looking forward to upgrading my 16-35 2.8 mk1 to this hopefully by summer
Lucky you!!
Great and honest review always.. Thank you !
My pleasure!
I’ve owned this lens for two weeks and it has not since been unmounted. I own the 11-24 and the 16-35iii and this lens impresses me so much zoomed out and in, with superlative contrast and sharpness in the middle, and great sharpness in the corners , in a more compact package than the 11-24 plus IS to boot! Absolutely incredible lens - I will need another body to mount my other lenses since this one is likely to stay on permanently. I will still keep the 11-24 until the RF version arrives.
I'm glad you are enjoying the lens so much!
Great review! Would loved to see your thoughts on RF 28-70mm f2/L. Keep up the good work!
I do hope to get to it in the new year. I'm doing the 24-70 F2.8 right now.
So sad that you're not doing Nikkor reviews Dustin, would love to have your high quality vids there as well. As always, thanks so much for your very detailed work!
I'm afraid I don't have time nor money to invest in Nikon as well. This isn't my main job; I also have a full time job besides reviews.
Thanks for your work, it’s serious and very useful. I would love a review of the rf 70-200 2.8 !
Then check back next week!
@@DustinAbbottTWI I purchased that lens, along with a RF 24-105 F4, with my R5, which was ordered on its release date. I do love its size! I already had an EF 70-200 2.8 II, and have a Tammy 24-70 G2, but those were the two RF lenses that caught my interest....Duplicated? Yeah... but I passed on the expensive 150-500 as I have the Tammy 150-600 G2 (and an EF 500 f/4 II)
Thanks for the review!
In previous times I never was happy with Canon's wide angle options (beside the relatively new 16-35 Mark III).
This is a solid workhorse with some minor flaws I can live with easily.
So far the new RF lens lineup is developing impressive, the L-part of it expensive as well.
Canon got a lot better with wide angle lenses starting with the 16-35mm F4L IS.
Great review! Looking forward to, and hoping your do a comparison against the upcoming 14-35mm F4L lens.
It looks like I should have the 14-35 soon.
Sounds great! Do you usually get the lenses before the official release? I’d love to see a comparison - strengths weaknesses - against the RF15-35L and EF16-35 F4L. What is the better all round lens, sharpness, vignetting, coma (for night aurora shooting), and overall better for landscape photography.
Thank you Dustin for another thorough and informative review, very much appreciated. If I do purchase a Canon EOS R5 this lens will certainly be considered. I have used the mentioned Tamron 15-30mm on a Nikon DSLR and I was very impressed with it, great glass and handling with the AF and IS ON/OFF buttons very easy to locate while eye in the viewfinder.
I think the Tamron is still a nice budget alternative.
Great review, thanks! I have been somewhat ill so need to catch up watching your videos 🙂. I don't have a wide-angle lens at all, but I will buy some fast wide-angle prime to fill the cap below 24-70mm.
Sorry to hear you've been sick!
Thanks for the great review. After a long wait, I decided on the RF 15-35. Bought new on sale. There was only a $250 difference compared to the Rf 14-35. One of the reasons why I took 2.8. First time in my life.
That's not a huge difference in price, for sure.
Brilliant review.
Thank you
Excellent !!!
Glad you like it!
Thank you Dustin. Looking to get a RF native lens for my R6. I have the control ring with a bunch of EF lens. Trying get a prime that i can gimbal and just keep on the lens at all times. Very detailed review.
I'm glad I could help.
Another good round up as usual, I have to say looking at your review, I would just adapt my EF16-35 f4L lens to the R system and put the saved money towards some excellent primes, but as you've already said, it just depends on what you shoot to what lenses you invest in.
I've heard a number of people say something similar, and I can't say I blame them. The 16-35 F4L presents excellent value for money, and if your priority is landscapes, then the F2.8 and some other features become unneeded.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes indeed, the difference between the EF16-35 f4L compared to the RF version is very minimal, so it would make sense to adapt it over, especially since I use the 16-35 for general travel stock photography when i'm away and also Commercial PR work, if i need something a bit more special I simply put one of my wide primes on such as the Sigma Art 24mm f1.4, but again, it just depends what subject a person shoots and budget which determines their gear.
You are great! Thank you!
Wow- that's a very wide open compliment :)
@@DustinAbbottTWI I do like the way you put your judgements. Yours, as mine and everybody elses, are subjective, but the way you put them makes me feel I am listening to a real guru!
I use it with my R6 and do enjoy it a lot
That's awesome.
thank you for the detailed review. I wonder how you get the RF lenses incorporated into the Lightroom lens correction
They should show up automatically.
Would also love to see your review of the Sony FE16-35 f2.8 GM
I don't know when I'll be able to get to that lens. I've got a long, long backlog of gear to review.
I have to tell you what Galaxy because it shows I watch the whole video. I zoomed in on your video and can tell that that’s Andromeda galaxy. Good shot.
That's what I've heard from others. Thank you.
Great review! I'm on the fence about getting this one or the 16-35 MK lll with an adapter. I like the internal zoom of the older version. Thoughts?
It is a tough call. I find that I get tired of using lenses on an adapter after a while. I can't speak for your tolerance for that, but I tend to prefer native lenses. Canon's RF L series lenses are really expensive, though, so if you can get a deal on the EF lens, it might be worth considering.
Hi Dustin, i think you said that the rf lens mount is wider diameter vs the ef. It is the same diameter. The main thing that changed is the sensor to flange distance.
That was something that I had heard a number of times, but someone else pointed out that it wasn't correct. I can say that the rear opening is larger, as filters designed for an EF lens aren't large enough to cover the entire opening.
Great review and I'm definitely looking hard a this lens but can't justify the price especially when it costs more than my RP!
That is a real issue.
@@DustinAbbottTWI in your expert opinion will this lens improve my video quality and photography? I've already purchased the rf 35mm and absolutely loved it! But I tend to like the wide angle for vlogging. I do have the adapter and plan on using my ef and efs lenses on the RP
Thanks for a very detailed review. As a Canon shooter, I'd prefer a smaller, lighter 15-24mm lens which would fit well with the 24-70mm and 70-200mm kit. Are Canon listening?
I would say that if you want smaller and lighter (and F2.8), the solution would actually be to not go to 15mm. 16mm would be easier, and 17mm easier still to get both compact and optically sound.
Thank you for this video.
But unfortunatelly I have to correct you about the canon lens mounts. Both the ef and the rf mount have the same diameter of 54 mm.
Good call. I had heard otherwise, but after doing some research, I found you are correct.
Would also be interested in knowing how this lens and the upcoming 14-35 RF lenses do against the EF 16-35 F4L lens.
I'm sure I'll be reviewing it at some point.
One issue you didn't discuss in this otherwise very thorough review was focus breathing. I own and love an EF 16-35 F/4L IS. Its biggest fault that I've observed is significant breathing at close focal distances. Any insight into the RF 15-35 F/2.8L's performance? Thanks.
I just did a test, and I see very little focus breathing. I started focused on a close subject, went to infinity, and came back, and the size of the foreground object was basically unchanged.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for such valuable real-world feedback
IS is amazing
It definitely is.
Hi Dustin. Excellent video as usual. I just received my r5. I currently have the ef 16-35 f4 L. The f2.8 aperture is not very important to me for such a wide zoom. How much of a difference ( if there is) btw the rf 15-35 vs the EF 16-35f4 ?
Optically there isn't a significant difference.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank u again Dustin. I’m going to keep it then and use the money towards the rf 70-200.
Wondering how this compares to the Sigma 14-24 Art. Also wondering why Canon keeps sticking with the 35 zoom when they have a 24-70. I think a 12-24 would be far more desirable .
I would say that the 14-24mm is sharper, in my estimation. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1414&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1182&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Any chance of you doing a comparison between the EF16 - 35 F2.8 L III and the RF 15-35 L ?
That's unlikely at this point. I'm basically booked solid through the rest of the year for reviews already.
The EF 16-35mm lenses were 'up close lenses' - their performance and resolution was _bad_ out at Infinity but strong in the first few meters in front of the camera.
A bit backwards though, no?
Hey Dustin, thanks for yet another exceptional lens review!
If you still own the 15-35, could you tell us if the extended barrel has a slight wobble to it? i.e. if you extend the barrel and then grip the lens by the front element portion and try to move it around, does it feel solid or does it have some play to it..
I checked out the display models at a local Best Buy and boy do these RF zooms wobble (it's either Best Buy patrons are very hard on the lenses or Canon just focused on optical quality and not so much build/tolerances). Spending north of $2,000 I really do expect solid build quality. Otherwise, when it comes to zooms, I'll stick with the EF internal zoom models for now.
I don't recall any particular play in the lens barrel, but neither do I physically jerk them around or manipulate them in any way that isn't an actual part of photography. I would never do that as a course of taking a photo or shooting video, so I don't artificially create those scenarios as a part of my reviews.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for the reply! I was disappointed to learn that both the 15-35 and 70-200 RF lenses didn’t have an internal zoom setup. However, I do understand Canon’s logic behind the decision. Ah well.
@@tkarim I once felt the same way...but my Tamron 24-70 and 150-600 G2 both extend when zooming, as does my RF 24-105, and, as you noted, the 70-200. Fit is tight with all of them and dust inside has not been an issue--and I sometimes work in dusty environments....
Dustin, I believe that was either the Samsung Galaxy, Galaxy Chocolate bar (by Mars), or the Ford Galaxy. But, if it was the 1960's Ford it has likely gone 'super nova' and eaten itself due to rust resulting in a black hole. :)
I think it many have been Andromeda :)
Hello Mr. Abbott - great video!
As a night sky photographer I have tested this lens and I wasnt very happy with it. Why?
Firstly it is no internal zoom lens which is a no go at this price point. In areas where the humidity at nights is very high I much more prefer an internal zoom. And then the fact that it collapses at 15 mm - kind of stupid.
The second thing is the vignetting. As it is no problem to fix vignetting in day light, it is a very big problem in darker situations where the noise levels raise extremly when you try to fix the vignetting.
The third thing is the zoom and the focus ring. In the drakness of the night, maybe wearing gloves I was many times not able to distinguish between the two and so I sometimes adjusted the focus by error or the zoom - which wasnt as bad as the manual focus.
Very annoying.
So from my point of view I cannot recommend this lens.
Hi Karl, interesting feedback. I can't agree with your first point. Lenses that are well sealed are no more vulnerable if they are externally zooming than if they are internally zooming. Your second point is very valid, as is your third. Proper spacing between rings is a big deal particularly if wearing gloves.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Mr. Abbott I can tell you that I am not crazy about cleaning the mixture of dust an humidity out of the spacing from external zooms. Sure the sealing will last for a few years but then things will start to get bad and then you have little mushrooms inside and the retail value of your lens is gone.
What would you recommend as the BEST alternative in a prime wide-angle, in either 14, 15, or 16mm?
Fastest click in a long time! :D
One you're interested in, I suspect :)
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for you work, Dustin. I'm a long-time fan!
@@Guio95 Me too! Dustin is the best!
Thanks again for your review. I was wondering, as someone who shoots both Canon and Sony, how would this lens compare to the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM?
I'm curious about this too. They are priced about the same. The GM is okay on the long end, but otherwise was setting a high standard in other performance metrics at the time of it's release. Now that Sony has terrific 20 and 24 and a rumored 16 prime on the way, I might make the switch. The 12-24 were never an option for me as (to my eye) things start looking weird wider than 18mm. Nikon's releasing the S f1.8 primes was a smart move. Wish Sony and Canon had gone down a similar path when they were initially releasing their mirrorless lenses.
Unfortunately I haven't reviewed the 16-35 GM. What I can tell you, however, is that the RF lens isn't sharper than either the Tamron 17-28 or the Sigma 14-24 zooms released in the past couple of years.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you, that’s good to know.
How do you think this compares to EF 16-35 2.8 III and Sony 16-35 GM?(in particular the corner resolution.) Canon's little RF35 1.8 surprised me at how good it is and I'm looking at possibly adding a zoom for future travels with my R5.
I haven't reviewed the 16-35 GM, actually. The RF 15-35 delivers similar image quality to the EF L III lens. I wouldn't say there is any significant improvement. The big improvement is 1) IS and 2) going to 15mm. That's where the value is.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks. I actually have both RF35 1.8 and a 16-35 GM. The RF prime despite small and cheaply built for its price point, beats the GM so slightly even at 5.6 nor say 2.8 so if anything, I'm thinking of getting the EF mkIII and use on my Canon, adapt on my sony and even nikons later, as I prefer 16-35 for travel much more than 14-24.
Review for 24-70 RF 2.8 coming soon too ?
I think it is supposed to be shipped to me with the R6 at the end of November
Looks like one of the best wide angle lenses out there, nothing that can't be corrected in post like all wide angle lenses
Nice review, are you a Canon user yourself ?
I shoot Canon, Sony, and occasionally Fuji.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Myself I'm a Sony and Canon shooter.
Thanks again for the great review.
That piece of b-roll you made here when walking trough the bushes, did you use a gimball or just hand holding the camera ?
Just handholding
@@DustinAbbottTWI wow, looked like you were using a gimball, so smooth and steady.
Hi Dustin, If you could choice between the Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 Lens vs. Nikon Z 14-24mm F2.8, Which Lens would you choose? You can pair the the Canon with the R3 and the Nikon Z9. For Landscape?
I haven't used the Nikon options, but if you are going to shoot landscape, then the Nikon combo is the better choice. More resolution.
I have the Canon EF 16-35 f/4 IS I do appreciate the 1 stop faster and 1 degree wider but other than that is the IQ any better? Does it worth the upgrade for the benefit of better IQ? Cause the one degree wider is not much of an incentive (too much sloping :-) and the 1 stop faster; well I usually shoot that stop down anyway so again not a great benefit. Tnx for you wonderful as always review. Plus the 16-35 is a bit smaller/lighter and smaller filter threads.
I obviously haven't tested them side by side, but Bryan's chart tests seem to indicate there isn't much different optically there: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1414&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
@@DustinAbbottTWI Tnx yeah, I studied the sample test charts and although the RF 15-35 is tested on an EOS R rather than R5 it doesn't look any better than the f/4 even when stopped down to f/4. So I'll stick with my tried and tested f/4 - I don't think I'm missing out much. I have a manual Irix 15mm f/2.3 for astro/milky way so I'm good :-) Carry on the good work.
A year later the R5 was added to the chart but when I compare it with the 5DSR and these lenses I do not see much of a difference. However, I now need a faster wide lens so the EF f/2.8 iii version looks tempting and it seems to be on par quality wise. Difficult decisions.
Although I own this lens, I am still a little conflicted. It is a BIG and expensive lens, but there just isn’t anything out there quite like it. F/2.8, IS, silent autofocus(important for me), are the obvious pros. I know there are cheaper options like the Tamron 15-30 and the Sigma 14-24, but they are actually HEAVIER. Maybe Canon’s new 14-35 f/4 will be the answer (hoping it’s much lighter), but somehow I doubt it. Fingers crossed.
Thanks for sharing by the way!
I suspect the F4 version will be lighter when it comes. There's no reason to think it would be significantly larger or heavier than the EF version.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I certainly hope so. I would be willing to compromise on the f/2.8 if the IS was the same and the lens was a good amount lighter and smaller.
After quite a few reviews/assessments, I ordered the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 for my Canon. It's a beautiful lens with quality results, but it's a beast (size wise). I thought my Sigma lenses were "rotund"---Tamron needs to dial it back a bit but keep the same quality. Perhaps the size and quality of the Olympus OMD Pro line lens (made in Japan).
The Tamron is a very large lens, for sure. That's probably the single biggest downside other than the inability to use traditional filters.
Yeah.... great lenses, though. I have the Tammy 24-70 G2... optically excellent and, for me, it was under $900 a few years ago. I am considering selling my EF 16-35 f/4 and moving to the RF 15-35....yes, it will only fit my R5....but that's fine. While I do have 3 lenses that I use for little but astro, but the RF might come in handy for night shooting now and then... which the 16-35, at f/4 does not.....
I'm assuming you are using Lightrooms/Photoshop for the RAW conversion. Have you compared the results with Canon's DPP4. The conversion algorithms are extremely different. From my early tests, the DPP4 conversion does a better job handling chromatic distortion, geometric distortion, and removing color moire/aliasing. DPP4 also enlarges the image and crops it significantly more than Photoshop's RAW converter when converting wide-angle distortion.
I noticed in your review that you talked about chroma aberration that might be eliminated by DPP4. You also mentioned that you considered seeing color moire a sign of lens sharpness. I have converted images with DPP4 and Photoshop RAW and get easily visible differences with both these issues.
What you are saying may well be true, but with the volume of reviews that I do, I just don't have the time or bandwith to use separate software for every piece of gear to make it shine.
Dustin, do you think there is a significant difference between the RF 16 mm and RF 15-35 mm lenses? I watched both of your videos and concluded that, for photography alone, the difference is minor (besides the price difference). RF 15-35 mm is just slightly sharper in the corners, but both peform really well. Distortion is not an issue for RF 16 mm as software fixes it. Do you agree on that? I've always done macro photography, but I am going to start real estate photography soon.
That depends on your priorities. The 16mm has pretty serious distortion for architectural work. If real estate is your priority, there might be better options.
From what I'm seeing here and from test chart comparisons, aside from the convenience of having 82mm filters and obviously differences in focal range, there is most likely little difference between this lens and sigma's and tamron's EF offerings in real life image quality. Just goes to show how far we've already come and how spoiled for choice we are.
There's a lot of truth to that. Canon has benefitted from a positive perception of the RF lenses to where many people just assume they are all vastly superior to older EF designs. In some cases that is true, but not really all cases.
What would you recommend as the BEST alternative in a prime wide-angle, in either 14, 15, or 16mm?
That depends on both your needs and the specific lens.
I would need more details before giving a recommendation.
Hmm think I'll wait for the F4 version.
I'm sure that will be a popular lens. The 16-35 F4L IS certain was.
What’s the best lens for landscape and portraits for my R7? Looking at 14-35, 15-35 and 16-35. Thanks!
Hmmm, the 14mm gives you the widest focal range, which could be important with the crop factor of your R7.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I had the 16mm ($250) for a couple days and honestly it was wider than I needed for most landscape and portrait situations I found myself in
When you say "Trinity of wide aperture primes," I think you mean zooms? A 'prime lens' is a fixed focal length lens like a 50mm or 300mm, say. Lenses like the 15-35 are what are known as 'zoom lenses', which cover a range of focal lengths.
Clearly I must have misspoke in the flow of the review.
I ordered this today. I was going to wait and buy the f4 14-35 as I shoot mostly landscapes and then eventually get a separate lens for Astro. Then I saw the price of the f4…….
Canon has been overpricing a lot of the RF lenses.
Is there a Chance that, DUST Get into the Lens, when lens is in 15mm ( little extended on the front ) ??? Thanks
The lens is very well sealed. I don't think that will be a problem.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you so much for your information ℹ️ !!! All the best for your upcoming content ☺️☺️☺️ !!!
Heaven forbid that there is Dust-in the lens :)
@@simonp8088 Well, you be a punny fella!!
Great review as always. Why can Sony (and Tamron and Samyang) make completely silent lenses yet Canon can't? What is the technological difference, considering they're both linear motors. You can't use any Canon lenses with on-board mics (even shotgun mics) in quiet environments unless you want to listen to constant ticking noise. It's a real dealbreaker.
Frankly I'm a little perplexed by Canon in their current lens design. They used to be the best...and they really aren't, right now.
wonder if the ef 16-35 iii is sharper than the rf 15-35
I would be surprised if that it is case.
as a sony user, i am pretty jealous about these canon lenses.
Same ! But I don’t like these corners wobbles..
There are some very good RF lenses, for sure, though Sony has the benefit of having so many third party options. Both the Tamron 17-28 and Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 give similar or better performance in many ways...and at much lower price points.
Has anyone managed to measure the T-Stop for this lens? Thanks!
I'm not sure about that. Often DXO is one who measures T-stop.
I can tell you that heavy vignette doesn't help that, though.
@@DustinAbbottTWI My problem is not having enough data to make a decision ... I have a 16-35 f4 with a T-stop of 4.5 and I want to get brighter version ... 16-35mm f/2.8 III has a T-stop of 3.2 (so a stop better) ... but how about the new (and very expensive at the moment) 15-35 f2.8? .... Is there any chance you can make a comparison to see the differences in exposure between these two? :)
How's portraits at around 35mm with this lens? 🤔
They should be fine.
Trying to decide between the samyang 14mm 2.8 Rf af and the Rf 15-35mm 2.8...
I understand that conundrum. The zoom offers far more flexibility, obviously, but the Samyang is so much smaller and cheaper!
Same boat, so I purchased both. Didn’t get the 15-35 before my Zion/Bryce trip so got the Samyang, perhaps thinking I’d sell it after the trip. Well...still got it! Size/weight benefit is huge!
@@JVG-fx9dt I have two Rokinon 14 2.8's--the cheaper full manual one. Cheap but venerable and optically quite good for astro. I've not compared the images to my new Siggy ART 28 f/1.4..... which is excellent, and was a score from Adorama for $450!! Thanks to Gordon of Canon Price Watch, I never miss the chance for a deal!!
There are many here making the observation that they will adapt the Tamron or the old EF to get the same results. I don’t doubt their conclusions. I myself am adapting the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 on my RP. The images have been very satisfying.
But here is the thing though. Adapting gets old fast. These heavyweights are as it is unwieldy; and adapting makes them even more front-heavy. Plus there is that bulbous front element on the Tamron which can’t accept filters.
So while this lens is definitely overpriced and while it isn’t really advancing the image quality from its previous versions, it isn’t without merit. Native glass that is more compact and that will accept filters has a definite advantage.
Oh and one more thing. I don’t know how far this is true, but I have heard that the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 is actually almost a 16-30 because at the wide end it is like a 15.8 or something. If this is true, then it is quite annoying as even a single millimetre in focal
length has a substantial effect in coverage at the wide end.
Your point about adapters is well taken. I too very rarely reach for a lens that requires an adapter.
Is it possible that you got a bad copy? I hear that many copy’s got blurry edges or vignetting
That's always a possibility, though, frankly, if that is a widespread problem in a $2200 lens...that's a problem.
@@DustinAbbottTWI
Honestly after this review I got a little disenchanted. In the end the RF might just be good Marketing and the real quality improvement of these lenses just comes from the much larger size of these lenses
Although I believe that wide angle lenses benefit from the reduced sensor distance and might be a lot cheaper.
What about focus breathing?
I just did a test, and I see very little focus breathing. I started focused on a close subject, went to infinity, and came back, and the size of the foreground object was basically unchanged.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you. Excellent news. Now I just have to save up for it!
Not super impressed with this lens, thanks for the honest review! It seems that the old R concealed many issues here.
indeed, I was expecting a lot and this seems to me like so many compromises packed together (limited sharpness and contrast wide open, strooong vignetting, and harsh bokeh - which imho is crucial when selecting 2.8 lenses)... I think I would wait for 24/35mm primes instead of buying this one. Or the F2 which has been cooked based on rumors I hear. Hope RF prices go down a bit meantime.
I don’t shoot Canon but for all the talk about “RF glass being the best on the market” I was expecting this lens to be better than its equivalents on other mounts but seeing this review I doubt its even in the top 3 or 4. I’d even go as far to say that it can barely resolve the 45mp of the R5.
This is a good lens, but doesn't really advance the ball optically in any way. Canon is benefitting from a general perception that all of the RF lenses are vastly superior instruments.
@@DustinAbbottTWI For the vast majority of Canon RF shooters they will be perfectly happy with it and I’m sure many a great image will be taken with this lens. You are right though it doesn’t do anything special optically at all.
Once again a great review from you :-)
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for your honesty :)
You forgot to say they’re the staple of lawyers and dentists.
Is that the case? That wide?
Andromeda galaxy
That's what I thought.
Used Canon 16-35F4IS for $1000AUD readily available locally, do you think this RF15-35 brand new $3800AUD a worthy upgrade? Or wait for the rumored 14-35F4IS RF?
If you are mostly doing landscapes, go for the F4. If you get a good price, you can always resell it later on to finance an upgrade. I would only spend the money for the 15-35L if you needed it for weddings or something where you need F2.8 and get a return on investment.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you and F4 there I go
Hi dustin
About the lens correction at F 2.8-4, does lightroom have fix the problem about to not been able to arrange the extreme of vignetting ?
The Lightroom correction profile works quite well.
@@DustinAbbottTWI ok thanks for the quick answer
About the image quality, i'm hesitate between the EF III , the EF F4 and the RF 15-35 briefly what you think i saw your video but still don't know what to do, i saw couples of video on youtube but strangely it seems to depend the 15-35 one could be good and another one very good . Did you made video comparison from the EF III , rhe F4 and 15-35
It seems almost disappointing this lens, i'm glad i didn't rush and sell my 16-35 f4 IS. It would be interesting to compare the two. Nice review. Thanks
I've heard from a number of people who are making a similar decision. I think if you primarily use wide angle for landscapes, that makes perfect sense. The chief advantages of the 15-35 are the native mount, wider focal length, and faster maximum aperture, but those are necessarily requirements for everyone's shooting needs.
@@DustinAbbottTWI agreed. I usually stop it down anyway so I have no need for a wider aperture. I’m hoping that a f4 variant of the RF lens will be released shortly.
These RF lenses arent that great considering the price. I'd rather keep my EF lenses and use the EF-RF converter
Fair enough!
Why do I feel there will be an F4 version that will leave this behind IQ-wise? The edge / corner performance at wide apertures is disappointing - reason enough not to buy this version.
That's a possibility, to be sure. The 16-35mm F4L IS was a very nice lens. If you don't need F2.8 in a WA zoom, then holding off for an F4 lens isn't a bad idea.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Indeed. Looks like that's been the case with the RF 70-200 F4 L (for which I hope you'll do a review). I shoot mostly landscapes and do quite some hiking, so the light weight and sharpness wide-open come in very handy and they seem to lie with the F4's.
So far, it looks like only the RF primes deliver. And the 28-70 monster. As much as I'd like to have the Holy Trinity of 2.8 zooms, I'm almost convinced at this point that I'd get heavier, more expensive equipment that I'd shoot darker than 2.8 due to average performance anyway.
My review of the 70-200 F4 will come next week.
@@DustinAbbottTWI That's great, looking forward to it!
The vignetting is unfortunately very disappointing for such a premium price... Not sure about this lens.
That's been the trend with the last few Canon wide angle releases. Not one I'm crazy about either.
Got this instead of the f4 version, couldn't wait, Let my friend borrow it for Christmas in Fuji, ugh it didn't survive the waves errr. Friend got his taxes back today and paid me what I paid for it, went to B & H and was on sale $400 off, Woot. Just ordered it be here Thur and I still have some cash left over. Thought about the f4 again, but I shoot a lot indoors like churches and museums and that 2.8 rocks, will be on my R5. Oh btw offered to give the remaining cash to friend, but he wouldn't take it, said keep for all the trouble I put you though. Woot God blessed me.
Good for you!
Rf lenses are very expensive for most...thousands $$$. Be nice more affordable rf f4 . I guess wait on samyang tamron sigma develop RF affordable lenses. Stm rf are ok but not the best fstop. Sony as expensive.
It cost me around $800 new ef 16-35 f4 usm is with 4 year accident insurance. A great deal. Now canon phasing out ef lenses and dslr bodies.
There is a new F4 wide angle zoom coming for RF this year, which should help. but yes, I agree, the RF lenses in general have been very expensive.
IF YOU HAVE EITHER THE R5 OR R6 ALL YOU NEED ARE 4 RF LENSES. THEY ARE
1 RF 15-35 f/2.8
2 RF 28-70 f/2
3 RF 70-200 f/2.8
4 RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1
THIS WILL COVER EVERYTHING FROM 15MM TO 500MM . THE COST WILL BE AROUND $ 13,800 .