Great review Dustin. I was very happy when they announced that lens. I was hoping to replace the ef 16-35 f4 with this lens. But it is very expensive, out of my budget. Too bad. With f4, the price is unjustified to high.
Adobe just added the lens profile for this superb lens to Lightroom. It works beautifully. The new masking feature in LR is great for landscape photographers too. Cheers.
They were able to make it shorter and lighter by allowing the lens to distort and vingette more. This is why distortion correction is necessary either in-camera or post. And the lens is really about 12mm at the wide end, but after the crop introduced by the correction it is functionally 14mm
Thank you Dustin, as always, a lovely and fantastic review. You always provide help in letting us know if our wallets should get a little lighter...lol
Excellent review. I appreciate your approach. Thank you. I currently have the EF 16-35 f4 and I must say it's really good. I use it with the adapter on my R6 and it works really well. One question I have is after the correction for vignetting how much of the edges does one lose? Does it essentially then become a 16-35mm lens?
Fair enough - the new lens is sharper and has a bigger zoom range, but it also has a few flaws that I've mentioned here. I think the EF version is still a valid option for many photographers.
I've been using EF 16-35 2.8L II with ef to rf adapter until now and just bought the rf 14-35mm mainly for it's size as the 16-35 with the adapter is pretty long and front heavy which in my case matters a bit as I hold the camera in one hand and off camera flash on stick in the other :-) I'm mostly shooting wedding receptions dance floor action with the 16-35 and almost always shoot at f/4 (more accurate AF and better sharpness) as I'm using off camera lighting so the narrower aperture shouldn't be an issue hopefully. I can't wait to receive it and test it out on my next wedding.
Maybe 16-35 is the better option. With Sigma Adapter it will work for Sony and on EBay you‘ll pay around 650€ on average. Image quality will not benefit after that distortion, vignette correction etc
Hey Dustin, How does the Samyang/Rokinon 16mm RF AF stack up this on the wide end. I actually bought this but thinking about returning it for for the Rokinon to same a little money... What are you thoughts?
I actually never tested the 16mm, but maybe you are referring to the 14mm. It has less distortion and vignette, but the Canon is the definite winner for sharpness and contrast.
Thank you for the great review! They achieved the 13mm less length by going towards an extending barrel design. Don't you think this will make the lens break sooner if it's in rough conditions? I mean, the extension mechanism will have to absorb impacts that an internally focusing design like the EF 16-35 F4 will just take on the outer shell.
Hey Dustin, I had a very early copy of this lens and returned it do to soft images at 35mm and closest focus. Did you see this behavior with your copy?
The real alternative is the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 G2, it has excellent image quality and a very powerful stabilizer, but it weighs 1.1 kg. But I really love its image quality even at open aperture and I am willing to put up with this weight. I understand that 15 and 14 have a big difference, but the focal length of 14 mm, in my opinion, is not working here, and even with such a high price.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, it is, but there are some advantages, for example, an adapter with an ND filter will allow you not to use bulky and expensive ND filters for this Tamron
@@my7favorite7videos The Tamron also weighs just over double the weight of 14-35mm and 40% longer . The adapter adds another 100g and takes the length difference to 60%, though the Tamron offers a lot of bang for the price
It seems to me that the RF system isn't quite there yet..the EF had been around for decades..and Canon have mastered as far as they can with the EF mount..hence bring in new technology with a new mount to keep Canon uses loyal to them such as there new mirror less tech and so bringing in a new RF mount to suit... But it's not there yet...I think Canon is trying to hard to keep up and sacrificing the solid ground work before shipping off there new lenses...no excuse for Canon to send out sub par Lenes to keep up...they know how to do it!.... Canon slow down..and send out good stuff...at least optically anyway.
It seems like Canon is trying too hard for every lens to be innovative and ground-breaking and that has involved some serious compromises on several lenses.
So far I have an R5, as well as the 28-70 f/2.0, 100-500, and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II. I also have a bunch of other EF lenses (including some Sigma primes), but I was thinking of selling most of them off. I was thinking that if I could get a lens like the 11-24, I'd basically have a lens collection I could call 'complete', where I don't need any more lenses. But maybe I'll just get the EF Sigma 12-24.
Great review Dustin. I was very happy when they announced that lens. I was hoping to replace the ef 16-35 f4 with this lens. But it is very expensive, out of my budget.
Too bad. With f4, the price is unjustified to high.
I really don't understand Canon's marketplace strategy right now. It seems like they are gifting Sony market share.
Adobe just added the lens profile for this superb lens to Lightroom. It works beautifully. The new masking feature in LR is great for landscape photographers too. Cheers.
Hi David, does the lens correction in lightroom perform better than DDP? Thanks!
Hi David, it does work well, but gives pretty much the same amount of image "loss" as the JPEG profile.
They were able to make it shorter and lighter by allowing the lens to distort and vingette more. This is why distortion correction is necessary either in-camera or post. And the lens is really about 12mm at the wide end, but after the crop introduced by the correction it is functionally 14mm
It was clearly a design decision...I'm just not convinced it was a good one.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Time will tell. For me, it works because the lens is smaller and I am traveling with a single 40L bag. Size does matter.
Thank Dustin…you’ve just helped me make my decision on this lens. Great detailed informative review 😊
I'm glad to have helped out.
As always, great review, thanks Dustin
My pleasure.
Thank you Dustin for a very balanced and to the point review. I am between keeping my 16-35/4 vs getting this since Canon has a $400 rebate on it.
My pleasure.
You should review the canon rf 15-30. STM! It’s lightweight, and I have been very impressed with the quality and color in my photos.
That's a good suggestion. I'll have to see if a loaner is available.
LightRoom has profile for it already! Update your LR.
I did, but the results are basically identical to what I showed for the JPEG correction.
Thank you Dustin, as always, a lovely and fantastic review. You always provide help in letting us know if our wallets should get a little lighter...lol
LOL - it's a curse.
A better solution for vloggers Than The 2.8
That's probably true.
Thank you, Dustin. I'm a bit worried about vignette, as I'm about to buy one . Now the will is put on standby😉
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
@@DustinAbbottTWI 😅 , your sense of humour is high 👍
Excellent review. I appreciate your approach. Thank you. I currently have the EF 16-35 f4 and I must say it's really good. I use it with the adapter on my R6 and it works really well. One question I have is after the correction for vignetting how much of the edges does one lose? Does it essentially then become a 16-35mm lens?
A good enquiry
Yea
No, it's still going to be quite a bit wider than that. Probably slightly wider than 15mm (14.75mm, or so)
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks.
3:54 what is tripod brand & model do you use?
Sure: it's a great little thing! bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
@@DustinAbbottTWI tnx
Nice take on this lens Dustin...I have the R6..with adapter...but I definitely chose the EF f4 version over this new RF
Fair enough - the new lens is sharper and has a bigger zoom range, but it also has a few flaws that I've mentioned here. I think the EF version is still a valid option for many photographers.
Awesome review! Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
I've been using EF 16-35 2.8L II with ef to rf adapter until now and just bought the rf 14-35mm mainly for it's size as the 16-35 with the adapter is pretty long and front heavy which in my case matters a bit as I hold the camera in one hand and off camera flash on stick in the other :-) I'm mostly shooting wedding receptions dance floor action with the 16-35 and almost always shoot at f/4 (more accurate AF and better sharpness) as I'm using off camera lighting so the narrower aperture shouldn't be an issue hopefully. I can't wait to receive it and test it out on my next wedding.
I suspect you’ll really like the lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I hope so, too
@@feelda303 so did you get the lens? I just shot my first wedding with the rf 14-35 f4. really like it, wonder how you got on with yours.
@@capture_the_stoke9646 Yes, I got it. So far so good. The vignette at 14mm is a bit bummer but not the end of the world. Great lens.
Maybe 16-35 is the better option. With Sigma Adapter it will work for Sony and on EBay you‘ll pay around 650€ on average.
Image quality will not benefit after that distortion, vignette correction etc
I think a lot of people have felt the same.
Hey Dustin, How does the Samyang/Rokinon 16mm RF AF stack up this on the wide end. I actually bought this but thinking about returning it for for the Rokinon to same a little money... What are you thoughts?
I actually never tested the 16mm, but maybe you are referring to the 14mm. It has less distortion and vignette, but the Canon is the definite winner for sharpness and contrast.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you... I was talking about the 14mm.
Thank you for the great review!
They achieved the 13mm less length by going towards an extending barrel design. Don't you think this will make the lens break sooner if it's in rough conditions? I mean, the extension mechanism will have to absorb impacts that an internally focusing design like the EF 16-35 F4 will just take on the outer shell.
In theory what you say is true, though I'm not sure the evidence bears out that this happens very much.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for your reply. I'd very much like to be wrong about this 🙂.
I still love my Canon 17-35mm f2.8 with a 77mm filter tread.
Good for you. Enjoy what you have!
Hows it compare to a 16mm after corrections? Like, after corrections how much of that 14mm FOV are you losing?
It's definitely much wider than 16mm. Probably still wider than a 15mm lens...but not by much.
I have been trying to find the f2.8 version for about 6 months and it’s out of stock. Do you know what is going on?
Canon has some huge supply chain issues right now. It's a problem.
Thanks
You're welcome.
Thank you for this review. Would you recommend this lense for Canon R7?
It's less exciting on APS-C (the wide end is more like 22.5mm), but some of the flaws will be mitigated, too.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you very much for your quick reply
@@DustinAbbottTWI GM. what lens would you recommend? Thank you
Hey Dustin, I had a very early copy of this lens and returned it do to soft images at 35mm and closest focus. Did you see this behavior with your copy?
@@aceflibble thanks for the reply, that's exactly what I found as well
That's pretty much exactly what I saw
is the sigma 14-24 2.8 e-mount better then this?
I think so.
It's certainly not worse...and arguably has fewer flaws.
Can you put the link to the small tripod you used for the camera on the desktop ?
Sure, it's a great little thing! bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
Dustin - can you share the name of that small tripod you are using? Thanks.
Sure: it's a great little thing! bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
Thats why im gonna jump ship to sony. Those RF lens prices are insane and they are even getting more expensive now.
It's very unfortunate
The real alternative is the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 G2, it has excellent image quality and a very powerful stabilizer, but it weighs 1.1 kg. But I really love its image quality even at open aperture and I am willing to put up with this weight.
I understand that 15 and 14 have a big difference, but the focal length of 14 mm, in my opinion, is not working here, and even with such a high price.
You'd have to use the Tamron via adapter, which some people don't mind, and others do.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, it is, but there are some advantages, for example, an adapter with an ND filter will allow you not to use bulky and expensive ND filters for this Tamron
@@my7favorite7videos The Tamron also weighs just over double the weight of 14-35mm and 40% longer . The adapter adds another 100g and takes the length difference to 60%, though the Tamron offers a lot of bang for the price
I owned the RF 15-35 2.8 and hated it. It always gave me muddy looking images.
I liked this one much better as a landscape lens.
What tile Lens do you used for this video and what camera sir ?? Nice quality
Sony Alpha 1 and Samyang AF 75mm F1.8
Thank you
I am a simple man. I see Dustin post, I click and like without even seeing everything.
LOL - these kinds of comments crack my relatives up.
Thanks Dustin, given the crop required is it really any wider than the EF16-35?
Update?
It definitely is. It's probably in the range of 14.75-15mm after correction.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for the update, maybe I’ll trade in my Ef 16-35, after I scrounge some cash for the RF70-200f/2.8 first!!
It seems to me that the RF system isn't quite there yet..the EF had been around for decades..and Canon have mastered as far as they can with the EF mount..hence bring in new technology with a new mount to keep Canon uses loyal to them such as there new mirror less tech and so bringing in a new RF mount to suit... But it's not there yet...I think Canon is trying to hard to keep up and sacrificing the solid ground work before shipping off there new lenses...no excuse for Canon to send out sub par Lenes to keep up...they know how to do it!.... Canon slow down..and send out good stuff...at least optically anyway.
It seems like Canon is trying too hard for every lens to be innovative and ground-breaking and that has involved some serious compromises on several lenses.
Just waiting for the RF 11-24 to migrate for canon mirrorless system
I suspect there are others hoping the same, though with Canon's RF pricing it will probably be $3500!
Time to jump ship to sony.
Gulp. Not what Canon wants to hear.
Not really sure why Canon haven't made an RF equivalent to the 11-24 yet.
That's a pretty niche lens, so not a huge priority. Something will come, I 'm sure.
So far I have an R5, as well as the 28-70 f/2.0, 100-500, and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II.
I also have a bunch of other EF lenses (including some Sigma primes), but I was thinking of selling most of them off.
I was thinking that if I could get a lens like the 11-24, I'd basically have a lens collection I could call 'complete', where I don't need any more lenses.
But maybe I'll just get the EF Sigma 12-24.