Canon RF14-35 f/4 L IS - Review for Landscape Photography
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 жов 2024
- Last year I switched from my EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS to the new Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS. Is the new lens worth the extra cost? I tested the image quality, stabilizer and more on my Canon R5 and will compare the two lenses in this video.
You can buy both lenses here (Affiliate Links):
Canon RF 14-35 f/4 L IS: adorama.rfvk.n...
Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS: amzn.to/465DWd9
You can buy both lenses here (Affiliate Links):
Canon RF 14-35 f/4 L IS: adorama.rfvk.net/y22PeW
Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS: amzn.to/465DWd9
I’ve had this lens for a couple of months and use it on my R7. I really like this lens as it has an added bonus of being able to get close to subjects in the garden for “macro” shots (yes I know it’s not macro)
Nice 😊
Excellent video, as always!
Thanks
amazing review, exactly what I needed to know. I'm still using the EF version on my R5 and I was hesitant so switch
Thanks! I heard some people not being completely happy with the flares of the RF14-35. For me it was not an issue however
I use the RF14-35mm often in various situations, indoor and outdoor. The stabilisation is a big plus in weak light conditions. So if you have the money. Invest in the RF lens for years of photography pleasure
Have fun!
Great video and super helpful to me. Thank you so much.. I do have a question for you.. I use a R5 and R7 and am hesitating between the rf 14-35 F/4 or the 15-35 f2.8.. I do mainly wildlife and landscape.. I read that in low light ( sunset and sunrise ) with the R5, F4 would be quite good and there is no need to go F2.8... Would you say it is a fair assessment?
Yes, for landscape I prefer to stop down anyway 😊
Thank you!
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography
I always thought this lens looked cool and I'd get one once I got the R5. But, I ended up keeping the 16-35 because it's still so light and plenty sharp. Didn't seem worth the extra $$$ for small improvements. This is a good review showing the differences. Did you notice anything in the corners with the 14-35? It makes me wonder how that part performs since it's so software-corrected, where the 16-35 isn't.
I didn‘t see any negative effect, no. But I totally agree with you: the EF 16-35 is still an amazing lens
Will keep my EF 16-35mm F4L as I like the internal zoom... the smaller, 2mm wider, lighter RF 14-35mm F4L IS is tempting.... but this is not my main zone......
Certainly the less expensive option 😊👍🏻
I just purchased a used and slightly broken 14-35 off eBay, one of the metal tabs on bayonet mount is bent so it doesnt click into the camera body apart from this it apparently works fine and there's no other damage. I bought the lens for 500 dollars and the replacement part cost another 50 dollars. Will be a steal if it works properly after I replace the mount.
Good luck!
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography thank you I’ll let you know if it works
It worked what a deal 🎉🎉
Thanks Fabian. This lens is looking very tempting. I have a manual 14mm Samyang f2.8 I use for landscapes and night photography, but I'm thinking with the improved noise performance of mirrorless and with noise reduction software, I can get away with f4 and 30s to freeze the stars for night shoots. In addition, 14-35mm would be perfect for the landscapes I shoot and would give me more flexibility. Would be good to see how it compares with my EF 24-70f/4 at 24mm, which is already very sharp.
Lovely photos by the way!
Thanks! Unfortunately I could not compare it against the EF24-70
EF seems sharper in all cases... but a bit darker, it may have to do with the fact that the EF lense is longer
I‘m not sure why the length would impact the brightness
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Longer the focal length is the longer the light travels to reach the sensor (or film plane). Equally just saying; when doing macro photography, hence the reason you need to add more exposure time to capture the image.
I still don’t understand why this influences the exposure. The light needs to travel anyway until the sensor, no matter how long the lens is. Also, light travels pretty fast - 300‘000‘000 m/s
two possible reasons, first, aperture (fstop) isnt the true amount of light that passes through the lens, instead its T stop. so its possible, the lens is actually T4.5, and being rounded down to f4. second possible reason, the lens has vignette which slightly darkens the whole image not only corners, and is cleared by stopping down more. the first reason is more likely, as ive seen lenses at same apertures but different brightness. example if you take an L series f2.8 lens stopped down to f4 and compare to kit lens that starts at f4, in some lens instances the L series stopped down is still brighter.
Canon has established certain expectations for their L-glass and there are certain features the buyer expects. It is always their best build quality and it is designed for full frame cameras. There should be one additional feature of L lenses. They should be designed well enough that in-camera and post processing distortion correction should be mostly unnecessary and CERTAINLY not mandatory in-camera.
It’s not necessary in camera, I just did it in post. Ideally I would have a photo that doesn’t require that, but if it makes the lens so mich lighter and smaller, I‘m ok with that
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography In the R5 (and other R-series), mounting the 14-35mm turns on distortion correction and does not allow you to turn it off. At the same time, it disabled Multiple Exposure shooting.
Maybe I‘m wrong, but I thought that doesn’t influence the raw file, only JPEG
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography on the EOS R series of cameras, mounting the 14-35mm f4 L automatically enables distortion correction and the user cannot turn it off. As a consequence of that all multiple exposure shooting (e.g. HDR) is also disabled.
But the HDR is jpeg, nor raw. Therefore I thought it only concerns jepg