I have traded in my 15-35 and replaced it with the 10-20. Light and versatile when paired with 24-70 which I already own. Thanks James for another great review.
I’ve been looking for this comparison for a long time as I have a 15-35 and was really curious to see how it compares to 10-20. Thanks for making this video. Super helpful.
I have the 14-35 L and love it. I am considering replacing it with this new 10-20 L. I do not use screw in filters, so the dome front is fine. For real estate the 14-35 is hard to beat because it offers a range versatile enough to do 95% of your real estate images. On most real estate shoots the lens handles the entire project. The 10-20 will require a companion such as the 24-70 L or 24-105 L for real estate shoots. I have the 24-105 L so I am good there. That said, the 10-20 as you mentioned in the video is fairly expensive at 2300 US and I believe about 2150 UK. I am deciding whether to sell the 14-35 and then purchase this lens. I may do it, I may not. But as for the price, I want to say that Canon absolutely did a masterful job producing a lens this good, far better then the 11-24 EF lens and for $700 LESS money. Kudos to Canon producing a superior product for less money in this high-inflation economy.
Excellent Review, James. It would be a fun lens to have, but I couldn't justify it. I ended up cancelling my order for many reasons, but one big one was how often I shoot 24-35 for real estate exteriors. I'm finishing up my testing between my 15-35 rf and 14-35 rf and I am coming to similar results as you did with the 10-20 against the 15-35. 14-35 may rely a lot on digital optical correction in post, but performance and the extra mm on the wide side is competitive. Weight is a big selling factor too.
Thank you Jared! I feel the same way, would be a great lens to own but wouldn't see enough use to justify it. The 14-35 really is excellent, one of my favorite lenses Canon have put out on RF mount.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts. As one who's used the EF 11-24 since it came out for real estate work--mostly interiors--when I switched to the R5 a few years ago the huge feel of the 11-24, now with an adapter, felt even more unwieldy. I had originally thought of the 11-24 for backcountry landscapes, but the size and bulk kept it at home while my R5 wore the 14-35 instead. That 11mm’s though, proved itself time and again in real estate, so when the 10-20 came out I ordered. On the other side: I’ve carried 20mm lenses (Canon EF 20mm w/adapter) into Grand Canyon twice as my only lens, and there didn’t seem to be a need for anything wider or narrower for my style of shooting. To have a lens not much bigger or heavier than the 20mm w/adapter that serves these two worlds seems like it's made to order for me. I’ve been waiting for mine for over 2 months, and will just have to be patient. I look forward to see if my thoughts work in real life, but I’m thinking the past will prove the future for my purposes.
I just wanted to thank you for your really high quality and informative videos. i enjoy watching them. i can just relax and get detailed tests about my favourite hobby. keep up the good work!
Nice review, it looks like a fantastic lens. Although I'm sure I would enjoy using the 10-20mm, I previously opted for the RF 14-35mm f/4 and have been happy with its overall performance. Cheers!
A very interesting video on this lens. Thank you once again for sharing your RAW files so we can have a look for ourselves to help us make our mind up in the future. Keep the good work up
I have the RF 14-35, and the RF 10-20 appears to be about the same size, yes? This may be a worthy replacement since I rarely use the longer end of the focal range, and the 10-20 is rectilinear. Excellent video, as we’ve come to expect from you.
Thanks James once again for this great and detailed review. I too experience those “soft” spots with my 15-35. I even brought my lens back to the store and tried another copy which had the same issue. Not sure to call it “soft”, it’s a kind of restlessness or maybe even some misalignment. Even with field curvature you would expect the wobble left and right the same. To be honest, I am disappointed with Canon to deliver this what seems to be a consistent flaw in their 15-35. The 10-22 doesn’t seem to suffer from the same issues, which makes me think why this isn’t possible with the 15-35. Your reviews really stand out James, keep up your great work and thanks a lot for your time putting all these great videos together! 👍🏻
Thank you so much Erik! Yep it’s a real shame about the 15-35, I sent mine to Canon and they performed some kind of “resolution calibration” which did help a little but it still has the issue as you can see in the video. A real shame for a wide angle lens and seems to happen at pretty much any aperture.
Canon makes their lenses wider than the published numbers and expects (or even requires) corrections to be applied. This is probably an 8 to 20. After correction it becomes a 10mm.
I liked that you had examples of indoor use, which is a great use case for me. I have the 14-35 f/4 L and like it (except losing some mm with correction) and considering an EF 8-15 f/4L which is a lot less expensive than the RF 10-20 mm. Any opinions? It would be a niche lens for occasional use in either case.
That is correct. I have this lens and have shot a ton of night sky images, and stars are good in the corners, except when earth rotational effects are in play.
I was going to buy this lens until I tried one out, and saw the awful vignetting on the corners that must be fixed via software after the fact. That might be ok for some people but not me. Why can’t Canon produce all of their lenses like the 15-35 F2.8L ? That lens is great & has none of the awful vignetting. The 14-35 is also just as bad.
I have had this excellent lens for more than 6months now, and have shot a ton of milkyway and arcarchitecture images. Vignetting has not been an issue for me. Btw, every single lens looks better corrected, and thus I correct all of my images. The RF10-20mm is actually 9mm when uncorrected.
Hey Matt! I think it was shot on the Canon R5, 4k 25p in CLOG 3 (cinema gamut). Colour corrected in Davinci resolve mostly using Gamut LUTs linked below.
Is Canon or any brand of system other than Sony has the range of the Tamron 50-400mm lens? I thought to get that lens with Sony 12-24mm F4 but it's 6 years old lens now, not sure if they will update it and if it's still good buy
Thank you very much for the video, as always, it is of great quality and useful for us. Could you help me with a question I have? To edit your videos in 4k 60fps with the Canon R5, what computer do you use? Will a Mac M2 be enough? Greetings
Thoses lens are way too expensive for me: I prefer the TTartisan wide angle, as focus is not a concern at this wide angle, and manual focus is fine then. There is also the 16mm Canon, that is also to be consider.
Does this lens provide the same sharpness as Canon lenses? The results I saw were noticeably less sharp. In addition, Chinese lenses are much worse at handling direct sunlight into the lens.
Thanks for the review. I have a sony and the 14mm GM. I use that to take wide shots of my kids and I at the parks and to take video of us on rides. Am I crazy for considering this lens for that with my r5C? Would be able to use it for dark rides because of the F4. But I could also use it on my C70.
I think this lens would be great for that use case on the R5C, you just have to remember you can't put an ND on front of the lens. I also think it would work great on the C70 too.
The link is in the description . Files.jamesreader.uk The RAWs are in a folder called “RF 10-20 Files” If the link doesn’t work is likely because Dropbox have frozen the link due to access downloads, you may need to try again tomorrow when they reset my bandwidth!
I have traded in my 15-35 and replaced it with the 10-20. Light and versatile when paired with 24-70 which I already own. Thanks James for another great review.
canon has been making some crazy lenses lately hope they put out some nice L primes
Fingers crossed! I hope so too.
I’ve been looking for this comparison for a long time as I have a 15-35 and was really curious to see how it compares to 10-20. Thanks for making this video. Super helpful.
I have the 14-35 L and love it. I am considering replacing it with this new 10-20 L. I do not use screw in filters, so the dome front is fine. For real estate the 14-35 is hard to beat because it offers a range versatile enough to do 95% of your real estate images. On most real estate shoots the lens handles the entire project. The 10-20 will require a companion such as the 24-70 L or 24-105 L for real estate shoots. I have the 24-105 L so I am good there. That said, the 10-20 as you mentioned in the video is fairly expensive at 2300 US and I believe about 2150 UK. I am deciding whether to sell the 14-35 and then purchase this lens. I may do it, I may not. But as for the price, I want to say that Canon absolutely did a masterful job producing a lens this good, far better then the 11-24 EF lens and for $700 LESS money. Kudos to Canon producing a superior product for less money in this high-inflation economy.
I love my 14-35 and 11-24 but just bought the 10-20 to replace both. I travel a lot so the size and weight is a big thing for me!
Excellent Review, James. It would be a fun lens to have, but I couldn't justify it. I ended up cancelling my order for many reasons, but one big one was how often I shoot 24-35 for real estate exteriors. I'm finishing up my testing between my 15-35 rf and 14-35 rf and I am coming to similar results as you did with the 10-20 against the 15-35. 14-35 may rely a lot on digital optical correction in post, but performance and the extra mm on the wide side is competitive. Weight is a big selling factor too.
Thank you Jared! I feel the same way, would be a great lens to own but wouldn't see enough use to justify it. The 14-35 really is excellent, one of my favorite lenses Canon have put out on RF mount.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts. As one who's used the EF 11-24 since it came out for real estate work--mostly interiors--when I switched to the R5 a few years ago the huge feel of the 11-24, now with an adapter, felt even more unwieldy. I had originally thought of the 11-24 for backcountry landscapes, but the size and bulk kept it at home while my R5 wore the 14-35 instead. That 11mm’s though, proved itself time and again in real estate, so when the 10-20 came out I ordered. On the other side: I’ve carried 20mm lenses (Canon EF 20mm w/adapter) into Grand Canyon twice as my only lens, and there didn’t seem to be a need for anything wider or narrower for my style of shooting. To have a lens not much bigger or heavier than the 20mm w/adapter that serves these two worlds seems like it's made to order for me. I’ve been waiting for mine for over 2 months, and will just have to be patient. I look forward to see if my thoughts work in real life, but I’m thinking the past will prove the future for my purposes.
I just wanted to thank you for your really high quality and informative videos. i enjoy watching them. i can just relax and get detailed tests about my favourite hobby. keep up the good work!
Thank you so much!
Nice review, it looks like a fantastic lens. Although I'm sure I would enjoy using the 10-20mm, I previously opted for the RF 14-35mm f/4 and have been happy with its overall performance. Cheers!
Thank you! the 14-35 is a really great lens, glad you are happy with it !
A very interesting video on this lens. Thank you once again for sharing your RAW files so we can have a look for ourselves to help us make our mind up in the future. Keep the good work up
I love the clean simplistic website. Did you use a specific template or build from scratch?
I have the RF 14-35, and the RF 10-20 appears to be about the same size, yes? This may be a worthy replacement since I rarely use the longer end of the focal range, and the 10-20 is rectilinear. Excellent video, as we’ve come to expect from you.
Thank you! They are indeed about the same size.
Thanks James once again for this great and detailed review. I too experience those “soft” spots with my 15-35. I even brought my lens back to the store and tried another copy which had the same issue. Not sure to call it “soft”, it’s a kind of restlessness or maybe even some misalignment. Even with field curvature you would expect the wobble left and right the same. To be honest, I am disappointed with Canon to deliver this what seems to be a consistent flaw in their 15-35. The 10-22 doesn’t seem to suffer from the same issues, which makes me think why this isn’t possible with the 15-35. Your reviews really stand out James, keep up your great work and thanks a lot for your time putting all these great videos together! 👍🏻
Thank you so much Erik! Yep it’s a real shame about the 15-35, I sent mine to Canon and they performed some kind of “resolution calibration” which did help a little but it still has the issue as you can see in the video. A real shame for a wide angle lens and seems to happen at pretty much any aperture.
Canon makes their lenses wider than the published numbers and expects (or even requires) corrections to be applied. This is probably an 8 to 20. After correction it becomes a 10mm.
That is correct, I have this lens
I liked that you had examples of indoor use, which is a great use case for me. I have the 14-35 f/4 L and like it (except losing some mm with correction) and considering an EF 8-15 f/4L which is a lot less expensive than the RF 10-20 mm. Any opinions? It would be a niche lens for occasional use in either case.
The smearing of stars is due to the earth rotation at a 15 second exposure, not to the quality of the lens.
That is correct. I have this lens and have shot a ton of night sky images, and stars are good in the corners, except when earth rotational effects are in play.
thank you for the review
Thank you for watching!
I was going to buy this lens until I tried one out, and saw the awful vignetting on the corners that must be fixed via software after the fact. That might be ok for some people but not me. Why can’t Canon produce all of their lenses like the 15-35 F2.8L ? That lens is great & has none of the awful vignetting. The 14-35 is also just as bad.
I have had this excellent lens for more than 6months now, and have shot a ton of milkyway and arcarchitecture images.
Vignetting has not been an issue for me.
Btw, every single lens looks better corrected, and thus I correct all of my images.
The RF10-20mm is actually 9mm when uncorrected.
What codec do you shoot video in and what to you use to edit the color correction?
Hey Matt! I think it was shot on the Canon R5, 4k 25p in CLOG 3 (cinema gamut). Colour corrected in Davinci resolve mostly using Gamut LUTs linked below.
Is Canon or any brand of system other than Sony has the range of the Tamron 50-400mm lens? I thought to get that lens with Sony 12-24mm F4 but it's 6 years old lens now, not sure if they will update it and if it's still good buy
Thank you very much for the video, as always, it is of great quality and useful for us. Could you help me with a question I have? To edit your videos in 4k 60fps with the Canon R5, what computer do you use? Will a Mac M2 be enough? Greetings
Thank you so much! I use an M1 Pro and have no problem editing r5 60fps footage.
@@JamesReaderGracias por tu tiempo en responder. Se valora mucho.
Thoses lens are way too expensive for me: I prefer the TTartisan wide angle, as focus is not a concern at this wide angle, and manual focus is fine then. There is also the 16mm Canon, that is also to be consider.
Does this lens provide the same sharpness as Canon lenses?
The results I saw were noticeably less sharp. In addition, Chinese lenses are much worse at handling direct sunlight into the lens.
Thanks for the review. I have a sony and the 14mm GM. I use that to take wide shots of my kids and I at the parks and to take video of us on rides. Am I crazy for considering this lens for that with my r5C? Would be able to use it for dark rides because of the F4. But I could also use it on my C70.
I think this lens would be great for that use case on the R5C, you just have to remember you can't put an ND on front of the lens. I also think it would work great on the C70 too.
could you like to share RAW files Link ? i could not find its link on your video. thank you
The link is in the description . Files.jamesreader.uk
The RAWs are in a folder called “RF 10-20 Files”
If the link doesn’t work is likely because Dropbox have frozen the link due to access downloads, you may need to try again tomorrow when they reset my bandwidth!
Comparison should have been 14 35
oh no. another photographer that doesn't know the difference between zooming in and zooming out.
what is this world we are living in.
Thank you for being so polite about it! Thank you for watching.
@@JamesReader I aim to please :)
I like the content by the way.