Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Canon RF 14-35MM F4 vs RF 15-35MM F2.8 - Landscape Photography Challenge
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 сер 2024
- Canon has came up with the new RF 14-35MM F4 which is smaller and lighter compared to the existing RF 15 35 F2.8. But how does the image quality compare?
I tried to make some comparison.
The scope of this video is strictly for serious landscape photography where you would normally capture high depth of field images on a tripod. If you are expecting to see something else, this is not a video for you.
0:00 - Introduction
1:52 - The Journey
3:43 - Comparison
9:22 - Conclusion
10:53 - Little Slide Show of Images
Below you can find the RAW images to check them out yourselves -
drive.google.c...
Please let me know how it turned out!
Hope you will like my work. Please feel free to like, share, comment and subscribe if you want to see more such work. They are really motivating for going on making such videos with tremendous amount of time and effort!
Filmed using Canon R5 and Canon R6
www.avisekhpho...
This video is severely underrated. The framing, color grading and scenery. On point. 👌🏽
Thank you… 🙏
Glad that you liked it…
@@AMPhotographyyes we do🤩, what is the camera and the lens you’re shooting with?
@@ehabko5818It was mainly with 24 70 and some with 35 1.8 on a R5.
This is a great video with absolutely stunning shots! Really appreciate the detailed comparison and the info about gimbals - so rare to find videos of these lenses being used "in the wild"! Thank you!
Thank you for your kind words… 🙏
This is easy decision between both. For everyone here with same idea "not sure which one get" ask yourself this. Do you need Fast 2.8 aperture for you work? If so then get that one, or if you just have extra cash in your pocket you want to burn and like larger heavier lenses, then get 2.8. But DON'T choose one over other because of sharpness, STOP pixel peeping. Both are excellent lenses and sharpness difference between them will NOT make your images any better. You will only see that difference pixel peeping on your computer, such waste of time. I sold my 15-35mm f/2.8 because I like smaller lighter lenses, plus I like the added focal length of 14mm. Also not mentioned is how much closer the 14-35mm will focus at close subjects. That is really handy when doing landscape work and you want to get close to your foreground subject. So it was no brainer for me. I would have never bought the 15-35mm except at that time it was only UWA RF lens Canon had.
Indeed very well said. There are some other aspects though. Sometime F4 lenses are really bad in IQ. For example the EF 24 105 of Canon. So without testing; you would never know. There is another aspect which is a bit technical and I didn’t want to add in and that is the filter thread. If one needs to be optimized; they need to use a 77MM filter system. Does the RF 24 105 F4 has similar quality as the RF 24 70 F2.8! Was not the case in EF world. If the same happens also for RF; one will end up carrying a 77 and 82 MM filter system. Not to mention that step up rings don’t work with ultra wide lenses. So different things to consider when the weight of your hiking bag is already close to 20 kgs!
PS - I never bothered about a little sharpness difference between two lenses that is visible in images of chart. But sometimes the difference is noticeable. May be not on mobile but on larger prints. Specially on corners. So the idea was to test that visible difference.
Sharpness isn't the only quality difference. Contrast on the 15-35 is much better. Even viewing on UA-cam with heavy compression and low resolution I can see the difference
@SikConVicTioN Thank you... 🙏
Maybe you are just looking for it. 🙂
To me there is no clearly visible difference to carry a heavier lens except if you need that F2.8 for astro or low light. Means, if I go for a shoot where I know I need to capture low light video or astro I will probably go for the 2.8. Else the F4 version will be the choice.
An excellent comparison. I think I’ll be going for the 15-35 2.8. Thank you.
Thank you… 🙏
Glad that it helped you decide…
This was an amazing comparison great job and very nicely filmed
Thank you… 🙏
Very good comparison for this two lenses directly in the field. Some laboratory comparison show for 15-35 f/4 to be sharper in corners for 35 mm against 14-35 mm at f4 in 35 mm. Also 14-35 f/4 on 35 mm seems a little bit soft at 35 mm on f4 and good photos can be taken from f/5.6. You take photos already in diffraction zone on f/11. There is a bit too much for both lenses. F8 is enough for a very strong comparison between them. In the wide zone what is under 20 mm counts enough for every mm step, so difference is visible. So 15 is 15 but 14 is a lot wider than 15. Made a comparison for example with Canon 11-14 and you will notice for example how wide is 11 against 14, a huge difference in perspective. I ended also with buying 14-35 f/4 instead 15-35 f/2.8 because length, weight and this 1 mm extra. Shooting landscapes f/2.8 is not important, shooting astro is important so 2.8 is better, shooting weddings is important so 2.8 is better and so on...
PS: don't forget for 14-35 the mechanical vignetting on 14 mm. This you can correct in lightroom by choosing the 24-105 f/7.1 lens profile. Seems to be until now the best lens profile who can correct this mechanical vignetting of 14-35 in raw mode. Directly jpeg from camera doesn;t have this issue.
Thank you for passing by. 🙏
Lightroom now has a lens profile for 14 35.
And yes, the main issue is low light. I use a Samyang lens for astro so the F2.8 is not very useful. But again, the F4 + Samyang vs only the F2.8. The F2.8 is lighter. On top, in many situation for video capture purpose I found that the 2.8 is really useful specially in golden hour or indoor.
But indeed, if we talk about pure landscape, the F4 is the choice.
Thank you for sharing your raw files. You gave me more information that I was looking for. It is nice to see someone doing something in the real world makes a big difference. Keep the good work up thank you once again
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Glad that it was helpful for you.
Great video and thanks for access to the RAW images. I downloaded them and had a look for myself. The f/4 is the one for me. Price, weight and image quality that is quite close to the 2.8. And lots cheaper too! Thanks again!
Thank you… 🙏
Indeed; if you don’t need that F2.8 for astro or something; the F4 version is the best!
The first two minutes are how I’ve been feeling for a long long time!!!
Thank you… 🙏
Indeed! 😆
Literally looks like a commercial or Apple presentation. Good job man!
Thank you… 🙏
Thank you very much Avisekh! It's the 14-35 for me after watching this review.
Thanks you… 🙏
Happy that I could help…
I have to say, the intro shots in various places around those woods looked excellent. It looked like you were using a small light for your face or something, but they were just really nice. Good work.
Thank you… 🙏
Great video, lovely images at the end. Well done and thank you
Thank you… 🙏
Great comparison. Those RAWs out of the R5 are mindblowing. I'm thinking of getting the 14-35 for my RP and I wonder if I can even get results like that.
Thank you… 🙏
All the best for you wide angle adventure…
Did you? Do you?
@@MottiWolkenbruch I have never used RP. So it is difficult for me to tell exactly. But I doubt it will be too much different except the resolution.
Hello from Berlin/Germany, that's a nice Video. Thanks
Thank you… 🙏
purchased my RF15-35 yesterday and getting my R5C today coming from 60D and 5Dmarkiii which is my current camera i am excited to see your channel what a lovely video
Thank you… 🙏
And good luck with your future video adventure… 👍
Great video...thank you. It definitely helped me in my choice by going with the 15-35 as a multi-use len for astrophotography as well.
Thank you… 🙏
Glad that you liked it. In fact I will hopefully do some test of the two for astro soon. In next one or two days. But the result is probably pretty obvious. F4 vs F2.8 for astro; well F2.8 will probably win hands down with that 1 stop of light. But; how is the 2.8 compared to the more specialized Samyang XP F2.4! How does it work when I will use a tracker! These are interesting for me.
@@AMPhotography oh nice... Looking forward to the review! Keep them coming.
WOW. Great video. Lots of work went into this production
. Just a great video not to mention the info about the lenses.
Thank you… 🙏
Excellent video! Amazing photos! 👌🏻
Thank you… 🙏
Thank you for this real world comparison which actually isn't done in the usual technical reviews. On first view there are a lot of points in favor of the 14-35 - weight, price, plus 1mm at the wide end, filter size. But there's a feature that isn't mentioned in your video but make the decision even more difficult for me: The 14-35 is heavily software corrected and dependend on the profiles in LR, DxO etc while the 15-35 is optically corrected and way better in this regard. If you are shooting exclusively in raw format like I do and switch off the correction (or have no appropriate profile in your Raw converter in C1 etc) you will realize a horrible barrel distortion that is very difficult to correct and also an extreme corner shading since the 14-35 effectively is wider than 14mm without the software correction. Gordon Lang has proved this in his review, too. BTW, JPEGs are corrected automatically in the camera which cannot be switched off from what I know. Of course, you can argue that the result is important in the end - not the way how it's achieved. But in my more than 35 years of serious nature photography optical performance and correction of my lenses had always priority. So it may be the new approach of the manufacturers to sacrifice native optical quality in favor of software correction in order to save costs and weight. But that's a route I'd really need to get used to and therefore I'm even more undecided. Optically, the 15-35 clearily is the much better lens though the practical points may favor the 14-35
Wolfgang, Germany
Thank you for passing by. Indeed; and the profile are bit different between different RAW convertors. I use Capture one and the way it manages the profile is a little bit difficult that Lightroom. But as you said to me the final result is more important than how it was achieved. And when the bag weighs 21 KGs and one needs to hike up 1000+ meters; those few grams make a huge difference. Being said that; I still didn’t manage to sell off the 2.8. It does have its place in the bag in times. Specially for video work. But in my current trip to Jordan; I brought in the 14 and would do the same in September Iceland. That 1 MM would make a difference. Unless I get the 10 22! 😀
Thank for your sharing, very good info and details 👍👍👍
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Thank you great comparison. The real life examples are helpful. I purchased the 14-35mm. It remains a better value proposition
Thank you… 🙏
Glad that it helped…
Great video! I like the way you compare lenses. keep up the good work! thanks!
Thank you… 🙏
@@AMPhotography No worries mate. I've watched quite a few of your videos since. Great stuff! Could you make a video showing what gear you carry when hiking? thanks,
@@Wyn758 Yes; that is in plan. Will make it soon…
Haha my man! Great video brotha! I’ve been looking for a great ultra wide zoom lens for my golf vlogs for my EOS R. Great work bud. I’m definitely looking to get the 14-35. 👍🏽
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Indeed the 14 35 is a powerful lens in small size. Will be perfect for outdoor work!
Great video... finally someone looking at the practicality aspects between two similar lenses versus being a technonerd-pixel-peeper. I am an engineer and yes I usually strive for perfection, but at the same time, I like to be practical. Most of my shooting is land/city scape photography for my yearly vacations around the world with my wife. Before this year, I had a 7D crop sensor camera, but for this year I upgraded to an R6 MK II mirrorless. So my sold my old lenses and started investing on RF lenses. And yes, I was a few weeks ago stuck deciding between these two lenses.
But given my intent is to take my gear on a small backpack during travel and while visiting the remote places, I opted for the 14-35 F4. Again, practicality won here: size, weight, etc. The small difference in sharpness and mushiness in the corners will not make a difference for my purposes. What lens did you ended up with?
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Ironically I ended up keeping both. If it is a hiking or trip involves flight; I mostly use the 14; but for a car trip and for trips where video has priority I use the 15 as the 2.8 helps much more on lower light video.
Nice video and loved the photo and video work! Thank you!
Thank you… 🙏
Great job , well explained as well, for me I think is better 14-35mm , I love traveling and weight is important, quality is similar if you are not a pro . Congrats
Thank you… 🙏
Indeed you are spot on. For pure landscape photography except astro; the 14 35 definitely is the choice due to that 1MM extra and the smaller form factor along will lighter weight…
For years I have been happy with the EF16-35 f / 4. I only bought the RF15-35 f / 2.8 for night photography too, and at the time it was the only wide angle with RF mount. In 90% of my photos, I don't use f / 2.8.
Thank you for passing by. 🙏
Exactly the same for me. Used to have the EF 16 35 F4; in fact it was way better than the original F2.8 version. So I sold the 2.8 and got the F4 and was happy with that. I use a Samyang 14 2.4 for astro landscape images; so don’t really need that 2.8!
Have you noticed a difference for night shots?
which do you like?
A 2.8 for night shots? How did that work out for ya?
Thanks for comparing! I guess color and contrast are the same. light wise it is just one stop. For lanscape I certainly would prefer the 14-35 as I don't need f2.8 and it's lighter. for the f2.8 could give a better look in interviews.
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Indeed; for pure landscape photography except astro; the 14 35 is definitely the choice…
Instant sub! Your video are amazing and very informative. Thank you.
I went with the 15-35 f2.8 and think it's an great lens.
Absolutely. In fact I didn’t manage to get rid of it either! 😀
Thank you… 🙏
@@AMPhotographyYour work is amazing. Bravo on this comparison. These two lenses are very close. In fact I would love to see the prints from these two to see if the minor differences could be noticed. Some clearly need the faster lens for their work but the quality of the F4 is so close and even beats the F2.8 in the middle range part of the field. Again the difference is small and maybe not enough to see in prints even at close distances. Again thank you for your work.
@@noctwice I am now regularly using the 14 35 on the mountains. I don’t see any difference. I think my ability to enjoy the hike and get there without breaking my back is more important that sone purest looking at 200% to find minor difference that doesn’t matter. Now I only carry the 15 35 where I need to do astro or I am going to other places than the mountain where I can walk on flat land or go by car. I can now 100% recommend 14 35 as an alternative of 15 35 for landscape photography.
yeah cool video! This comparison is older, and I don't know which lens this guy still uses, but in reality the differences between the two will not make or break a great image. Only true difference is needing the narrower DOF of 2.8 which doesnt come up all that often in landscape photography. If it does, maybe you have another lens to use as an alternative.
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Yes indeed…
Dude that was a realy nice video. A bit long but realy good cuted :D
Great video. I think for landscape work where I won’t really take advantage of the faster 2.8 the 14-35 seems like the winner. Plus it’s lighter and more compact. Both real pluses in my book.
Thank you… 🙏
Indeed that is the direction I am inclining towards too. The difference is not that much compared to the advantage of the F4 version!
Great video. Thanks for doing this comparison. I was looking for this exact comparison but I am still confused about wich will be better. I am chosing the 2.8 purely for video reasons also. Currently there is $400 difference between the 2 and that makes it even harder. If the 14-35 was cheaper it would be a no brainer for me. By the way your photography, editing and colour grading is exceptional. Very well done
Thank you… 🙏
You know what; I didn’t manage to sell the 2.8 version and guess what; last weekend I kept the 2.8 in the bag while hiking. No particular reason. While at night I figured that my Move Shoot Move tracker wouldn’t move. Wow! Then I felt so good that I took the 2.8 with me that day! 🤔
Your video looks incredible
Thank you… 🙏
Tip for the Gimbal. Blance it in the half of the range, so u never will have a problem with the gimbal balance its works for the most zoom lenses
Thank you for passing by... 🙏
Indeed, that is what I normally do, but sometime with wide angle lenses a proper balancing is better specially when you are in the nature where your footing may not always be perfect.
Nice video! Very well done!!!
Thank you… 🙏
Thanks for this video, it's important we make lens decisions on actual photographs especially for a landscape lens. We need to see corner sharpness side by side with comparative lenses, not charts and graphs as you've said.
Thank you… 🙏
Great video - thanks
Thank you… 🙏
Great video on real landscape pictures comparison!
Thank you… 🙏
Thank you for the video. I have the same problem, also thinking about buying both to decide. I can feel your confusion and connected well. The price difference where I live, with current cashback, is only 350 EUR which is in my opinion neglegible for 2000 Eur range. For me they cost the same and it is F4 that is overpriced while f2.8 is overweight. 1mm difference quite significant in your imagine, I was surprised you didn't appreciate it. On the aperture side I do astro 1-2 time's a year and I am planning northern lights trip so one stop is a big loss. The weight difference is another hard point, 2.8 being 50% heavier and much bulkier.
That is a great photo. I wish you could take more variety of pictures, as the canyon walls make it hard to compare for me. Interestingly all other videos claim the F4 version is sharpen and have higher contrast than 2.8.
Thank you for passing by... 🙏
Absolutely, this is not an easy choice. I normally use the Samyang XP 14mm f/2.4 for all kind of Astro Photography. But in my last experiment, a tracker makes massive difference. Sure the current cameras are pretty good at ISO 3200 or ISO 6400; but when the same image comes from ISO 400; it is still a massive difference. I don't know the coma situation of these two lenses, but if you buy a tracker, you may very well use F4 or even F5.6 to get a perfectly sharp and low ISO image and that will look way better than even stacked ISO 6400 F2.8 images. I started using the move shoot move tracker. In fact this is the only one I can actually easily carry in my hiking sack.
But indeed, the 2.8 will be useful for Northern Light for sure. You can try the Samyang, but it is a fixed 14MM; means if you want to make a bit tighter composition you can't zoom in like the 15 35. But the quality is pretty good, no coma and not that expensive. The 2.8 of the same Samyang lens is even cheaper, but I had massive quality issue with that (decentral and had to send back 3 times). Also the 2.4 version is build better and on a hiking back, I need a bit strongly build lens as it is not always as safe as a camera bag!
Good luck for your aurora hunt, really a spectacular natural magic.
Great to see comparison in real world situation, few things to consider , lenses may behave a bit different if target is at infinity, also very small changes in focus can give different results in corners specially , sometimes I focus on sides to get better overall sharpness.
Thank you for your time.
Kristian
Thank you… 🙏
Good point. In fact in this case I did focus on that left side wall and yes normally it is the dominant subject that should have the focus. But for landscape photography most of the time it is important to have larger DOF to have corner to corner sharpness!
I have 14-35mm I like compact lightweight design and for my work the F/2.8 was unnecessary. I didn't mind saving $600 either :)
Thank you for passing by. 🙏
Indeed if you don’t need that 2.8; the 14 35 makes complete sense…
Great video, thanks
It would be interesting if you could show the difference during nighttime, to compare the f4 with f2.8 in both lenses.
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Night means you mean astro? Or normal night image where you will use a tripod and exposure time is not a problem?
Great video! Thanks.
Thank you… 🙏
great comparison, I like the approach to this. This makes me satisfied with my purchase of the 14-35 version for a wide angle lens, if I want fast I have primes for that.
Thank you… 🙏
please do the RF 35 vs 16. I need more videos with your approach of testing. Good to see them in action and side to side.
Thank you… 🙏
I will keep that in mind. I do have the RF 35 F1.8 and as it is 1.8 and is a macro; it is useful. But I don’t have the RF 16 F2.8 and it doesn’t fit in my lineup as I have the Samyang 14 F2.4 and the 15 35 F2.8 is not yet sold. If it was 16 MM F1.8; it would have been definitely interesting! 🙂
But if I get my hand on it; I will make a comparison of IQ.
@@AMPhotography nice. I am just looking from "2 cheapest canon RF lenses, I need compliment to my 85, something wide" side. Do i need the 16 or the 35 is "enough". Things like that. Other reviewers are comparing them to the 14-35L/15-35L witch is very far from my case. Also most missing the hands-on approach you used. Nice channel, mate!
@@fixxxer4234 Thanks again. 🙏
And indeed; too many easy test of charts around as it is easier to do by seating home. But at the end in reality those have very little impact on the actual image!
What a review buddy!! Loved this and all ulir talking head shots! What's your setup here for filming like?
Thank you… 🙏
It was shot with R6 and RF 24 70 F2.8 only natural light and some shots with 85 F2.
@@AMPhotography awesome man! Looking to grab the RP as an entry DSLR Mirrorless with this lens.
Do you think the R6 +35 1.8 lens OR Canon RP with this 15-35 2.8 lens would be a better go?
@@11alexdeo It depends a bit. That C-Log3 on R6 definitely gives you some creative freedom to color correct footage in post. At the same time 35 MM is not wide enough and the lens is really slow for auto focus. But the image quality is pretty good. It is very light and that 1.8 creates way better background blur than the 15 35 F2.8! So if you need that wide angle; there is no other option than the zoom or the 16MM F2.8. If you only want head shots and you have room for that; the R6 + 38 F1.8 is perfect choice.
For me, the differences between the image quality of the two are minimal. I am curious if the lenses had the RAW Adobe correction applied. For the difference in bulk, weight, the extra bit more FoV, the ability to use a standard 77mm filter, and most of all the cost, for me the 14-35 wins hands-down. I plan to get one in the near future.
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Yes the lens correction was switched on in the lens; but you can switch that off in DPP and see how it looks without the correction in the RAW image. You can find the RAW images from the URL in the description of the video.
Indeed the difference is very small. I have not yet sold the F2.8 version as I use that one mostly for low light video where a stop of ISO makes huge difference. If I go for only photography specially on the mountain; I always take the F4 with me.
great video
Thank you… 🙏
Good work.
Thank you… 🙏
@@AMPhotography welcome
Avishek da, since you hike a lot, what’s your thought on moving to an APSC mirrorless system, considering the reduced gear weight? This idea is supported and practised by the landscape photographer Andy Mumford. You can check out his channel. He moved from a Nikon FF to Fuji crop sensor and has never looked back.
Thanks for passing by. 🙏
I think the issue with crop sensor is the limited dynamic range and also poorer low light performance.
Many of my evening videos are with ISO 6400 and even 51200. I doubt any APSC sensor will be able to manage such ISO properly.
Also there is a fact related to the weather sealing. I go to odd places where cameras get wet, stays whole night outside on heavy fog. Desert dust. Normally APSC bodies are not built to sustain such weather conditions.
Being said that; as I always say. Camera is just a gear. The photographs are made from 2 inch behind the camera.
I am sure most of my need will be fulfilled by a modern APSC cameras. But definitely not all.
By the way I will not use any mirrorless cameras unless they implement the same type of sensor cover that Canon implemented.
After the trip of Iceland and the deserts of Egypt; I have no visible dust in the sensor. This is incredible. The canon DSLRs never managed to do so. And needless to say that I have changed lenses 100s of times. Yes I was careful; but that was the case before too.
It is a pain to remove sensor spot from videos.
So; that stays as number 1 criteria for me. Rest when it comes to produce a good image. I am pretty sure that I can do that with any camera as long as I have the needed light.
Hey man, amazing video. You've really put some work in it and it shows! For review part I think it would be a bit more complete to show some highlight stars (often overlooked, but quite significant aspect of WA lens) and advantages (if any) having 2.8 in terms of shallow DOF for close focus photography. I also wondering what lens (brand focal, F-settings) were you using for filming yourself. Very pleasant grading and look.
Thank you for passing by and your feedback… 🙏
Indeed there are those aspects that I didn’t compare as I was mainly comparing it for wide angle landscape photography where normally more DOF is needed to have everything in sharp focus than shallow DOF.
The starburst is a good point and I can confirm that they are identical after around F5.6 you already start getting the effects and after F11 it is amazing.
The video was captured wide open and none of those lenses where used for the video itself.
The video was captured mostly using RF 24 70 F2.8 and some using RF 35 F1.8 and RF 85 F2. All videos are mostly shoot wide open for the respective lenses.
R5 4K HQ 23.98P and 29.97P and very few in 119.9P (like those frosty plants).
Mostly shoot using a tripod except the walking and talking shot was handheld 35 F1.8.
I am emidiately understood that you filming yourself on 24 :))) but though it's 24-105 L.
And what do you think about this lens today? Do you use 14-35 or still 15-35
I use the 15 35 mostly for the video work as well as astro when I can’t carry my specialized primes. Else I use the 14 35. Specially when I go for hiking. 14 35 is way better for the size and weight.
Thanks for doing the comparo. Did you copy and paste the edits to both images or were they individually edited? Also, were you in manual mode with same settings? IS on/off?
Also, can you move a bit slower/spend 2 seconds longer in each zoomed in comparison as it was a bit quick for me:)
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Yes; both of them were in manual mode and also focuses at the same location.
IS Off.
The setting was synced via lightroom.
You can find the links of the original RAW files in the description. So feel free to download them and compare on your own.
You can also play the video in half speed to have every frame up longer if that helps.
@@AMPhotography Thanks. Good job! I didn't know I could run the video at half speed so that is a bonus. I have the 14-35. It is better than I am. Less size and weight mean I get out more often. Cheers
RF 14-35mm because it is light and has 14mm. Difficult to tell apart except when zooming in but even then it is very small loss of sharpness on the edges.
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Completely agree. For landscape photography unless you would want a lens that would also do astro 14 35 is the option.
@@AMPhotography I'll use a Laowa 15mm f/2 for astrophotography. It's better than the f/2.8 in the RF 15-35mm.
@@teepatchong5668 Indeed. I use Samyang 14 MM F2.4
This video looks so beautiful. What lens did you use to film it?
Thank you… 🙏
Majority of it is filmed with RF 24 70 F2.8 and some parts with RF 85 1.8.
Great video in a very nice enviroment. Wide angel lens is very important for me so i bought the first one canon droped for the rf system, 15-35mm f2.8. It all depends on which camera you are using. I am using canon rp and the 15-35mm is to front heavy for that camera :-/.
Thank you… 🙏
Indeed the 15-35 is a heavy lens!
I think need to adjust white balance of ur vids. Good work
Thank you… 🙏
Regarding white balance; I like my videos to be a bit warmer specially during autumn and golden hours.
It also depends on the screen used for watching though.
I know some people want videos with cooler color temperature. But at the end it is personal choice. And then it is autumn; the warm light and ambiance is what we go out for during this time of the year. So… 😊
which aperture did you use for your test comparison ?
Thank you.... 🙏
The images are all with F11 (5 seconds, ISO 100).
What F stop were the comparisons taken? Both wide open or both at F4? How would they compare if they were both shot at F5.6 or F8? Thank you!
Thank you for passing by. 🙏
All the images are with F11, 5 Seconds, ISO 100. To keep optimal DOF in all focal lengths from 14 all the way up to 35. So that no softness comes from varying DOF in different focal length.
@@AMPhotography After having viewed the Christopher Frost review, it doesn't appear that F11 is ever optimal for the RF 14-35. You would have experienced much better results if you had never stopped down past F8 and in many cases F5.6 would have given optimal results.
@@brentj7564 Yes. That is probably true for most of the lenses. After F8 normally detraction makes lenses a bit softer. But the differences are mostly noticeable on a chart images. It doesn't make that much difference in real world. Specially for landscape photography.
Issue is that photography is all about trade off. Optimal aperture vs optimal DOF vs time consuming and often failed focus stacking.
Reality is that a great landscape image is great not because it is taken in F5.6 or F8 or F11; rather from the composition and light and shutter speed etc. Sure in some creative cases the aperture matters and that is when a fast lens signs. But again probability is that when you get to a mountain you will get 5% of those cases and 95% of other cases where you will lovely foreground moving cloud and plants and reflections etc where stacking is very difficult and F5.6 or F8 will give you an image with a out of focus background. Hence; I do experiment and judge a lens based on higher aperture than lower for landscape. Specially the wide angle lenses!
I enjoyed your video. Which one did you finally decide on?
Thank you… 🙏
I am inclining towards the 14 35 F4!
14-35 f4 looks like the best choice. Without the a-b comparison, you’d never know there was a difference between the two lenses. If what you shoot requires 2.8, get the 2.8, but I’ve been shooting for years with the EF 17-40 f4, and I never have wished I could get less depth of field.
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Absolutely. That is the only difference. If that 2.8 is not needed; the F4 version is fantastic. Eventually I have kept both. I take the 2.8 with me when I need to do astro or low light video. Else I mostly use the F4 version. That weight and size is so much relief. Practically there is no visible difference in the IQ.
I came here for answers but left only with more questions 😂
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
Yes; it is a difficult choice! 😄
I would say; if you are doing landscape and no need to astro; get the F4. But if you are doing astro; F4 is not really an option. Unless you are using a tracker.
What lens did you shoot yourself with.....I want to buy that one :D
Thank you for painting by… 🙏
😄 Good one. It was with RF 24 70 F2.8, RF 35 F1.8 and RF 85 F2.0. Indeed all of them are great lenses and the 8K down sample of R5 creates amazing detail.
What about vignetting? I heard the 14-35mm is bad
No. That was before the lens profile update in lightroom. Now you wouldn’t see that anymore neither in the camera nor in lightroom. But I didn’t check how it is without the profile. The RAW images can be found in the description and you can check it. I will check it once and update you.
It would have been good if u did some astrophotography shots to see if the 1-stop difference meant a lower iso at the sacrifice of 1mm fov.
Thank you for passing by.. 🙏
Absolutely. That is the plan. Will definitely make a comparison for astro photography for those lenses and put my favorite astro lens Samyang 14 2.4 into the mix.
I would compare the samyang to the rf 16 f2.8
@@snapsnap1 Yes. That is what I meant. Compare 14 35 F4 vs 15 35 F2.8 vs Samyang 14 F2.4. Will be interesting to see the results!
You should have more subs
Thank you… 🙏
Probably not so good at publicity! 😄
Love this so much! ALSO what lens did you use to record this video? Specially while you were walking while you were holding the camera. You're eyes look so clear
Thank you… 🙏
The video was filmed mostly with Canon RF 24 70 F2.8 and Canon RF 85 F2.0.
Both are very good lenses.
And that walking shot was with Canon RF 35 F1.8.
Your wearing your back pack way wrong lol. It needs to sit up higher on your hip. I've been backpacking for a decade and can tell that it would be much more comfortable if you change it's adjustments
Thank you for passing by... 🙏
I think everyone have their conform zone. I am also not new in backpacking though! 🙂
Started 32 years back as one of the youngest to cross Khardung La (5,359 meters) of Indian Himalayas at the age of 9!
Spannendes Video! Ich bin allerdings recht im Dilemma, welches der beiden Objektive ich mir aneignen soll, weil in der CH der finanzielle Unterschied zwischen den beiden nur etwa 300 CHF ist. Ausserdem zeigt ein anderes Video zu diesem Thema (ua-cam.com/video/rl07XJ7I0vY/v-deo.html) bezüglich Schärfe und Farbrendering zu etwas andere Ergebnisse kommt.
Dankeschön... 🙏
Ja, es ist keine leichte Wahl.
Ja in der Schweiz ist es genau das, wenn es 600chf günstiger wäre, würde ich sofort das f4 nehmen. Du hast den falschen link gepostet, das ist der von diesem video. Wenn es bei Farben und Kontrast unterschiede gibt, könnte das schon ein pro für das 2.8 sein.
Which place is this may you tell…nice comparison…Thank you
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
The place is called “Gorge de l’Aruse” at Neuchatel in Switzerland.
@@AMPhotography thank you what a beautiful place
I bought the 14-35 before watching this video now i want the 15-35 😂😂😂😂😂
Thank you for passing by… 🙏
I end up keeping both as I see use case for both time to time. For example; when I do long hikes; I don’t always have space to carry a dedicated astro lens. Then I take the 15 35 with me. But for cases where there is no opportunity for astro. Eg. full moon night or normal city trips; I use the 14 35.
it took me 14 seconds to realise this would be a waste of time. No thanks
Thank you for your feedback… 🙏