RF 15-35mm F2.8 Image Quality samples up @ The Digital Picture

Ramage

EOS M50
Aug 27, 2019
28
21
Thanks for sharing! Looks like they might have sacrificed some sharpness for extremely low levels of distortion. I think that’s okay if that’s the case.
Yeah I am looking forward to seeing more tests\reviews as well as my own testing once my copy arrives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,031
338
Thanks for sharing! Looks like they might have sacrificed some sharpness for extremely low levels of distortion. I think that’s okay if that’s the case.
Sorry but I do not agree. There have been many generations of ultra wide angle zooms before Canon managed to achieve high IQ across the frame. Now it seems they start all over. Of course we need apple to apple comparisons (or at least almost apple to apple) like a comparison with a 16-35 2.8L III with an adapter to EOS R.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,172
734
Sorry but I do not agree. There have been many generations of ultra wide angle zooms before Canon managed to achieve high IQ across the frame. Now it seems they start all over. Of course we need apple to apple comparisons (or at least almost apple to apple) like a comparison with a 16-35 2.8L III with an adapter to EOS R.
High IQ yes, and this lens seems to match the wide open performance of the RF50 so it’s plenty sharp. But how many uwa zooms are “practically distortion free”? Perhaps the Zeiss 15, but MF and not a zoom and gigantic. And what does lens correction with heavy distortion do to corner sharpness?
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,031
338
High IQ yes, and this lens seems to match the wide open performance of the RF50 so it’s plenty sharp. But how many uwa zooms are “practically distortion free”? Perhaps the Zeiss 15, but MF and not a zoom and gigantic. And what does lens correction with heavy distortion do to corner sharpness?
We do not always need correction at least not 100% like when we shoot landscapes. Also for architecture a TS-E lens is more appropriate. But everything is relative I guess because we do not carry a ton of lenses I admit so we tend to revert to a UWA zoom for many purposes.

In addition the 16-35 III does not have terrible distortion. Although it may have a little more than the RF lens it is in fact very decent. This is not Samyang 14 2.8 to talk about distortion! So is this small difference worth the worse IQ? I do not think so. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,031
338
Having said that I would love a 2.8 Canon UWA zoom lens with IS (especially with 5 stops!). So I am not biased against it. But I am not going to pay for an EOS R and this zoom to gain something and lose something else. It has to be a superset. Otherwise the version III is a superb lens.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,504
610
Southeastern USA
I'm really not sure how serious of a problem the 5 stops of vignette would be in real world use. In his review of the rf 50mm f/1.2L, Bryan says that lens has 4 stops "peripheral shading." I don't know how to measure it in Lightroom or PS CC, but what I'm seeing in my f/1.2 photos doesn't seem to need so much correction...

Five stops certainly sounds bad. We laugh at people who complain about not being able to fix images that are five stops underexposed...

At least with the 50mm at f.1.2, most of my shots are composed in ways which are not too badly affected by the vignette. My ef 16-35mm f/4 has very little vignette, so, I'm left trying to add vignette in LR to see how it affects wide angle images shot with wide apertures, but how do I translate the Lens Corrections slider to "stops"?

:unsure:
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,031
338
According to TDP it's about 4 to 4.5 at the extreme corners for both EF III and RF UWA 2.8 lenses.I had shot many pictures at internal spaces with my EF 2.8 III and it affected the outcome in a small set of pictures where the IQ (after correction) is worse noisewise when moving away from the center. I am thinking of applying DxO PL Prime noise reduction for these pictures. We'll see.

Of course at f/4 the situation is much better. But there are cases where 2.8 is useful. There is of course the comparison of an f/4 IS lens vs a non-stabilized f/2.8. Which is more suitable? (Opinions welcome. I do have both but I carry only one with me at a time and I encountered some dark interiors during my last trip). So this is why although a fanatic fan (pun intended!) of 5DMkIV for interior low light photography I am also very positive about the EOS R/RF15-35 combination.

EDIT: I mentioned that a small set of pictures has been affected because in the rest of the cases the photo target does not extend to cover 100% of the frame (think a statue for example). But there are cases where every UWA mm counts (think paintings and lack of space at the same time for example). In these cases it would be better to have less vignetting.
 
Last edited: