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

Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
Is it worse because the R uses less sharpening or is it just worse than the 16-35 f4 L IS? Seems like more vignetting also. Not what I expected really.. Seems like it's very little distortion, but even at f4 it seems worse than the 16-35 f4 L IS. And only the mid frame seems marginally better than the RF50 at f1.2, off center the RF50 looks better. The RF50 is very sharp wide open, and the 15-35 seems close, so it's not unsharp. I really don't know, lol.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 27, 2019
667
1,414
Is it worse because the R uses less sharpening or is it just worse than the 16-35 f4 L IS? Seems like more vignetting also. Not what I expected really.. Seems like it's very little distortion, but even at f4 it seems worse than the 16-35 f4 L IS. And only the mid frame seems marginally better than the RF50 at f1.2, off center the RF50 looks better. The RF50 is very sharp wide open, and the 15-35 seems close, so it's not unsharp. I really don't know, lol.

I was looking at the 16-35 F4 in comparison, I wonder if the 5Ds R high resolution is what is making the difference.
 
Upvote 0
Seems rather odd that it looks so apparently poor. Wonder if this could be a pre-production model or a dodgy copy? Either way I guess we'll need to wait for further reviews & user findings once it's on general sale.

I do wonder about these comparisons though - if you compare the RF24-105 F4L on an EOS R to the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII on the same body, the charts suggest the RF lens is better at both 24 & 70 ends in the corners at least ?? Something doesn't seem right here ...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
Seems rather odd that it looks so apparently poor. Wonder if this could be a pre-production model or a dodgy copy? Either way I guess we'll need to wait for further reviews & user findings once it's on general sale.
I suspect it has something to do that default sharpening with R is lower, I’ll try and find a quote (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 27, 2019
667
1,414
If this is the sharpness we can expect from the 15-35 I will be disappointed, I just compared the RF 24-105 and the 24-105 looks sharper @f4 in every focal length that I tried.

I have the 15-35 on pre-order so I am hoping something is wrong with the results.

Hard to pay $3300 Canadian for a lens that is less sharp than my $1100 16-35 F4
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

jd7

CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,064
418
Seems rather odd that it looks so apparently poor. Wonder if this could be a pre-production model or a dodgy copy? Either way I guess we'll need to wait for further reviews & user findings once it's on general sale.

I do wonder about these comparisons though - if you compare the RF24-105 F4L on an EOS R to the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII on the same body, the charts suggest the RF lens is better at both 24 & 70 ends in the corners at least ?? Something doesn't seem right here ...
Perhaps, although I'm sure I've read the shorter flange distance often used by mirrorless cameras (including Canon's RF mount) makes UWA more challenging to design. Maybe we are seeing evidence that the RF mount (and other short flange distance mounts) have disadvantages as well as advantages? (This may not be the answer - and I'm certainly no lens designer - but I'll be interested to find out more information though when more people have had a chance to test the 15-35.)
 
Upvote 0
May 4, 2011
1,175
251
Wow, a bit underwhelming to be honest but need more takes/reviews to be sure.

Let's not forget that with the EF version it took them 3 iterations to "get it right" - the first 2 versions were quite meh as well, as was the 17-40. Maybe the RF design poses new challenges in this realm..? Would one get better results adapting the EF 2.8 III instead? I'd like to see that comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
Perhaps, although I'm sure I've read the shorter flange distance often used by mirrorless cameras (including Canon's RF mount) makes UWA more challenging to design. Maybe we are seeing evidence that the RF mount (and other short flange distance mounts) have disadvantages as well as advantages? (This may not be the answer - and I'm certainly no lens designer - but I'll be interested to find out more information though when more people have had a chance to test the 15-35.)
Not more challenging, but easier, it’s for longer FL’s that the short flange distance doesn’t matter much.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
Wow, a bit underwhelming to be honest but need more takes/reviews to be sure.

Let's not forget that with the EF version it took them 3 iterations to "get it right" - the first 2 versions were quite meh as well, as was the 17-40. Maybe the RF design poses new challenges in this realm..? Would one get better results adapting the EF 2.8 III instead? I'd like to see that comparison.
Do you think people have any kind of patience to wait three generations for a decent uwa for RF? No, this is it for the next 10-12 years at least, and it has to be at least matching the 16-35 L III.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

jd7

CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,064
418
Not more challenging, but easier, it’s for longer FL’s that the short flange distance doesn’t matter much.
I was thinking I had read the shorter flange distance creates issues for UWA lenses because it requires a high angle of incidence for the light striking the sensor. However, when you think about it, I assume if extra distance to the sensor was needed, the lens could just be designed with a longer barrel, so it is hard to see why it should be an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
I was thinking I had read the shorter flange distance creates issues for UWA lenses because it requires a high angle of incidence for the light striking the sensor. However, when you think about it, I assume if extra distance to the sensor was needed, the lens could just be designed with a longer barrel, so it is hard to see why it should be an issue.
Hm, that sounds logical.. so perhaps that’s why they released the 35, 50, and 85 because it’s only midrange the RF mount is good for. And maybe that’s why the 28-70 isn’t 24. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

tron

CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,222
1,616
I compared it with 16-35mm 2.8L III because I do have it. The 2.8L III is much better. Although there is no choice for the 30Mp EOS R with adapter (or for the 5DIV) for the EF lens, I checked with both the 21Mp 1DxIII and the 50Mp 5DsR. Same impression.

The EF lens wins with a difference. Now although I long for IS I might relax and save money (for now) :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
Wow, a bit underwhelming to be honest but need more takes/reviews to be sure.

Let's not forget that with the EF version it took them 3 iterations to "get it right" - the first 2 versions were quite meh as well, as was the 17-40. Maybe the RF design poses new challenges in this realm..? Would one get better results adapting the EF 2.8 III instead? I'd like to see that comparison.
Flat chart assessments on wide angles can be flaky.
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,569
4,109
The Netherlands
Wow, a bit underwhelming to be honest but need more takes/reviews to be sure.

Let's not forget that with the EF version it took them 3 iterations to "get it right" - the first 2 versions were quite meh as well, as was the 17-40. Maybe the RF design poses new challenges in this realm..? Would one get better results adapting the EF 2.8 III instead? I'd like to see that comparison.

The simulated MTF charts Canon published for the RF15-35 don't really show improvements compared to the EF16-35. But that's simulated MTF at 15mm on the RF compared to 16mm on the EF, so not exactly the same thing and computer generated as well.
 
Upvote 0
I suspect it has something to do that default sharpening with R is lower, I’ll try and find a quote (y)

Take a look at the comments below at the TDP linked below. Bryan attributes the difference to the sharpening difference between the R and the 5DSr and gives a comparison of the 200 f/2 on both cameras. You see a similar trend where the R is blurrier. The MTFs are comparable to the 16-35 III, which is really good at resolution, so no surprise there -- they are the same generation. Bryan also intends on keeping it as part of his personal kit. So if one factors in the difference in sensor processing, which suggests that the two should perform similarly, and take into account that the RF version goes slightly wider and has IS... and costs more (at least initially), then the trade is first adopter premium for IS and 1mm on the wide end. For those with the funds and a R-centric kit, it makes sense.

Now if the R had the frame-rate of the M6 II... then I'd be all in on the R-ecosystem.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0