Agreed! I have bought Canon lenses almost exclusively, the one exception was a Rokinon (Samyang) 14/2.8 that I bought for occasional Astro use. I test all new lenses when I get them, that Roki 14/2.8 is the only one I’ve ever had to exchange for a proper copy.
The EF version must have been so much better since it didn't need any software corrections. Believe me, I had one...
But what about a 10-20mm?I see it just like you, but I am still waiting for a 24-70 II. Then, I could sell the 15-35 and add the 14mm to the 24-70 and 70-200 for short trips. The gap between 14 and 24 wouldn't bother me much. One additional (lightweight) lens wouldn't matter much.
Also, I am absolutely convinced that the 14mm will be extremely good! Stlll 3 weeks of waiting and waiting...
Not bad, a very good lens, yet far too specific in use for me. This is what I like about the 15-35, extending from UWA to a moderate WA. I often use the extremes, and also 24mm, but less what is in between.But what about a 10-20mm?
I guess I had decentered Tamron lenses for APS-C in 2018... they were a pain so I sold them and returned them. With Canon lenses, I only had an issue with the RF 50mm F1.8. It was focus hunting all the time even with static objects. I returned it and a second copy - which now belongs to my father-in-law, works far better.
The RF 15-35mm F2.8 is an absolutely great lens!!! The iq is outstanding and the lens is sharp across all focal lengths. I agree, it is perfect for landscapes, city travels and @35mm F2.8 fairly good for environmental portraits or group shots. I used it for nearly two years and only sold it because the RF 14-35mm is significantly lighter and I have more lenses with a 77mm filter thread. Other than that, I never would have sold the lens. Still, I´d image Canon might one day release a lighter mkii version...
I use the same filter (CPL) and I have never had any issues unless I wasn't paying attentionI'm using the B&W "T pro MRC nano" filters, which have a very thin mount. No issues whatsoever, even at 15mm! Loss of sharpness? Maybe under a microscope?
Looking to add a second one, but those filters have gotten really, really expansive.But they still cost far less than a badly scratched front lens!I use the same filter (CPL) and I have never had any issues unless I wasn't paying attention
My experiences with early Canon EF WA/UWA zooms were disappointing, as many people agree.
I've stuck with the Master series, the 'new' version of the XS-Pro mount (as the Basic is the 'new' F-Pro mount). The T-Pro filters are slightly thinner (2.9mm vs. 3.4mm for typical filters, though mount of the 112mm filter for my 100-300/2.8 is 6mm thick), but I've never had any issues with vignetting with my XS-Pro filters. They're both brass, and the 'titanium' (silver by any other name) finish reminds me too much of Canon's saying that, "The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch," about the cheap and low IQ EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM III.
The first two versions of the EF 16-35mm f2.8 were not very good, the third version was very good, even on my 5DsR.
To be clear, the 14/1.4 does not take a front filter. It does have a rear gel slot. At some point, Fotodiox or someone else might make an adapter to take the salad plate sized filters like the 145mm ones I have for my TSE 17.
I believe the EF 16-35 f/4 and the EF 16-35 f/2,8 were the first really good Canon UWA lenses. Corners were sharp, and that's where the predecessors suffered most. But now, we almost have too many excellent choices!
I had the EF 16-35mm F4 L in 2019/ 2020 and took it to Ne Zealand. I got some great shots with it and the lens really is sharp edge to edge. I sold it during Covid with what would've been a large win-margin (about 280 €), but I had to send to Canon CPS beforehand and get it repaired. It turned out, it was a costly repair.
Seems like it. The RF 14-35mm is a worthy spiritual successor to the 16-35mm. I love the extra 2mm and the great magnification. Canon made a really good lens even greater.
