ePhotozine reviews the Canon EOS RF 16mm F2.8 STM and RF 14-35mm F/4L IS USM

[AlanF]

Amusingly, the near freebie 16mm is measured to be sharper in the centre than its zoom big brother.

Canon RF 16mm F/2.8 STM Lens Review

John Riley has been putting the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM lens to the test with the help of the Canon R6 mirrorless camera.

www.ephotozine.com

Canon RF 14-35mm F/4L IS USM Lens Review

John Riley has been putting the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM lens through its paces. Read on to find out how this widest RF lens to date performs.

www.ephotozine.com

 

[Del Paso]

I noticed a huge difference in corner performance between ephotozine and OpticalLimits 16mm reviews...
I tend to rely more on OpticalLimits, since their findings usually correspond to my own impressions. But this is purely subjective, of course.

 

[Jethro]

I noticed a huge difference in corner performance between ephotozine and OpticalLimits 16mm reviews...
I tend to rely more on OpticalLimits, since their findings usually correspond to my own impressions. But this is purely subjective, of course.

Agreed - although with cheaper lenses, I always wonder whether sample variation is more pronounced?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Agreed - although with cheaper lenses, I always wonder whether sample variation is more pronounced?

I recall that Bryan (TDP) tested four copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II. The first two performed poorly. Not a cheap lens.

 

[Jethro]

I recall that Bryan (TDP) tested four copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II. The first two performed poorly. Not a cheap lens.

Disgraceful in an 'L' lens. Klaus at OpticalLimits always comments on the 'centring' of lenses he tests, and my impression is that price and 'pro status' seems to count for not much at all. All makers too.

 

[AlanF]

I noticed a huge difference in corner performance between ephotozine and OpticalLimits 16mm reviews...
I tend to rely more on OpticalLimits, since their findings usually correspond to my own impressions. But this is purely subjective, of course.

ePhotozine‘s MTF charts are indeed usually flatter than opticallimit’s. However, they don‘t report corners and go out only to the edges, unlike the latter does. An important difference here is that ePhotozine used the R6 whereas opticallimits used the R5 but they also gave results for the R, and the edge/centre difference is quite similar for lower pixels.

 

[Del Paso]

ePhotozine‘s MTF charts are indeed usually flatter than opticallimit’s. However, they don‘t report corners and go out only to the edges, unlike the latter does. An important difference here is that ePhotozine used the R6 whereas opticallimits used the R5 but they also gave results for the R, and the edge/centre difference is quite similar for lower pixels.

Anyway, they are both more reliable than the glamorous Tony-Chelsea "reviews"

 

[Del Paso]

I recall that Bryan (TDP) tested four copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II. The first two performed poorly. Not a cheap lens.

And Opticallimits were not that impressed with their copy ("good, but not outstanding"), which, for them, means a rather mediocre performance.
The f4 version got better ratings...

 

[AlanF]

Disgraceful in an 'L' lens. Klaus at OpticalLimits always comments on the 'centring' of lenses he tests, and my impression is that price and 'pro status' seems to count for not much at all. All makers too.

Roger of lensrentals has had several blogs about this. These two sum up what he has found.

Roger Cicala: the difference between sample variation and a 'bad copy' (Part 1)

In the first part of a two-part article, lens testing expert Roger Cicala explains why inevitable variation among copies of a lens and a 'bad copy' aren't the same thing.

www.dpreview.com

Roger Cicala: the difference between sample variation and a 'bad copy' (Part 2)

Roger Cicala delves back into the murky waters of sample variation among lenses and explains how – depending on how you define your standards – you might end up getting multiple 'bad copies'.

www.dpreview.com