RF Wide Options...........

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,135
519
I have an EF 14 f/2.8 mii and an EF 16-35 f/4. I use the 14 for rare astro stuff (Milky Way, Star Trails) and some landscapes and the 16-35 as part of a triad for travel (travel? Well, up until about 9 months ago, I used to travel. But these days, don't get out so much :rolleyes:). They work well with EF-RF adapters. But, I am thinking about my future in RF land and am trying to trim down my stable of lenses.

Were I to sell the 14 and 16-35 and then get an RF 15-35 f/2.8, I'd think this one zoom could take the place of the two EF lenses I have now. I know the lens is a bit bigger than the 16-35, but it won't need an adapter and is faster. Anyone try the RF for astro? Reviewers suggest the RF is same or maybe even corner sharper than the EF. Anyone else make this kind of change?

I know these are decisions for which there is no right answer and would depend on one's style and usage but I value any thoughts. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

jeanluc

EOS RP
Oct 29, 2012
229
131
I have had the EF 16-35 F2.8L III, the F4 16-35 you have and the 15-35 RF. I like all three. The performance of the 15-35 is almost exactly the same as the F2.8 16-35 LIII, including for night shots. The EF lenses work perfectly on my R and R5. I got the 15-35 mainly for the extra 1mm, since I mainly shoot landscapes, but also to ditch the adapters. That is also why I sold the EF 24-70L II and got the RF version. They also have IS, unlike the EF versions (although your F4 does).
 

NJFanta

I'm New Here
Jun 3, 2020
13
9
In a regular dslr I was shooting with a 15mm fisheye and the 17-40 and I used both up until a month ago, when I finally purchased the RF 15-35 and I quickly sold the fisheye and 17-40. Not having to use the adapters just makes my life so much easier! Also, I felt as though the 15-35 replaced both lenses. I now use it for weddings, real estate and landscapes/night stuff. It's extremely sharp, no adapter, less in my bag, and it's a killer lens. The night photos are crisp and sharp, 15% better than what I was using. I have also owned the 16-35 f4 and really did not care for how slow it was and for the $$ the 17-40 was almost, just as good.

If you can afford the RF 15-35, it's well worth it!
 

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,135
519
Just put my EF 14 f/2.8 ii and EF 16-35 f/4 up for sale. Depending on the price I can get, I might just go ahead with the RF 15-35 f/2.8 to replace them. Depends on the $.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,470
2,336
Just put my EF 14 f/2.8 ii and EF 16-35 f/4 up for sale. Depending on the price I can get, I might just go ahead with the RF 15-35 f/2.8 to replace them. Depends on the $.

I had no full frame wideangle, and was in a brick and mortar the day after I got my R5, looking to get either the 16-35 f/4 or f/2.8...I ended up walking out with an RF 15-35 f/2.8, a financial sucking chest wound...and no regrets.

Those two days were expensive.
 

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,135
519
All,

Sold the two lenses. While I wish I had gotten more (sadly saw the original new price paid when I was boxing them up :( ), I still think it is the right move for me and 6 months "same as cash" makes the additional outlay less painful. Good news, bad news is that I think I am done for a while in terms of photography purchases.
 

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,135
519
RF 15-25 f/2.8 just arrived. First impressions after some indoor and outdoor snaps (although well documented by others):

  • Just slightly heavier and longer than RF 24-105 f/4 but not by much and it "feels" OK on the camera
  • New uses for the 82mm filters I already have from the EF 24-70
  • Seems the 15mm now vs 14mm option I had will not be a big issue.
  • The 15mm, however, does seem more useful than the 16mm wide end of zoom I had
  • The f/2.8 vs the old f/4.0 on the zoom will be useful
  • The IS works well
  • Focus seems immediate and accurate on the R5
  • The very corners at 15mm are a bit distorted but I expected than and it won't be an issue

I think I made the right choice. Farewell 14 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4.

Now, I am going to calm down and don't anticipate any new lenses for a while :rolleyes:

JPAZ
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
659
371
On EF I had the 14/2.8, 16-35/2.8 (MkI I think), 24-70/2.8, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1, 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8 MkI, 70-200/2.8, 85/1.2, 135/2, 180/3.5Mac, and 600/4 IS MkI + TC's. I shot a bit professionally and was an avid hobbyist in my bachelor days.

Basically when the first RF tests came in I sold them ALL except the 135/2, 180/3.5 and 600/4 and got the R, with RF24-105 and RF50/1.2. Yes, it means I have to do without a lot of specific capabilities but now I'm married, and cameras are like my #5 hobby. I can do without for a while.

Generally speaking, the mirrorless design means all the wide-angles are going to be far superior in the RF line to the EF line. However, the tele's are going to be basically the same if the EF design was good. The three I mention I don't think can be massively improved by RF. (The old Canon MTF charts were basically flat lines at 1 for these lenses.)

Rather than wait to sell until the RF version comes, I decided to sell while most Canon users weren't even aware they were shooting a dead system, so I got good resale on everything. (I bought most of it used too, so didn't cost me much. But the 600IS MkI really dive-bombed in price thanks to the much lighter MkIII.)