Which wide-angle? 14-35/4, 15-35/2.8, 16/2.8... or wait for something like 10-24/4??

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
683
377
In the 90s-00s I always had the f/2.8 trinity, but thx to IS and super-low-noise high-ISO shooting, I think an f/4 trinity makes intellectual sense nowadays (with the telephoto f-stop being variable as well).

Thusly I shoot mostly with the RF 24-105/4IS.

I want to get a wide-angle. In my experience f/2.8 doesn't give enough aperture to produce bokeh that makes subjects pop, and in between IS, modern sensors, and the fact you can hand-hold wide-angles a lot longer, an f/4 zoom is the obvious choice.


That said, the 14-35/4 and 15-35/2.8 are so close in weight and size that I'd be happy to get the f/2.8 zoom if anyone can see any benefit to it other than the f-stop?

This comparison site seems to show the f/2.8 is sharper at the long end, but since the 24-105 overlaps with that, I'm thinking performance from 14(15)-24mm is most important and the f/4 seems sharper there.

The other options are 1) wait for possibly a 10-24 f/4 or 2) get the 16mm f/2.8... In my experience, usually shooting at 14mm I'm trying to capture not a specific, exact wide view, but "just a really wide wide view" so 16mm is a fairly similar image to 14mm, and also to 20mm or so... meanwhile a 21mm shot isn't going to differ so much from my current 24-105...
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
437
316
Your first sentence implies you have enough experience to know what you want... but here's my thoughts.

For the first question you already mentioned the extra stop of light. The 15-35/2.8L is just better built (vibration resist, less uncorrected distortion, & has the Fluorine/ASC coatings EDIT: Both have the coatings). However, the 14-35/4 shares the same filter size as the 24-105/4L.

Here's a flip side of the 24-35 overlap. If you were going to bring both the wide and the 24-105/4L with you. The 15-35/2.8L would let you get that extra stop of light when you need it (that the 24-105/4L cannot provide). So even though there is an overlap, it's not an exact overlap with the 15-35/2.8L.

If you are always going to bring the wide and mid with you, then waiting for the 10-24/4 is also very viable since it would eliminate any overlap. But it's an unreleased lens... so it doesn't fill the 'now' need. However, knowing its most likely coming out (just don't know when), what would you do when it's released? Would you ignore it, replace the lens you are getting now, or add to the collection of available choices in building a kit on demand?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tron and SwissFrank

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
683
377
The 15-35/2.8L is just better built (vibration resist, less uncorrected distortion, & has the Fluorine/ASC coatings).

thanks Bdbtoys, that's the kind of bullet point I was hoping for.

However, the 14-35/4 shares the same filter size as the 24-105/4L.

Good to know but in fact I went filter-crazy my first few years but I don't think I've used filters since 2002, getting my EOS-1Ds "MkI".

If you were going to bring both the wide and the 24-105/4L with you. The 15-35/2.8L would let you get that extra stop of light when you need it

OK, that makes sense. OR, bokeh, which is more likely I think but an extra stop could be useful too perhaps. In effect the 24-35 range of a wide 2.8 will serve me if it turns out f/4 isn't quite enough. Good, that's strictly extra capability, and the kind of observation I wasn't coming up with myself.

My thought was really to keep the zooms at f/4 and primes at f/1.2 or however wide they go (I had 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1, 85/1.2 10-20 years ago and used them). But while some of that was for bokeh, some was for light too. So now you have me thinking that f/2.8 24-35 may be good enough to keep me from needing, say, a hypothetical 24/1.4 or hypothetical 20/2 or certainly 16/2.8...

waiting for the 10-24/4 is also very viable since it would eliminate any overlap. But it's an unreleased lens... so it doesn't fill the 'now' need

I'm not shooting professionally (only did so late 90s) nor is it even my #1 or #2 hobby at this point. A couple years have flown by with nothing wider than 24mm, though I would have thought that impossible at one time!

Thanks for your note; everything you mention is definitely worth reflecting on.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,381
5,116
The 15-35/2.8L is just better built (vibration resist, less uncorrected distortion, & has the Fluorine/ASC coatings).
The RF 14-35/4 is weather sealed, has the flouring coating on front and rear elements and SWC/ASC coatings on internal elements. Misinformation doesn’t help anyone.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
437
316
The RF 14-35/4 is weather sealed, has the flouring coating on front and rear elements and SWC/ASC coatings on internal elements. Misinformation doesn’t help anyone.
I knew both were weather sealed... so I didn't point it out as a difference.

You are correct in that both have the coatings... I got burned by how Canon presented the info. You are also correct that misinformation doesn't help, but not all of us are perfect in every aspect. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: neuroanatomist

jeanluc

EOS RP
Oct 29, 2012
232
140
I have all three. I’ve used the 15-35 the most since it’s been out longer and it is a great lens.

I feel the 15-35 is maybe slightly more contrasty than the 14-35, but that is just to my eye.

Now that Adobe has a good profile to correct distortion the 14-35 is IMO just as sharp and the extra 1mm on the wide end matters.

Haven’t used the 16 mm much since it literally just arrived this week. Also, no Adobe profile out yet and I’m a LR/PS user. I got it mainly as a super compact second UWA to use on a second body when needed while not taking up much room in the bag, so I suspect it will only get used periodically anyway.

If I had to pick one I’d go with the 14-35.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,005
1,371
I believe the 1mm does not matter but that's me.

The only important thing is the small size vs f/4 and price which is disproportionate to 15-35 f/2.8 price.
If I ever got a 2nd mirrorless size would tempt me. Now I am OK with my 15-35.

Sorry for not helping...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
180
66
The 14-35 is 1.2 lb / 544 g and 3.9"/9.9 cm long, the 15-35 is 1.85 lb / 840 g and 4.99"/12.7 cm long, which I personally would consider significant differences. And there's a $700 difference in price. If you don't mind those differences, though, I think some good arguments have been put forward for the 15-35.

On the other hand, if you're going to be replacing the lens when a 10-24 is released, the inexpensive 16mm f/2.8 does seem to be better at longer distances than the resolution chart examples would lead one to think, and it does seem to improve in the corners when stopping down, which also is not shown in the resolution chart examples (I just got the lens, only had time to take a few quick shots). There seems no question, though, that the image quality of the 15-35 is the best of the three and if price and weight/length aren't concerns it seems to clearly be the best and gives you the f/2.8.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank