I'm considering this to replace my current 16-35 f/4 IS which has been one of my favorite lenses ever. Obviously the handling will be better and more convenient on an R5 body. I'm not concerned about the cost as it will be a long term investment.
Is the general consensus that this thing puts out comparable IQ to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS with the "bonus" of usable 14mm on the wide end and better handling? I'm primarily interested that stopped down to f/9 it's going to give me comparable IQ to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS.
In my limited experience with it so far, the changeover from 'decent' edge resolution to 'very good' edge resolution happens around 19-20mm, and then it's quite good thereafter. 14-18mm is good over most of the frame with some softness at the edges that isn't quite up to standard, IMO for a $1,700 lens in 2021. That said, the compact size and excellent range still make it a very compelling lens.
alundeb wrote:
Nice to see you again, Paul, and thanks for the report!
Hi Anders. I have been keeping a low profile for a couple of years, mostly because of a lack of time. I have been monitoring this thread though, and decided to chime in with my findings. Perhaps there are other people whose results are affected by the mechanical shutter.
It is hard to differentiate gripes about lack of lens info in LR versus using DPP for optimal correction. When using SOOC Jpegs or DPP for processing, to my amateur eye this is a great travel lens.
mb126 wrote:
I'm considering this to replace my current 16-35 f/4 IS which has been one of my favorite lenses ever. Obviously the handling will be better and more convenient on an R5 body. I'm not concerned about the cost as it will be a long term investment.
Is the general consensus that this thing puts out comparable IQ to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS with the "bonus" of usable 14mm on the wide end and better handling? I'm primarily interested that stopped down to f/9 it's going to give me comparable IQ to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS.
mb126 wrote:
I'm considering this to replace my current 16-35 f/4 IS which has been one of my favorite lenses ever. Obviously the handling will be better and more convenient on an R5 body. I'm not concerned about the cost as it will be a long term investment.
Is the general consensus that this thing puts out comparable IQ to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS with the "bonus" of usable 14mm on the wide end and better handling? I'm primarily interested that stopped down to f/9 it's going to give me comparable IQ to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS.
There is no consensus yet, since very few comparisons are available.
Here you can judge for yourself. There is one issue with this type of comparison, namely that it is performed at a relatively close distance. I don't know the dimensions of this particular test chart, but the image magnification will be somewhere in the region 0.02 - 0.04. The corresponding image quality can differ noticeably from that of faraway scenes.
I have no doubt that the new RF14-35 f4 is a great lens as was it's big brother the RF15-35 f2.8. However when I was completing my RF lens collection for my R5 I happened to try a new Sigma 14-24 f2.8 Art lens with an adapter on my R5 along with a RF15-35 f2.8L. The Sigma spanked the Canon in several areas. Corner sharpness corner to corner, lack of vignetting and a real deal breaker, distortion, of which the Sigma had near NONE. Then came the real icing on the cake. The Sigma was less then 1/2 the price. I'd love to go all RF mount believe me, but I'm not about to give up an inch of shear performance. And the Sigma with the adapter does it for me. For landscapes and my interior and exterior Real Estate work it simply can't be beat. But for those with less demanding needs the Canon is just fine.
I am with you on the Sigma being the superior optic - it's a remarkable lens. It is quite large and heavy, but the images are worth it. Also, since it can use the filter adapter, using a polarizer is also really easy with it, and I don't need to deal with large filter systems.
The 14-35L is not of the same caliber of optic as the Sigma 14-24mm. However, it does handle better due to the much smaller size, and it has an extra 11mm of range, which can certainly come in handy. Overall, I have been pleased with the 14-35mm f/4L, but I do wish it had better optics at the wide end given the price. It's certainly not bad, but it's not exceptional, and as you point out, you can get exceptional for a few hundred dollars LESS.
Some shots from this morning - will have some more after this too. The ones at the wide end with lots of straight lines I had to process in DPP, since Lightroom and Capture One don't have a profile yet.
Jman13 wrote:
Some shots from this morning - will have some more after this too. The ones at the wide end with lots of straight lines I had to process in DPP, since Lightroom and Capture One don't have a profile yet.
Jordan - as I recall, you also weren't impressed with the RF 15-35mm f2.8 for landscapes with near/far compositions, either due to field curvature or something else going on with the sample you rented. I had the same takeaway as you for the RF 15-35mm f2.8. . . . Are you seeing field curvature affecting the edges/sides with near far composition for the RF 14-35mm f4 when stopped down to f8, or is it just overall that the quality is good on the very wide end, but not excellent at the wide end? Also, at what point would you say the quality becomes excellent on the wide end? 17mm or so? 20mm or so?
I'm not seeing any major field curvature. My issue with the 15-35 was really with misaligned lenses. The right side of my tested sample was out of sorts. I'm not seeing anything like that with this copy of the 14-35. Overall, the 14-35 is a very good lens considering its size and focal range, but it falls a little short of the very best optics from about 14-18mm. I'd say it becomes very good to excellent at around 20mm. It's still good wider than that, but it has a bit of softness at the edges due to astigmatism and the extreme distortion correction required at the 14mm end.
I'm really enjoying all the different input on a lens I can't seem to find.........
Mine is still on order from B&H and the Canon Store since the end of July, heading to Yellowstone in eight days, I want a landscape lens so I was able to rent one.....
I'll still use my 24-105 and shoot landscape panos if the 14-35 doesn't deliver while in Yellowstone.
I had the Sigma 14-24 when I shot Sony, loved the lens, but didn't like it when I needed a polarizer and all the holders etc....fingers crossed on the RF14-35 but it does seem too good to be true.
Jman13 wrote:
Some shots from this morning - will have some more after this too. The ones at the wide end with lots of straight lines I had to process in DPP, since Lightroom and Capture One don't have a profile yet.
Can I ask how much you needed to stop down in the first image in each of your two image posts in order to get those sunstars? I am finding that I need to stop down quite a bit to get a good size and shape, at least f/16. Wanted to see if that was your experience and how far you went with these.
Sounds like it's at least as good as the Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f4 IS lens from 16-20mm in your view? . . .
Jman13 wrote:
I'm not seeing any major field curvature. My issue with the 15-35 was really with misaligned lenses. The right side of my tested sample was out of sorts. I'm not seeing anything like that with this copy of the 14-35. Overall, the 14-35 is a very good lens considering its size and focal range, but it falls a little short of the very best optics from about 14-18mm. I'd say it becomes very good to excellent at around 20mm. It's still good wider than that, but it has a bit of softness at the edges due to astigmatism and the extreme distortion correction required at the 14mm end. ...Show more →
httivals wrote:
Sounds like it's at least as good as the Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f4 IS lens from 16-20mm in your view? . . .
It's funny you bring that up. As I was going through the images this morning, I thought to myself...."final image quality reminds me a lot of the FE 16-35/4." I honestly think they perform quite similarly overall, though you get some extra width in a slightly smaller package with the 14-35.
ketang wrote:
Can I ask how much you needed to stop down in the first image in each of your two image posts in order to get those sunstars? I am finding that I need to stop down quite a bit to get a good size and shape, at least f/16. Wanted to see if that was your experience and how far you went with these.
EXIF is intact on all the images. The ones before the sun came up (so the images you're specifically asking about) are at f/11. The ones with the sun in frame are at f/16 i believe.
That's good news. I find the Sony Zeiss FE 16-35mm f4 to be excellent on my A7RIV (not quite as good as the f2.8 GM overall perhaps, but similar, and a lot smaller), especially using DXO optics pro for the raw conversions. I'm looking forward to when DXO has a module for the new Canon 14-35mm f4, as that is my raw converter of preference these days. (I export DNGs from DXO to Capture One and then to Photoshop.)
Just took the FE 16-35mm f4 lens to Spain during a two-week vacation, and it was my most used lens.
Jman13 wrote:
It's funny you bring that up. As I was going through the images this morning, I thought to myself...."final image quality reminds me a lot of the FE 16-35/4." I honestly think they perform quite similarly overall, though you get some extra width in a slightly smaller package with the 14-35.
