khurram1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Thanks this is very helpful!!!
Look in at the uncorrected images, the vignetting seems very strong with the 14-35mm at 15mm, and really don’t notice it with the 15-35 (am looking on My iphone right now, so may be noticeable when I look at my computer at home).
I like that you have the white foreground - that would be like a lot of winter landscapes with snow, which I was afraid would become to dark in the corners, based on the reported 2 to 3 stops vignetting even when stopped down.
On the plus side I can’t really see the vignetting in the corrected image. It is strange how the corrected images at 15mm the 15-35L seems wider. Could that be because the amount of correction being applied is much greater than the 14-35L?
Jesse Evans wrote:
I thought I'd start a proper thread for a small early impressions review and comparison of the Canon RF 14-35 F/4L IS USM, and not continue to talk about a myriad of topics in the "leaked image" thread (where the actual impressions start here [url]https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1706486/5[/url]).
Raw and Full Resolution Files
I did a back to back comparison between the RF 14-35 f/4L and the RF 15-35 f/2.8L. I performed two focal length progressions on each lens, one at f/8 and one at f/11, because I am primarily interested in comparing how their performance would differ in landscape shooting.
On the 14-35 the focal length markings are 14-20-24-28-35, on the 15-35 they are 15-20-24-28-35.
I started at each lens widest focal length, then zoomed the lens in tiny increments until I reached 20mm. After 20mm I only took comparisons at each marked focal length. So these progressions include everything from 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 for each lens (well... 14mm is only on the 14-35).
If you'd like to take a look at these raw files yourself, and skip reading my analysis, feel free to download them at the Drive Link here
First Impressions
This lens is light, it feels great in the hands. It's very light, but it is extremely solid, and does not wobble even a little bit. It is very much like an RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS that has been shrunk down.
The lens minimum length is reached when it is at the 20mm position. It extends when zooming out from 20mm to 14mm or in from 20mm to 35mm.
Distortion and Sensor Coverage
Now, let's start up front with a discussion of the elephant in the room. Canon made a pretty significant optical trade off to make a lens of this size, weight, range, aperture, and with included image stabilization.
Specifically, this lens does not cover a full frame sensor at any focal length below 17mm. However, this is not the end of the story, more on this in the second post.
There are some other aspects of the distortion that I think are worth talking about in comparison to the RF 15-35 f/2.8.
First, the distortion of both lenses is not possible to correct in Lightroom. This is because neither lens has pure barrel distortion. Rather they have distortion that follows an aspherical pattern, they distort in the Z axis (near/far) and not only away/toward the center point of the lens.
However, the distortion of the RF 15-35 f/2.8 is not something I usually correct, it is minimal even at 15mm. The RF 14-35 f/4L is another matter entirely. It is not only not possible to correct in Lightroom, if you attempt to correct it, you will either have lots of remaining distortion, smeared corners, and still have curved lines where straight lines should be depending on which part of the frame the subject is in.
You can experiment with this yourself with the RAW files I've uploaded. If you try to get the concrete to be straight in the RF 14-35 using Lightrooms distortion control, you will only be able to get it level in EITHER the center OR the left side. The right side is a true curve in the concrete and should be bent.
Before this gets too long, here are a couple of gifs showing you:
1. Comparison of the uncorrected distortion at 15mm (reported by EXIF) on each lens.
2. Comparison of the distortion corrected images at 14mm, and 15mm. I was somewhat surprised to note that the RF 14-35 @ 15mm is quite a bit narrower than the RF 15-35 f/2.8 @ 15mm. I believe that this is due to EXIF reporting from the lens/camera, as I have a RAW file that matches more closely, but it is still labeled as 14mm in EXIF.
The angle of view from widest to narrowest goes:
Widest - 14mm on the RF 14-35mm f/4
Next widest - 15mm on the RF 15-35mm f/2.8
Narrowest - 15mm on the RF 14-35mm f/4.
Again, I believe this is more a matter of how the focal lengths are reported by the RF 14-35 as you can obviously just zoom out a bit from 15mm to have the same angle of view as the RF 15-35mm.
Additional Note: The distortion corrected images were produced by Canon Digital Photo Professional as that is the only valid method to obtain proper distortion correction for the RF 14-35mm f/4 as of this writing. These were shot at f/11....Show more →
|
and I have a feeling that people will be happy with the results. I like the 14-35 better than the EF16-35L. Compared to the 15-35 I don't think there's a clear winner. Maybe I have a crappy 15-35, maybe I have a stellar 14-35, maybe my standards are wrong, but personally I see nothing afoul with this lens. Then again I'm known for liking the 24-240.