Re: RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
We have and deploy them all at work. Here's what I saw in testing...
Wide: (15-35/2.8L v. 16-35/2.8GM)
Both are excellent lenses, but the Canon maintains better overall resolution throughout its range. The Canon really only has one downfall, at that would be the over four stops of vignetting at the widest setting that does not go away quickly as you stop down. The Sony's better there by a little over a stop but isn't quite as wide.
Normal: (24-70/2.8L v. 24-70/2.8GM II)
Here, they run more equal in errors (no large difference in vignetting or distortion) and CA correction is weak on the wide end for both. The Sony barely does better than their own 24/2.8G and the Canon's outpaced by their older (and, admittedly, large with an adapter) EF 24/2.8 IS, and both lose some significant oomph at the long end. Still, for zooms, either is better than what came before. The Sony wins on resolution and consistency throughout its range, and the difference is significant. Canon does much better with the 28-70/2L, but the Sony 28-70/2GM is more impressive, though the gap isn't as large there.
Tele: (70-200/2.8L Z v. 70-200/2.8GM II)
There are nitpicking little differences (you can get the Canon in black), but, from a performance perspective, they may as well be the same lens. I'd go with the Sony because their 1.4x tests a smidge better with the GM than Canon's does with the L, but I'd be perfectly happy shooting either.
I hope that helps.
Sep 05, 2026 at 04:55 PM
Previous versions of freaklikeme's message #17101443 « RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses) »
