RF 15-35 abit... Meh?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
bernie r
OP bernie r Regular Member • Posts: 264
Re: This whole thread is based on a garbage comparison

Karl_Guttag wrote:

This whole thread started with a post of ONE comparison shot by the RF15-35f2.8L at 35f2.8 and the RF 28-70f2 at f2 and 30mm. We only have a screenshot of each at 66% scaling. No EXIF, no other data. We don't know what the shutter speeds or ISOs were and we don't know how the white balance was set. For someone shooting with an R5 and L lenses, this is a garbage comparison, something I would expect from someone with their first DSLR. This looks like a case of either operator error or simple trolling.

The two pictures are obviously exposed differently and the colors are very different. I did a quick check and the 15-35 picture is about 2/3rds of a stop lower in exposure. How he did this I don't know, I was expecting a full stop so it is not as simple as shooting in manual.

It looks like he shot the 15-35 at f2.8 and the 28-70 at f2 and thus underexposed the shot by about 2/3rds (by checking corresponding areas of the images). The colors are also dramatically different.

I could buy the cheapest lens Canon makes and it would not lose 2/3rds of a stop and shift colors this much. Does ANYONE believe that 15-35f2.8L causes a massive difference in exposure and color? Either the R5 is broken or the photographer screwed up.

Below, I made histograms of the two images (selected on the whole image). In addition to the 2/3rd stop underexposure, you should note that the red and green histograms are very different while the blue histograms are about the same in the two shots. Most of the 2/3rds underexposure is in yellow (red&green) as seen on the composite RGB histograms. Thus there is a dramatic color shift.

A person that is using an R5 and $2,000+ L lenses should have asked "what did a do wrong?" and not post that the lens is "meh."

There have been a lot of reviews of the RF15-35f2.8L by people that have reviewed many lenses and not one that I have seen has said the lens is "meh," but rather they say that while expensive it is a very good lens for the range. The biggest common complaint is larger than typical vignetting (which all the RF lenses seem to have).

I have not a problem with a valid critique of any lens, but this whole thread is ridiculous.

Yes however why would I use 2.8 on a f2 lens? The whole point of the lens is f2, if I wanted to do a 2.8 comparison I'd just buy a 24-70. The whole point is comparing the 2.8 lens to the f2 lens, not making the f2 lens a 2.8 lens to make you feel better, of course the f2 is brighter, that's why it exists.

That's like telling me to compare a 600 f4 to a 150-600 6.3 but use the 600 f4 at 6.3, no, otherwise don't even bother with the f4 lens.

I get where you're coming from though.

-- hide signature --

Computer:
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
X570 Aorus Master
TG Dark Pro 3200 14-14-14-31 64GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Founders Edition
Samsung 860 Evo 4TB
Samsung 860 Evo 4TB
Corsair MP510 960gb
Corsair MP510 960gb
Corsair MP510 4TB(boot)
WD Gold 12TB
WD Gold 12TB
Camera:
Canon EOS R5
Canon RF 15-35 2.8
Canon RF 28-70 2
Canon EF 70-200 2.8
Canon EF 500 f/4 L IS II USM + 1.4X III
Sigma 105 1.4 DG HSM Art
Stuff:
Gitzo Fluid Gimbal Head
Gitzo GT4543LS Systematic Series 4 Carbon eXact Long Tripod
Benro Mach3 TMA38CL Carbon Fibre Tripod
Benro G3 Ball Head

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow