Canon RF 14-35 compared to RF 15-35

jdhpnw wrote:

Dan W wrote:

jdhpnw wrote:

In case this is helpful to anyone else curious about the new RF 14-35...

I did a quick test to see how much wider the corrected 14-35 image was compared to the 15-35.

I captured two images from the same camera/location by just switching the lens. All settings remained the same. I have shared 4 sets of images to compare different versions below in this google drive folder.

1 - the JPGs produced by the R5

2 - Exports from Canon Digital Photo Professional with mandatory lens correction and auto gamma correction

3 - Exports from Lightroom without lens profile corrections

4 - Exports from Lightroom with lens profile corrections and post-processing (note that I used the RF 24-240 profile for the 14-35 since a profile is not yet available)

As some others have stated, the corrected 14-35 image is definitely wider than the 15-35 image. I was surprised by how much wider the 14-35 was in Lightroom even after distortion correction.

Thanks for sharing. Personally, I didn't see that much more on the wide end of the 14mm compared to the 15mm. But seeing the uncorrected versions of both, WOW major difference in the corners. I'm waiting to see how the RF 16mm shines for $300 if thats a true pricing.

I should have added that the vignetting was a little exaggerated by the ND filter (which I used on both photos). The normal vignetting on the 14-35 at 14mm is extreme pre-correction, but not quite as bad as the example here.

Good to know. I saw that and I thought "Too much for me".