Your verdict: RF 14-35 F4 vs EF 16-35 F4

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
jwilliams Veteran Member • Posts: 6,182
I think ...

Light Pilgrim wrote:

Ok, so I was almost ready to purchase the 14-35, but I checked what people say on-line, some reputable reviews and was surprised that this lens is not as good as 16-35. I use 16-35 and now I think I will not rush to get the RF version and will survive without the 2 mm.

Now I wish Zeiss would produce something for RF, just a perfect Landscape lens, AF is not needed anyways for landscapes.

I think the only real reasons to get the 14-35 if you already own hte 16-35 is that you either need a wider FL or for the smaller lens size. I have the 16-35 and looked forward to seeing what Canon would release in regards to a f4 UWA zoom. I'm sure it s a good lens but I don't really need the extra 2mm and I'd like the smaller size but not badly enough to spend the approx. $1K it woud cost me to change over. The 16-35 IQ wise does everything I could want. It's only downside is that with the adapter attached it's a decently large lens but I'll just have to live with that.

Maybe Canon will make an even smaller aperture UWA. I'm only using it for landscape type stuff so I have no need for speed. I'm not holding my breath though.

Actually I might buy the 16 2.8 if its good enough. It should be easy to stash somewhere in the bag when I want something wider than my 24-105.

-- hide signature --

Jonathan

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