Steve Balcombe wrote:
Niko Todd wrote:
Lars wrote:
Niko Todd wrote:
Lars wrote:
I had it for two weeks and returned it. My Benchmark is Nikons 14-30 S.
Even after applying the new lens profiles in LR, the Canon 14-35 shows heavy distortion and absolutely terrible CAs. Sharpness is ok, not more. AF and Build quality is good.
I wanted to like it, but this is completely overpriced. The Nikon is better all around at 60% of the price.
Another RF lens letdown after the pretty unremarkable/soft 24-105 L and ridiculously poor STM AF on the 85mm f/2.
Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)
That looks extremely bad, not sharp anywhere at any aperture, almost like a defect. The sample variations that various sites mention probably are correct and mabye I was on the lucky side with the Nikon and unlucky side of the Canon.
Even Thom Hogan said that he was noticing very unpleasant copy variation trend in the Z lineup. Wide lenses are difficult indeed. Never heard about a legendary wide lens from Canon tbh, but Nikon has one - 14-24
Legendary is a strong word, but the EF 16-35/4L IS gets praise from just about everyone, and mine is just as good on the R5 as it was on the 5D4.
I'm drawn to the size and weight of the RF 14-35, plus the extra 2 mm, better AF for video and a few other benefits -- but for now I'm keeping the EF lens. I won't deny, price is a big factor, and I say that as someone who had little hesitation in going for the RF 100-500.
The EF 16-35/4L IS is a fine lens and at times regret I sold mine when I picked up my RF 15-35/2.8L IS.
-- hide signature --
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein