Not good

Steve W wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

Alastair Norcross 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.

I'm sorry you seem to have bad luck with your copies. My RF 24-105 is remarkably sharp, easily the best 24-105 I've used. My 85 F2 is an excellent performer, and the AF has yet to let me down. Again, it's the best 85 I've used (I haven't used the big and heavy 85L lenses). Based on our divergent opinions on the RF lenses, I'll take your experience with the 14-35 as evidence that I would love it. I'm not going to get it, though. I have the 16 F2.8, which is small and light and sharp (where I want it to be sharp) and gives me all the ultra wide I need. I'm sure you'll hate it, but I absolutely love it.

The RF 85 f/2 is a fun lens, but it's no Z 85 f/1.8 S.

No it isn't. It's $100 cheaper, and focuses much closer (which is a huge advantage).

The Nikkor is laser sharp.

As for sharpness, once you get a lens as sharp as the RF 85 F2, any extra sharpness doesn't matter to me. I've never looked at a shot from my RF 85 and wished it were sharper. If anything, the opposite is true. If the Nikon lens were available in Canon mount, I wouldn't take it in exchange for my RF 85. Any extra sharpness, if it's there, is simply meaningless to me (like getting a car that can do 200mph, instead of 160 mph, when I'm never going to get anywhere near either top speed), and can't begin to make up for the huge difference in close focusing ability. To each their own. If you like your Nikon lens, that's great.

I can't speak to the Z or RF ultra-wide zooms because I usually use Laowa Zero-D ultra wide primes at those focal lengths.

Car top end speed is a poor analogy IMHO. With a lens you get the improved optical performance at all speeds not just when you push it to the edge.

Except that what I'm saying is that whatever improvements there may be from the 85F2 are so minimal as to make no discernible difference. The RF 85 F2 is actually a really sharp lens. unhappymeal seemed to be implying that there is something wrong with the sharpness of the RF85 with his claim that the Nikkor is 'laser sharp'.  Given the hyperbolic language that people throw around on this forum, I would describe the RF 85 F2 as 'laser sharp' too. Are you finding it to be otherwise?