RF 15-30 f4.5-6.3 vs EF 16-35 f4L

Sittatunga wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

I recently bought the RF 15-30. Perhaps it is because it is my first zoom lens I have ever owned (I have always gone with primes up until now), but I am a little bit disappointed with its image quality.

It is just as sharp as the RF 16mm f/2.8 at the wide end, and the EF Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 at its maximum zoom, but the rendering is much more flat and boring. Subjects just don't "pop", and there tends to be less contrast in the images overall.

Due to its f/6.3 maximum aperture at the long end, it is also practically unusable indoors. But of course I knew that going in. I don't think its worth $600. I feel like $300 would be a more fair value for what you get.

Considering the 16mm prime is an unmatched bargain at $300 I think your price expectations are unrealistic. I have no problem with this lens being twice the price of the 16mm prime if it's as sharp as a Sigma Art lens at 35mm. What other full-frame mirrorless 15-XXmm lenses are there at $600, never mind $300? (I use RAW so boosting the contrast and saturation isn't a problem; low contrast is an advantage if you're a dynamic range nut.)

You might prefer the EF 16-35mm/4, (I wouldn't change mine for this lens unless it broke) but it's twice the price and nearly twice the weight on the camera.

That bargain is clear example of you get what you pay for.

Weak optics and a bargain price work well together.

At the end of the day you buy what you can for your budget. Budget rules all in most cases. But advocating for a lens that has obvious optical issues It's just not great.