RF 15-35 vs EF 16-35 III mounted on R body

[Alekhine]

Just wondering...

I own the EF 16-35 2.8 mk3I that I currently use with my 1DX2 for landscapes. It is by far the best wide-angle lens I've seen so far. Extremely sharp corner to corner.

However, since I am planning to buy a R5, I am wondering how would the 16-35 with an adapter perform on the R5? Is it worth keeping this lens or should I sell it and buy the RF 15-35?

Thanks for your input!

--

Landscape Photography - Guido Tramontano Guerritore

Landscape photography by Guido Tramontano Guerritore. Photo tours and workshops to improve your skills as a landscape photographer. Fine art prints.

wildscapes.photography

 

[JoWinter]

Just wondering...

I own the EF 16-35 2.8 mk3I that I currently use with my 1DX2 for landscapes. It is by far the best wide-angle lens I've seen so far. Extremely sharp corner to corner.

However, since I am planning to buy a R5, I am wondering how would the 16-35 with an adapter perform on the R5? Is it worth keeping this lens or should I sell it and buy the RF 15-35?

Thanks for your input!

According the The Digital Picture (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-15-35mm-F2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx), the difference in image quality is small.

Of course, 15mm is wider tan 16mm but this might not matter much in practice.

The biggest difference is that the RF has image stabilization while the EF does not have it. The question here is how much of this difference remains when both lenses are mounted in the R5 which will have in-camera image stabilization. We'll have to wait for tests to judge this.

 

[Igor Sotelo]

I think using lenses with a 3cm tube between lens and body is not a great solution. Particularly for a lens that has considerable weight. The balance and practicality isn’t quite the same.

 

[richardperson]

I have shot the EF version on my R many times and it worked great. If I didn't have that lens, then I might consider the RF version--might.

But, I kind of like having the EF 16-35mm available to use on my R and 1DX. The way I use the lens I don't know that I would notice a difference between the EF and RF versions.

I have an R, and plan on buying the R5, but I will not be buying the RF 15-35mm lens. Just not enough reason for me.

 

[ed rader]

of course go with 15-35. I owned the 16-35L III for years and also the 16-35 f4 for years. I prefer the latter because it has IS, is smaller and cheaper and to my eyes just as sharp.

the only time I used 16-35L III at f2.8 was for astro. very sharp wide open but horrendous, uncorrectable vignetting made me sell the lens and repurchase the f4 and a separate prime for astro.

the 15-35 is a dream lens for me for extra 1mm and IS.

--
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/edraderphotography/

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I think using lenses with a 3cm tube between lens and body is not a great solution. Particularly for a lens that has considerable weight. The balance and practicality isn’t quite the same.

Every DSLR has the same tube - with a mirror inside and somewhat disguised, but still there. Ok the CoG of an R-mount mirrorless body is likely to be just a few mm further back but the balance of a heavy EF lens on an R5 won't be noticeably worse than on a 5D4, and the 'practicality' will be identical (and possibly better if you want to use a control ring adapter or a filter adapter).

So it really does just boil down to whether the RF 15-35 is a better lens, a question I can't personally answer.

 

[Igor Sotelo]

I think using lenses with a 3cm tube between lens and body is not a great solution. Particularly for a lens that has considerable weight. The balance and practicality isn’t quite the same.

Every DSLR has the same tube - with a mirror inside and somewhat disguised, but still there. Ok the CoG of an R-mount mirrorless body is likely to be just a few mm further back but the balance of a heavy EF lens on an R5 won't be noticeably worse than on a 5D4, and the 'practicality' will be identical (and possibly better if you want to use a control ring adapter or a filter adapter).

So it really does just boil down to whether the RF 15-35 is a better lens, a question I can't personally answer.

Still remember when I tried the 70-200mm 2.8L with a 2x extender. Image quality, aperture and focal distance may have been similar to the 100-400mm, but it was very uncomfortable to hold and zoom. The 70-200mm 2.8L IS II on it’s own, as is the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS II, is perfect.

The 16-35mm 2.8L III is a shorter lens, of course, but it may result in a top heavy setup that one may not use as much as would the RF 15-35mm 2.8L IS alternative. I would definitely try first.

 

[richardperson]

If I already had the EF 16-35mm and had extra cash to spend, I would rather spend it on the RF 28-70mm f/2 or the RF 85mm f/1.2.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I think using lenses with a 3cm tube between lens and body is not a great solution. Particularly for a lens that has considerable weight. The balance and practicality isn’t quite the same.

Every DSLR has the same tube - with a mirror inside and somewhat disguised, but still there. Ok the CoG of an R-mount mirrorless body is likely to be just a few mm further back but the balance of a heavy EF lens on an R5 won't be noticeably worse than on a 5D4, and the 'practicality' will be identical (and possibly better if you want to use a control ring adapter or a filter adapter).

So it really does just boil down to whether the RF 15-35 is a better lens, a question I can't personally answer.

Still remember when I tried the 70-200mm 2.8L with a 2x extender. Image quality, aperture and focal distance may have been similar to the 100-400mm, but it was very uncomfortable to hold and zoom. The 70-200mm 2.8L IS II on it’s own, as is the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS II, is perfect.

Yes, but this is a spurious comparison. The 2x moves the lens 53 mm further away from the sensor which has a profound effect on the handling - as I know from personal experience. The EF-RF mount adapter merely puts the lens at the same distance it would be on a DSLR - zero mm further away. In other words it will be no worse than it was on a DSLR.

The 16-35mm 2.8L III is a shorter lens, of course, but it may result in a top heavy setup that one may not use as much as would the RF 15-35mm 2.8L IS alternative. I would definitely try first.

The RF lens benefits from being designed from the ground up for the RF mount and is shorter than the EF lens plus adapter - but also slightly heavier than the EF lens. The point is not whether the RF lens is better (I'm sure it is) but whether the EF lens is disadvantaged by being used on an RF-mount body (it isn't).

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/ or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/stevebalcombe/popular-interesting/

 

[Kjeld Olesen]

Clearly the EF 16-35 f/2.8 L IS mkIII is outdated and you have best get rid of it as soon as possible.

For a small fee, I can help you dispose of it

 

[gium]

I think using lenses with a 3cm tube between lens and body is not a great solution. Particularly for a lens that has considerable weight. The balance and practicality isn’t quite the same.

Every DSLR has the same tube - with a mirror inside and somewhat disguised, but still there. Ok the CoG of an R-mount mirrorless body is likely to be just a few mm further back but the balance of a heavy EF lens on an R5 won't be noticeably worse than on a 5D4, and the 'practicality' will be identical (and possibly better if you want to use a control ring adapter or a filter adapter).

So it really does just boil down to whether the RF 15-35 is a better lens, a question I can't personally answer.

Still remember when I tried the 70-200mm 2.8L with a 2x extender. Image quality, aperture and focal distance may have been similar to the 100-400mm, but it was very uncomfortable to hold and zoom. The 70-200mm 2.8L IS II on it’s own, as is the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS II, is perfect.

Yes, but this is a spurious comparison. The 2x moves the lens 53 mm further away from the sensor which has a profound effect on the handling - as I know from personal experience. The EF-RF mount adapter merely puts the lens at the same distance it would be on a DSLR - zero mm further away. In other words it will be no worse than it was on a DSLR.

+1 . I use my 70-200L II on my lightweight RP and the handling is fine. No complaints, I actually like the lighter weight of the RP compared to the 5DS. It's as if I am only gripping the lens instead of a body with a lens.

Advice for topic starter: Buy the R5, keep the 16-35/2.8 L III, keep the money and use some of it to buy the drop in filter mount adapter and the filters to go with it, like the polarizer and the variable ND. From what I have read so far, the optical difference between the two lenses is not big at all.

 

[highlights]

Clearly the EF 16-35 f/2.8 L IS mkIII is outdated and you have best get rid of it as soon as possible.

For a small fee, I can help you dispose of it

Kjeld,

You heartless opportunist! Have you no shame in charging to to dispose of such rubbish? I'll dispose of it for nothing - and will send a reply paid bag for him to send it to me so I can!

Monty

 

[Rock and Rollei]

Are you planning on keeping the 1DX II? If so, the 16-35 remains the better bet. Can you comfortably afford the R5 and the 15-35? If so, then that's the perfect outcome.



I use the 16-35 f4 on a variety of cameras including 5D IV, 5DS R and R, and that works perfectly well for me on all the cameras, and gives me IQ that's acceptable to me. It's quite long on the R with the (control ring) adapter, but handles nicely for me. How the f2.8 III will feel like on the R5 is a different matter, of course, and one only you can really decide for yourself, but there's no reason why its performance will be worse in any way.