RF 16-28 vs 14-35

[pratikjha01]

Watched the preview by Gordon Lang the other day and although the 16-28 is not even out yet, I would like to know what would be more important to you and why?

Faster aperture (2.8 vs 4)? Faster AF (14-35 seems to be having a snappier AF motor which makes sense)?

This based purely on your experience and workflow. Thanks 🙂

[justadude]

The focal lengths are very similar, and so is the cost.  If I were to buy one, it would be the 14-35mm.  I would easily give up one stop of light for the better quality L glass and build, and the USM motor over the STM.  The low light capabilities of Canon's mirrorless lineup has improved to the point that bumping up the ISO to compensate for the stop of light isn't as big of a deal as it was years ago.  

While I do have much faster lenses if needed, the 14-35 is similar to my EF 17-40 f/4 L in many ways, and that is my most used lens by far for my style of shooting (typically wide landscapes).  I'm bringing this EF lens up simply because it is also an f/4 and I can't recall a time that I wish it had a wider aperture - but again, I do have faster lenses for very low light.