RF 16-28 or RF 14-35

[wadinyade]

I just recently got a new camera (R6MKII) for an upgrade and kept my R as a second body and so my newly wedded wife can shoot on that. We currently have an EF 70-200 MKII, RF nifty fifty, and RF 24-105 f4. We are wanting to get new lenses for 2027 and for sure gonna get the 24-70 rf but wanting to get a wide as well. Can’t decide between the 14-35 or the 16-28. Having the 14-35 as an option because it’s an L series and the 16-28 cause it’s only a couple hundred cheaper than the 14-35 and it’s still weather sealed with 2.8 aperture. The intention is some video every now and then, mainly wide photos, and portraits when needed.

[SignifDigits]

IQ comparisons at https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1569&Camera=1508&Sample...

I have the RF 15-35 f/2.8 L USM and love it, but it's not on your list to compare.  Since you have both the 24-105 and 24-70 (assuming so you can both shoot in that range) why not get both so that each of you has a wide angle landscape lens?  (easy for me to say as it's not my money, of course).  Depending upon your situation you could also consider the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM.  I personally find that lens a huge bargain lens and a very lightweight option.  It all depends upon your priorities.  I have the more expensive RF15-35mm as I tend want the best landscape lens and my event photography is either outdoors where I use the 70-200mm or so casual that the RF 24-100mm STM delivers images that family and friends (and myself) are happy with.

I hope you the RF Mark II.  I certainly enjoy mine.