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.  

[PaladinNH]

I love the idea of the 14-35/4 more... All the reasons you said - range, focus, L glass... But after research and pondering, the 16-28 seems to offer very similar quality (MTF charts quite comparable) in a brighter, smaller, 100g lighter package, which all sounds better to me in practice. The biggest advantages of the 14-35 seem to be the extra range and AF speed, but the TDP tests at the 35mm make it seem quite soft until F8. (The wide open 24-28 of the 16-28 is too though, but seems better at F4.)

I'm stuck too and will probably end up getting the one I get the best deal on... The 14-35 seems to have the most versatility, but I also hate bulk and am coming from the 50/1.8. At the same time, since the goal is landscapes, I'll be at F4-F8 most of the time anyway, favoring the range of the 14-35... Argh!!!

[shadowsports]

Greetings ,

Great thread and good discussion.  👍

Many of Canon's non-L lenses can deliver wonderfully sharp, beautiful images.  Buy L glass for its superior build quality, optics and coatings.  For its weather sealing and dust resistance.  Other considerations,  do you frequently shoot under demanding environmental conditions? 

We also recommend reviewing a range of your favorite photos.  What is the most common aperture you use? Do you find yourself bumping the ISO up a little higher than you might like?

Weight too as you mentioned.  Being comfortable is also important.  

Lenses are the real investment in your photography journey.

[PaladinNH]

Decided to give the 14-35 a try. Figured in those focal lengths, F4 and up is all you need anyway most of the time and that having the extra range would be more appreciated. Also like the dual-purpose idea of having a great ultra-wide and standard all in one.

[Jkarl]

EOS R% 14-35mm F4L f/5 1/80 ISO 400I know my response is 2 weeks after the original post but I have some photos taken with an R5 with the 14-35 F4L which will show that the F4 is not a bit of a hinderance when working with low light situations. I do quite a few tours of 1800's and earlier houses and have found that the 14-35 F4L works well. When used with a body such as the R5 the IS and the high contrast  can allow a very good photos in relative low light. Attached are 2 jpeg photos taken directly from the R5 with no correction (just resized).EOS R5 RF 14-35mm F4l F5.0 1/80 ISO 400

EOS R5 RF 14-35 F4 L F4.0 1/60 ISO6400