honestly so annoyed trying to pick a lens for my Zion trip next week. im stuck between the RF 14-35mm f4 and the EF 16-35mm f2.8 iii with the adapter.
my logic was the f2.8 for astro too but the adapter is so bulky and my budget is capped at $1500... what actually holds up better for sharp landscapes?
I tried the whole adapter thing for my first big trip and honestly it was not as good as expected. Using the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R with older glass like the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM just felt off. The setup is way too front-heavy and I constantly worried about the weather sealing failing at the connection point. Its just one more thing that can go wrong when youre out in the dust at Zion. Unfortunately, even the native Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM had issues that annoyed me. The distortion at 14mm is pretty wild before the camera software fixes it, which really affects the corner sharpness for those big canyon shots. I found it pretty disappointing for an L-series lens at that price point. If you want my honest advice as someone who prioritizes reliability:
- Stick to native RF glass only. The extra communication pins between the lens and the body make the autofocus much more reliable than using an adapter.
- Forget the f/2.8 for landscapes. You are gonna be stopped down to f/8 or f/11 most of the time anyway, so the f/4 is plenty and saves your back on those long hikes. Basically, the EF route is just too much of a gamble for a big trip. Id rather have a lighter bag and a secure mount than that extra stop of light for astro... i just dont trust the adapter for a week of heavy use.
