i finally bit the bullet and got the R5 mark ii but now im staring at my empty lens mount and freaking out because my trip to the dolomites is in like ten days. ive been looking at reviews all night and everyone says the RF 15-35mm f2.8L is the gold standard for landscapes but then i see others swearing by the 14-35mm f4 because it is lighter for hiking and has that extra 1mm on the wide end which sounds nice. but then i worry if the f4 glass is actually sharp enough for the 45mp sensor or if i am gonna regret not having the faster aperture for astro if i decide to stay out late. i also saw some people mentioning the 10-20mm but that feels like overkill? or maybe not? i really need to make a decision today so i can get it shipped in time.
- budget is around $2400 max but i wouldnt mind spending less if the quality is there
- must be sharp across the frame because i do big prints
- weight matters since i am gonna be hiking 10+ miles a day
- needs to handle weather since it rains a lot where i am going
is the 15-35 actually worth the extra weight and cost for pure landscapes or am i overthinking the f2.8 thing? what are you guys using on the new body?
In my experience, the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM is the play.
- 540g vs 840g weight
- better corner resolution @ f/8 Honestly, you dont need f2.8 unless you are doing serious astro.
Unfortunately, the current RF wide-angle lineup involves some frustrating compromises for high-resolution landscape work. I have found that the digital corrections required for lenses like the Canon RF 14-35mm f4L IS USM can negatively impact raw file integrity.
- Noticeable edge softness
- Significant barrel distortion
- Flare resistance isnt as good as expected tho Better options exist, but are you gonna be shooting strictly daytime, or is astro a priority? How large are your prints?
