Im getting so frustrated trying to pick a new wide-angle lens for my R6 Mark II. I feel like Ive spent the last three weeks watching endless youtube reviews and reading specs until my eyes are literally crossing. I really need this lens for a trip to Iceland in about six weeks, so the timeline is getting super tight and I honestly just want to click buy and be done with it.
My budget is sitting around 1500 to 2000 bucks, which is a decent chunk of change but it feels like every good option is either way over budget or has some weird compromise. Right now Im stuck between three options:
- Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM: This one seems like the most practical because of the zoom range and it fits my bag easily, but I keep reading about the distortion at 14mm and it makes me nervous for the price.
- RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM: This is the dream obviously, but its heavy and my wallet is already crying just thinking about the price tag.
- Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art (with the adapter): I know the quality is stellar and the price is right, but I really dont want to deal with the extra weight and length of an adapter if I can avoid it.
I guess I should mention I mostly shoot landscapes and some architectural stuff when I travel, but the weight is a huge factor since I do a lot of hiking. Is the 15-35 really worth the extra weight and money compared to the 14-35 for someone who just does this as a serious hobby? Or should I just suck it up and get the Sigma to save some cash and deal with the adapter annoyance? Im just tired of overthinking this and dont want to bring the wrong gear on this trip...
Honestly, grab the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM and put the extra cash toward a nice filter set. You really dont want extra adapter bulk when hiking Iceland.
TL;DR: Skip the adapter and get the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. Honestly, the distortion is corrected in camera anyway, so dont let internet pixel peepers stress you out. I took it hiking last year and the weight savings are worth it. The Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM is just too bulky for long trails, unfortunately. Youll be much happier with the lighter kit for those Iceland hikes.
Honestly, if you are doing a lot of hiking in Iceland, the weight savings with the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM are worth more than an extra stop of light. Carrying the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM all day gets old fast, and the f/4 is usually fine for landscapes since you are likely stopped down anyway.
- 14-35mm f/4L: Lightest, compact, great range for architecture.
- 15-35mm f/2.8L: Better for night shots, but way heavier and expensive.
- Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8: Sharp as a tack but the adapter is just another point of failure and extra bulk. I have used the 14-35mm extensively and the distortion is really a non-issue once you let the software do its job. For a trip that is only six weeks out, stick with native glass so you dont have to worry about adapter compatibility or extra weight. Your back will thank you on those trails.
Honestly, just check out some of the landscape photography threads on Reddit. I remember seeing a massive comparison post a few months ago that basically broke down all the weight vs. image quality trade-offs you mentioned. It was super helpful for me when I was struggling with the same thing. You really dont need to overthink this, just search for wide angle landscape lens comparison and you will find everything you need.
