Finally pulling the trigger on a wide lens for my R5 but I'm totally stuck between the RF 14-35mm f4 and the 15-35mm f2.8. I'm heading to Iceland in like two weeks so I need to decide fast. The f2.8 is tempting for potential northern lights shots but it's so much heavier and way more expensive. Since I mainly do landscape I'm usually stopped down anyway. Is that extra millimeter on the 14-35 really noticeable?
My constraints:
- Budget is strictly under $2300
- Need something that wont break my back on 10 mile hikes
- Weather sealing is a must because of the rain
Should I just go for the f4 or is the f2.8 worth the extra weight?
> Is that extra millimeter really noticeable? Tbh its huge for landscapes. For hiking, the Canon RF 14-35mm f4L IS USM is way more practical. Spend the extra $800 on filters instead.
Grab the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM! It's absolutely amazing for those long treks tho:
- super reliable sealing
- easier on the back Honestly, youll love it for Iceland!
Been thinking about your Iceland trek and honestly, it kinda comes down to how much youre actually gonna shoot the aurora. Are you planning on doing serious tripod-based astro every night, or is it just a hope it happens thing? Knowing that would change my advice a bit. If youre hiking 10 miles a day, every ounce counts. Ive used both on the R5 and here is the technical breakdown:
- Weight: The Canon RF 14-35mm f4L IS USM is roughly 540g while the Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8L IS USM is over 800g. That is a massive difference when youre climbing around waterfalls or trekking through mud.
- Field of view: That 1mm at the wide end is actually pretty huge. 14mm gives you a noticeably wider perspective for those massive glacial landscapes, tho the lens relies heavily on in-camera corrections to fix the distortion.
- Filters: Both take 82mm filters which is super convenient for your polarizers or NDs. If I were in your boots, Id probably grab the f4 for the weight savings and then pick up the Canon RF 16mm f2.8 STM as a backup for the nights. Its tiny, cheap, and handles the northern lights just fine since youll be on a tripod anyway. The f4 is plenty sharp for stopped-down landscapes, and the weather sealing is legit... which you will definitely need for that sideways Iceland rain.
Big if true
i went through this exact same struggle a while back. honestly the weight of heavy glass just kills the vibe after a few miles on the trail. I ended up with the Canon RF 14-35mm f4L IS USM because its so light, but you really gotta be careful with the corner distortion. At 14mm it relies super heavy on digital corrections and it can make things look a bit funky compared to how the Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8L IS USM handles it. i used to shoot a Sony FE 16-35mm f2.8 GM and the canon f4 feels way more manageable for hiking even if the corners arent quite as surgical. just a couple tips from my mistakes:
- keep a dry cloth in your pocket because that icelandic mist is basically constant
- if you get the f4 maybe throw in a tiny Canon RF 16mm f2.8 STM just for the aurora shots I would suggest really looking at your tripod setup too... iceland wind is no joke and a light lens on a light tripod is a recipe for disaster. just be careful out there and have a blast.
