Honestly I am so fed up with my current setup. Ive been using the old EF 17-40mm with the adapter on my R5 and it is just not cutting it anymore. The corners are just a blurry mess and Im seeing way too much chromatic aberration when Im out in the field. I have got this big trip to the Dolomites coming up in exactly three weeks and I refuse to take another blurry shot of a mountain peak because my gear cant keep up with the sensor resolution. I paid way too much for this R5 to be getting these soft results. I tried the 16mm prime but it feels like a toy and the distortion is just driving me crazy. I need something professional and sharp across the whole frame because Im planning on doing some huge prints for a local gallery show later this year. My budget is capped at like 2300 dollars so I cant go totally overboard but I need something reliable and weather sealed. Is the RF 15-35mm really worth the weight and cost or should I be looking at something else like the 14-35mm f4? Or is there a prime I am missing? Which wide-angle lens is actually going to give me the best results for high-end landscape stuff on the R5 before I head out next month?
^ This. Also, been looking at the specs and honestly, the choice comes down to whether you want to carry the extra weight for a bit more corner clarity. Everyone is talking about the f/2.8 vs f/4, and they both have trade-offs that matter when you're actually out in the field. The Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM is way cheaper and lighter, which is huge when youre hiking the Dolomites. But there is a catch. It relies a lot on the camera's software to fix distortion at 14mm. For small prints or web, nobody sees it. For your gallery show? Stretching those pixels in post might make the corners look a little soft again, which is exactly what you are trying to avoid. Heres my take on it:
- The Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM is the heavy hitter. It is built like a tank and the glass is more naturally corrected.
- If you shoot at f/8 or f/11 most of the time, you arent using the speed of the f/2.8, but you are using the better glass quality.
- Spend the extra money on the f/2.8 since your budget allows it. It is better to have the overkill lens for a gallery than to regret the f/4 corrections later. As for primes, there isnt really a professional wide prime in the RF lineup yet that beats these zooms for versatility. The 15-35 is basically like carrying three or four high-quality primes in one. Just keep in mind it takes 82mm filters which can get pricey... but for an R5 sensor, you dont want to go cheap on the glass. Since you have a few weeks, maybe try to find a used copy of the 15-35 to save some cash for the trip itself.
I would suggest thinking twice before lugging that heavy f2.8 through the mountains. You might want to consider the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM since you will likely be at f/8 for landscapes anyway. Just be careful tho... it relies on heavy digital correction at 14mm. Make sure to check if those stretched corners look okay for your gallery prints before you head out.
Man, I totally get the frustration. That R5 sensor is absolutely brutal on older glass like the 17-40mm and it shows every flaw. Since you're aiming for gallery-sized prints, you really need to be careful with corner performance. I would suggest looking at these:
- Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM: This is basically the holy grail for landscapes on the R5. It is heavy, but honestly, the sharpness across the frame is worth the weight.
- Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM: A bit more compact, but you might want to consider that it relies heavily on digital corrections for distortion. If you can swing the price, go for the 15-35mm. It is a total tank and the weather sealing has never let me down in the field. Just make sure to double-check your tripod head can handle the extra bulk because its a bit front-heavy. You're gonna love the Dolomites! If you need anything else, just ask.
