| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
  | sent on 31 Ottobre 2025 Pros: Versatility, resolution, stabilization and tropicalization Cons: Exaggerated TA vignetting, plastic thread for filters, high price even if in line with products of the same family also in other brands. Opinion: I thought I didn't need it as I already had the legendary 21 Zeiss distagon. Instead, as almost always, practicality wins and the Zeiss remains in the window at home. Pure laziness because every time I have the dilemma of which to put in my backpack. In general, if I have to do only landscape I prefer Zeiss, if instead I have to photograph events, celebrations or even wandering landscapes, well then I bring the Canon. However, quality is up to the Zeiss, with a slight advantage in terms of resolution given a more recent project with a leap forward in terms of glass quality. Where the Zeiss wins instead is in granite robustness and vignetting, but we know that the reduced distance from the sensor for ML makes this parameter worse. We will come to terms with it but not a drama. |
 | sent on 20 Ottobre 2024 Pros: SHARPNESS, IMAGE QUALITY, BRIGHTNESS; Cons: DISPROPORTIONATE WEIGHT; HIGH PRICE; EXPENSIVE 82 MM FILTERS; NOT VERY RESISTANT TO DUST; TERRIBLE FLARE; DISTORTION EVIDENT AT ALL FOCAL LENGTHS Opinion: I go against the tide with respect to the opinions expressed here on the site. My opinion of this lens is negative. Undoubtedly the sharpness of the 15 -35 is exceptional and clearly beats the other wide-angle lenses of the EF series that I have tried. However, it is known that similar lenses such as the excellent EF 16-35 cost 800/900 euros... here, however, we find ourselves having to shell out a Mega cost of 2,200 euros and it is for this reason that I believe that the judgment on this lens must be particularly severe. So let's leave out the sharpness and move on to analyze the other aspects of the lens. To begin with, the weight is considerable, so much so that for a normal traveler it is difficult to carry other lenses in the backpack than the wide-angle. The problem exists because given the obvious distortion of the images produced by the lens, it is not possible to use the lens as "normal" for non-landscape shots, otherwise the subject will be deformed. From another point of view, after a year of use I noticed several times the blockage of the UV and polarizing filters due to the infiltration of dust between the filter and the lens itself with consequent intervention in assistance for the unblocking of the lens with breakage of the filter itself (moreover very expensive given the size). Furthermore, given the plastic material, very different from EF lenses, dust sticks everywhere and makes it mandatory to clean the lens thoroughly after each photo session. And again, compared to the EF 16-35 lens, (which fortunately I had not sold), the flare is very annoying and makes it almost impossible to take photos against the light. In addition, the distortion of the lens is quite marked and it is not possible to reduce it in post. In short, it is a good lens but given the defects I listed I do not recommend its purchase. However, I am waiting for the MARK II version because objectively having a high aperture on a wide-angle lens has considerable advantages. At the moment, therefore, if you need a wide-angle lens, I would evaluate other options. Final grade : 5 |
 | sent on 21 Marzo 2024 Pros: Sharpness, focal length up to 15 mm, distortion Cons: Worst flare ever, price Opinion: Very mixed opinions for this lens. It would seem to be a perfect lens: 15mm, impeccable sharpness, minimal distortion... It would be worth every euro if it weren't for an unfortunately not negligible flaw: flare resistance. With this lens it is impossible to take pictures against the light. I come from an EF 16-35mm f/4 (which is half the price) and I've never had a problem pointing it at a light source. I'm pretty disappointed. To learn more about the flare problem of the RF 15-35mm F/2.8 I refer to this in-depth discussion: https://www.juzaphoto.com/topic2.php?l=it&t=4483419&show=1 |
  | sent on 01 Settembre 2023 Pros: All the quality of RF L-series glass Cons: Nobody Opinion: Precise optics and excellent glass. Perhaps accustomed to the RF 28-70, this 15-35 is a twig. The mechanism is very fluid and silent. Fast AF. Excellent rendering in sharpness and colors typical of Canon. A joy to use. Very efficient. I would add that also for this RF-L, the opportunity to update the signature of these optics not only improves the performance of the stabilizer in combination with the IBIS, but a continuous evolution/coupled with the future R5mk2, R3, R1 etc. |
 | sent on 19 Giugno 2023 Pros: It doesn't illuminate the sensor, it sculpts it! Cons: It is not a stalk. Opinion: I have been using it for three years coming from the excellent EF 16-35F4L IS inherited from the 5DIII that I used with the adapter. Despite the demanding F2.8 aperture, this zoom shows how the aperture can only be used for 'artistic' reasons. Closing in order to achieve greater quality is in fact useless, the variations are very modest. The really high sharpness already at TA, with the edges qualitatively glued to the center, is paired with a vignetting that is never a problem, as well as distortion. The hood has not proved to be very efficient, probably to improve it we should resort to its greater dimensioning but increasing the fatigue of use; On the other hand, we are helped by a really good backlight resistance in such a complex perspective. The mechanics are precise, the rotations are uniform, almost velvety (similar to some Zeiss of Contax). I find the lens clean and well cared for, certainly the volume and weight do not apply it as ideal for hiking in the mountains, but if you accept the effort you are amply rewarded with so much quality, especially in scenes with strong contrast. A great glass, chapeau Canon. |
 | sent on 14 Maggio 2023 Pros: Sharpness, color, autofocus, low distortion Cons: Nothing Opinion: What makes mom canon winning are its optics, which other brands do not have.. Specifically, I use this perspective in weddings and I assure you that only with her do everything .. And you do it with stellar quality. Af, colors, sharpness are at the top .. Even the price may seem excessive but as soon as you use it you understand how much quality you have with you .. For those who can afford it, do not take anything else.. Events and photo books at 35 mm are his bread .. Vote 10 |
 | sent on 26 Novembre 2022 Pros: Sharpness, color, stabilization, optical distortion correction, flare resistance and aesthetics Cons: only the cost Opinion: I bought this lens as a replacement for the excellent EF 16-35 f/4. I was very undecided whether to buy the 14-35 f/4 RF, which is definitely more compact, but once tried next to each other I opted for this. I use it combined with the R5 on which it always returns a very high resolution to all apertures and focal lengths It does not particularly suffer from backlight, always controlling parasitic reflections optimally. It is the natural complement to the wide focal lengths of the 24-70 RF, another very high quality lens. The distortion is very well managed, especially at focal length 15 mm, without any software magic. Colors absolutely in line with those offered by the 24-70 RF and the same applies to the stabilization that, combined with that of the sensor of the R5, allows you to take pictures without the aid of the tripod even in low light conditions. I find the blur at the maximum aperture at 35 mm particularly pleasing. Last note, perfect mechanical construction with fluid rings without any kind of play. |
 | sent on 14 Settembre 2022 Pros: Sharpness, almost zero vignetting, stabilization, tropicalization, flare resistance. Cons: Not comfortable back cap, large size filters. Opinion: Excellent lens that I use for videos, but especially for landscape photos. Sharp from edge to edge in any focal length. Gorgeous color rendering, wonderful AF. A bit heavy, but not too much. (It also gets dirty easily, as indeed all new RF). Vignetting practically absent, correctable, as well as distortion (in post). I still haven't been disappointed after a year of use. |
 | sent on 05 Agosto 2022 Pros: Everything but cost and weight Cons: Weight in the first place, price (obviously as an absolute value, not in relation to quality) Opinion: A few years ago I went from apsc to FF.... With this passage I had lost the habit of "light". The 2.8 is a pleasure, fast focus, stellar quality, incredible sharpness, little distortion and vignette pulls practically absent. Even shooting "in a hurry" is difficult to miss the shot. But it is the comment of a "country" amateur. |
 | sent on 11 Aprile 2022 Pros: Homogeneous sharpness over the entire format and over the entire focal range, exceptional resolution, build quality, stabilization, reduced distortion, excellent flare resistance. Cons: the selling price Opinion: I owned the legendary EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L III USM which is still a reference lens for Canon wide anglers. This RF manages to do slightly better and in addition it is stabilized with an extra millimeter on the wide-angle side. Impeccably built, like all RF L has a customizable bezel and is tropicalized. It was immediately love at first sight repaid by wonderful files and rich in details. The flares are very contained, the vignetting normal for the focal length of the lens that however disappears by activating the correction in the camera. It does not regret the best fixed in the house and solves the sensor of the R5 in a great way. |
  | sent on 14 Marzo 2022 Pros: Excellent containment of all issues related to the range of focal lengths considered. Consistent performance and sharpness throughout the format. Effective stabilization. Build quality. Cons: None in particular, apart from the not indifferent cost. Opinion: Canon in previous versions, of the counterpart for SLR (to be precise the 16-35 f2.8), had failed in the intent to design and create an optics that did not arouse strong perplexities, which notoriously led users to prefer the cheapest and least bright version: the f4 which, in many respects, was more performing. Now it can be said, indeed, that the ghosts of the past are behind us and that this lens surprises in every respect considered. Moreover, the software for correcting distortion, aberration etc. works great in the car, without considering that, unlike its predecessor, this one is also stabilized here. Amazing both sharpness and contrast: you have the feeling that these RF optics have been designed to solve, in perspective, increasingly dense sensors. The bokeh, then, is a very pleasant surprise, considering that we are dealing with a wide angle. |
 | sent on 08 Gennaio 2022 Pros: Focal length, sharpness, stabilization Cons: only the price Opinion: I have this lens paired with the R5 since September 2021, I have not used it very much but it is really fantastic, a sharpness never seen before in a UWA zoom (I came from the excellent 16-35 F4 L IS). The extra millimeter on the wide-angle side is very useful and the stabilization very effective. The only negative note is the price, but I do not think there are similar wide angles on the market |
 | sent on 14 Luglio 2021 Pros: Sharpness, stabilization, build quality Cons: Hood not always effective Opinion: Canon in this perspective has included all the know-how related to the three editions of the EF 16-35/2.8 and the result can be seen! The RF 15-35/2.8 is a practically perfect lens if it were not for the excessive vignetting, however easily corrected in the car or recoverable in PP. I keep it practically always hooked to the R6 with which it achieves an excellent combination. It is an L series and as soon as it is put to work it does not betray expectations. The hood is not so effective with strongly side lights, sometimes you notice unwanted reflections and/or ghost images. Unfortunately, the price is still very high. |
 | sent on 16 Ottobre 2020 Pros: Sharpness, stabilization, Cons: I don't know Opinion: A real L!!! What struck me the most was definitely the Sharpness even at full opening both in the center and at the edges... excellent stabilization, very contained flares and vignetting that all in all did not seem at all accentuated compared to other wide-angle objectives That I had ... maybe at f2.8 without correction in the room you notice a little but closing at f4 almost disappears, so to "landscape diaphragms" disappears altogether, however nothing to reproach compared to any other 16-35mm on the market today ... If also active the correction in the room obviously everything settles and the vignetting disappears even at F2.8. It must always be considered that the focal range of this zoom is quite wide (there is no 15-35mm f2.8...and not even f4) so Canon engineers will have had "a few" more headaches to design this lens, as although the focal range is 1 mm wider than the classic 16-35mm we must always consider that we are talking about a wide angle where an more millimeter makes a big difference in the design phase... So applaud canon engineers! Ultimately, as I wrote at the beginning of this review, this lens is a real L series with all the attributes!!! |
 | sent on 29 Settembre 2019 Pros: Sharpness, yield uniformity across the format, reduced sprains, excellent flare resistance, prodigious stabilizer Cons: For now none, price aside. Opinion: Very recent purchase, so far I have taken a hundred images, just to prove it in the most critical conditions and the different focal points; it is an excellent product, it does not make regret the best fixed in the house (less bad because I have permuted them to buy it). Probably the least criticality offered by the very small draft of the bayonet R allows to achieve very high performance even in the peripheral areas of the image, Achilles heel of all wide-angle zooms with strongly retrofocus scheme. At least, even at full opening equals the latter if diaphragmated to f:8 or f:11, which is not little, especially in the shooting in poor ambient light, where the max aperture allows to reduce ISOs. If you also consider the efficiency of the stabilizer, this zoom is ideal for freehand interior shooting. Compared to the 11-24/4 L, from which I reluctantly had to separate, this clearly prevails on the level of resistance to flare in the direct or slightly tangential backlight, which was the major defect (perhaps the only one, moreover) of 11-24/4 L, whose extreme optical scheme, however, I do not think allowed to do better. Of course, it lacks the range of focal lengths from 11 to 14, in the face of a double brightness, the presence of IS and of course the excursion 24-35, more functional to a generalist and less specialized use. However, this is also an excellent realization of the newborn R system. |
 | sent on 29 Settembre 2019 Pros: Sharpness, chromatic aberrazzion, natural colors, blurred, distortion... Optically fantastic! Cons: Front extension dezooming from 35mm to 15mm Opinion: Reading the first impressions of a well-known newspaper I was puzzled, less bad that I did not listen to him and I wanted to try it in person. Impeccable optics in all respects in my opinion except for the front section that extends forward dezoomo from 35mm to 15mm and seems made to mail to let us in the rain, it is still guaranteed tropicalized so we trust... I imagine it was designed to limit its footprints as much as possible as on other optics such as the Rf 70-200. Optically perfect, compared directly with my 16-35 f4L IS wins on all fronts and little even on sharpness at the same opening. To be tested again for flares but for now there is no sign of it. Fully satisfied. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
