This is a good rule of thumb 👍

Oh my gosh, I LOVE the 24 1.4. Beyond words.

I agree completely. The only caveat being that the 2.8 is a bit better for indoor video, but the f4 is awesome.

Oh wow, thank you so much! I definitely try to make videos I'd actually want to watch, so I'm really glad to know it was helpful!

The f4 really is a champ. The new RF looks great (aside from the price)!

Ive been looking for this one for awhile! but i went with the f2.8 and im enjoying it so far

It’s an awesome lens at a fair price 😎

The Enthusiasm Project Absolutely. Saved a $1000 to put towards other gear. Also the IS is perfect for vlogging content

Good advice 👍

That's awesome to hear! It's such a great lens- I'm sure you'll love it!

I really appreciate the kind words Sergei! Thank you! 🙏

Glad it helped!

The RF 15-35 really is an excellent lens. 🤤

I'm so glad it helped! The 24-70 is definitely a great lens too, and I hope to add one to my lineup someday.

Absolutely. I've have my 24-105L for about 7 years, and it was at least 7 years old when I bought it used. It still works like new!

@@tombuck I just recently bought a used 24-105 v2 lens as well. Just an all around useful lens

My thoughts exactly. If the more expensive one were 1.8 or 1.4 it’d be a no brainer, but 2.8 vs 4 isn’t a HUGE difference.

what do you think as far sa sharpness goes compared to the f4? I do real estate photography and am looking to upgrade from my cannon ef 17-40 . I want something tac sharp and brilliant: D

I think for landscape you will anyway stop down for greater depth of field so that does not make any difference. Plus the is you get is a much better thing Regards

Thank you sir! I’m glad it was helpful!

Glad it helped! IS is definitely a great feature.

The Sigma 24 is an unbelievable lens. Check canonpricewatch.com for lens prices (this sounds like an ad, but it's not, I promise).

@@tombuck Thanks for the tip, I'll be keeping my eye out!

Glad it helped! I sure you’ll love the f4- it’s a remarkable lens!

The Enthusiasm Project liked and subscribed btw. Look forward to seeing new videos and catching up on the old ones :)

It’s a great one!

Great deal! 😮

You’re welcome! Glad it was helpful!

Thanks Tyler! It’s such a great lens.

Really happy to hear that!

All very true. It would look totally different outdoors in a landscape setting.

The IS is an awesome feature. And long exposures work very well with f4 for sure.

It’s a good excuse, especially if you’ve already had an f4!

True- I definitely misspoke there.

Ooh, I’ve been curious about that Art lens! The light is a Dracast Silkray 800 that I borrowed to experiment with. It’s big, thin, bright, and nicely diffused. I like it so far 👍

I am also very curious about this Art lens? is it worth it? 14-24 is pretty dang wide

Sigma is a third party lens company that when spare part or repairs are needed they won't be available. Along time ago when I first tried a 28-235 image stabilized lens. I had an option in 1999 of Canon's first image stabilized 35mm lens in the world to use on my EOS 3 film camera. Or later sigma copied Canon's ideal. And I opted for the sigma 28 -135 f 3.5 /4 image stabilized. And after three years the auto focus stopped functioning andthe lens was discontonued so spare parts were no longer available. So repair was out of the question. I contacted sigma they said they could sell me a replacement lens of a different zoom range. So it was then I purchased the Canon version and I'm still using that lens on Canon digital bodies. So buy Nikon,Sony or Canon you won't be let down. And ultra wide lenses at ranges greater than 16mm is very hard to construct and get a good image that's why my Canon 11-24 mm f4 costed so much it took Canon years to prefect that lens and did they ever accomplish that, it's tack sharp at all settings. Like the Canon 16-35 mm f4 i.s. CANON ULTRA WIDE ZOOMS ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO ALL LENS MANUFACTURES AND COST LESS THAN NIKON.

@@forsterl.stewart414 is f 2.8 lens substantially sharper than the F4? I do real estate photography and I'm looking to upgrade. I just want something extremely sharp and brilliant: D

I really love the f4! It’s been two years and it’s still great 😎

I didn’t know it was such an upgrade to sharpness- thanks for the info.

I have the 17 to 40 mm. Do you think it would be that much more of an upgrade? I'm debating whether or not I should just upgrade my lens or go to a full on mirrorless set up.

That’s the tough part because I wanted the wider field of view since I often have stuff to show and I usually talk with my hands like a maniac. The F4 is a beautiful lens for sure!

I’ve officially had it for a year and it’s been on my camera 90% of that time. Such an incredible lens!

I have the sigma art 18 to 35 and 50 to 100 1.8 for crop sensor and they're amazing. I use the 18 to 35 on my Canon EOS R all the time. Sigma is making amazing lenses these days

Does the 18-35 work well on the R?

@@Savage1776_ hows the auto focus on that? Ive read some reviews saying the auto focus is really slow and bad which is keeping me from buying it

Glad it helped! Love the 2.8, but that price is really prohibitive.

Haha, steal away! I’d love to hear your perspective as a 2.8 owner.

My pleasure!

@@tombuck I really enjoy your videos. You do such a thorough job, and your style is really engaging, relaxed and authentic. I am learning alot from your channel. BTW I like the podcast you and Peter Lindgren have started as well. Thanks for acknowledging my comment, and keep up the great work! Mike

Thanks for the kind words! I really appreciate and I’m glad you’re liking the videos/podcast.

You can't go wrong either way. If you want better low light and slightly more shallow depth of field, go for the 2.8. If you want the benefit of stabilization or plan to do a lot of landscape photos, the f4 is terrific. And, for what it's worth, I like that the f4 has a 77mm diameter (it works with all the filters I already had).

@@tombuck Just bought the 2.8 mark ii And it’s great 😁, thanks a lot Tom keep up the good work 💪

Thanks so much! I really appreciate that!

The 14-35 is interesting, and the f4 vs 2.8 comparison is always tricky too.

Thanks, I’m sure you’ll love it 👍

@@tombuck I got it! It's great!!

That sounds like a pretty sweet deal. But yes, I absolutely love the 24mm.

Glad it was helpful! Just to clarify- I’m using the original R, which only has electronic stabilization. 👍

It’s a great landscape lens. I recommend checking out Thomas Heston’s channel. He’s a landscape photographer who does amazing work with the 16-35 f4. 😎

The sigma really is outstanding, and with the EOS R's autofocus, the 1.4 aperture is really usable. Of course there's always the Canon 24 1.4, but that's a bit out of my budget. I'm a fan of wide lenses with wide apertures. 👍

Dude, lens choices are some of the hardest choices. 😬

I have the original 24-105, but I can borrow a Mark II and compare them. Now that’s a lens I wish was 2.8.

Thanks! I do focus mostly on video personally, so that's the perspective I took with the video. Anecdotally, I can say that the 2.8 is sharper, but I don't know if it's enough of a difference to justify the price.

@@tombuck thnks for replying.stay safe👌

Very true!

It’s a really great lens, but doesn’t work with full frame cameras. If I had a crop camera, I would absolutely own one. 👍

@@tombuck Forgot you were shooting on the 6D, shutter carnage if you tried to use the Sigma on that!

I’ve since gotten the EOS R too, which does have a crop mode to accommodate EF-S lenses, but I’m too much of a full frame addict.

Hey! The Sigma 14-24 is probably the widest/fastest lens you’re going to get (at least without totally breaking the bank). I did a review on it if you haven’t seen it- I really like it.

If you can find one, the version II is a great deal, and I'd probably go with the 2.8 for that price. I don't think 1 extra stop is worth $1000, but I think it's definitely worth $200(ish).

Its a really great video! are you a photographer?

Glad you enjoyed it!

Fantastic! I’m glad it helped out!

I’m glad to hear it!

I love it! It's my favorite focal length for sure.

Thanks Stephen! I always struggle with thumbnails...

If you’re mainly going for photography and you don’t planning on shooting low light with short exposure time, the f4 should be great. 👍

I guess that’s better than getting the 4 and wishing you had the 2.8- they’re both wonderful lenses!

@@tombuck I just bought a 24-105 f4L ii. so i should be ok for most purposes except that both are a bit heavy. i am beginning to learn the benefits of lighter weight equipment haha...

It’s tough to balance features and size, figuratively and literally.

It’s a wonderfully lens and I use it regularly at my work. But it’s mainly designed for crop sensor cameras, and I prefer full frame 👍

@@tombuck Very good point Tom - I missed that! I am new to video recording for KZfaq. Trying to get a good shot of me playing bass with my studio in the background... I will order the Sigma 24mm F1.4 for full frame - your video is among the best I have seen to really show what it does with great comparisons. So you have not yet found a fine full frame prime lens wider than 20mm for aperture larger than F2 that would work with the Canon EOS R and be reasonably priced?

20mm is about as far as you can go within reason. But on full frame That’s very very wide.

Yes, that’d be a great deal!

For landscapes, it's a fantastic choice. If you haven't seen it, Thomas Heaton made a whole video on how he uses the F4 for landscapes and gets outstanding results.

@@tombuck I'll check this out right now !! I've seen in another video that the f4 also has kind of more contrasts. Which is also good for landscapes !

@@tombuck man, thank you for giving me this channel. I learn so much out of it !

If price is the same, I see no reason not to go for the 2.8. The R’s built in stabilization is really good, despite what most reviews say.

@@tombuck the f2.8 II not the III. So for the price I should get the 2.8 ii instead of the f4? If so thank you for your help

Happy to hear that! 👍

The III isn’t bad. You can hear it, but I don’t think it’d cause many issues. I haven’t heard the II myself, so I can’t make a direct comparison.

@@tombuckThat's good to know, thanks. How does it compare to the f4?

Awesome! Hopefully you get the lens that's right for you 👍

@@tombuck Yeah, I'll get the f4. That's a good solution for me

You’re welcome!

I heard about that one too! It’s a tough choice. I still like this one because it’s easy to swap between the R and 6D II.

@@tombuck for sure. The fact that it is not a huge lens. You could rotate that lens on the R and 6D II. That is a huge bonus in my book.

Haha, I was very shocked to see my name pop up in that video! But yeah, if you can try each out, that’s the best way to decide. The 2.8 is a beautiful lens, but I’ve been more than happy with the f4 👍

@@tombuck Thank you for the reply! I went with the f4 and love the improvement. Well worth it and I don't need to buy new filters so I'm happy. You're internet famous! Bask in the glory hahah thank you again!

Are you talking about the markers that show up in the progress bar of the KZfaq player? It’s a new feature KZfaq added this week. If you put time stamps in the description of your video, it automatically marks them on the progress bar. I really like it 👍

@@tombuck that easily?? Thankyou sir.. Subbed from 🇳🇵..

correction: Sorry but as you said youtube added this feature this week but you started doing this 9 months ago and that video was Canon eos r-top 5 underrated features, I put time markers on description but it doesn't do..maybe there's a subscription count like less than 5k get lost or something..lol..I wanted to do this in my wife's fitness channel so it would have been easier..you know..

The upload date shouldn’t matter as long as the time stamps are in the description, so this could show up on older videos. I’m not sure how they decide which accounts to use it on. It might be a new feature that’s being tested randomly. 🤷🏻‍♂️

@@tombuck oh yea, so sorry, maybe this corona thing messed up my brain..lol..anyways thankyou for your time..3840*1920 rock and this progress bar surely rocks.

It’s not designed for full frame cameras, but is an outstanding lens.

It’s a Husky work bench from Home Depot 👍

You can set a 16-35mm to 24, but it won’t have the same shallow depth of field as a prime lens, so you won’t get backgrounds that are quite as blurry. Just something to be aware of. 👍

@@tombuck thank you so much..please tell me just one more thing..what size of ND filter do i need for 35mm lense? Or 24mm? I am very confused when it comes to numbers...

It depends on the lens. Each lens will have its filter diameter printed on the front- it is a different number than focal length (so a 24mm lens could have a 77mm filter size).

The Mark II is going to be a bit better if you can swing it with your budget. Image quality is terrific on both, but the II has updated autofocus, which is nice.

@@tombuck Do you think it's worth buying the mark II?

Absolutely!

@@tombuck Thanks for replying.

@@tombuck Would you go for the 2.8 mk II or the F4 for shooting video in a small room?

Hey, glad you’re here! I think the f4 will work great in a crop sensor camera. That being said, I’m a believer that you should always buy the best you can afford (without going into debt or selling a kidney). The 2.8 is a better lens, but I personally don’t think it’s $1000 better. You could get a second lens like a super sharp prime for less money.

@@tombuck Thanks for the quick answer ! In your video, like you said I honestly don't see a gain worth $1000 ... except for ISO gain but ... probably cheaper to buy a small light or something to balance that ... And I have a 50 1.8 that I could use on the side 🤔 I wanted the 24-70 2.8 to shoot weddings with only this lens but ... yeah ... after I saw your video I'll probably go with the F4 ! Thanks so much

Glad it helped! To be fair, the 24-70 is wonderful for weddings and events.

Thanks!

There’s a difference, but really thought it’d be more noticeable. Both are great lenses!

I don't have a technical way to quantify the noise, but I'd say it's about "average." It's not overly distracting to me, but it's also not silent either.

Are you using it for photo or video? It’s an absolutely outstanding landscape lens, but at f4, it’s not the best in low light conditions. There is slight vignetting at 16mm, but it hasn’t been an issue for me (I actually kind of like it). Distortion depends mostly on your focal length and angle- it can be noticeable or dramatic. And I have t had issues with chromatic abberation, although I do usually remove it by default in Lightroom.

@@tombuck I shoot only picture but maybe later I may shoot video too. I don't correct my pictures in light room a lot. I just add more color and Bright light in my Ipad. So it hard to remove distortion.

@@tombuck sigma 14 24mm f2.8 $1,200. It seems very good image quality too.

That’s a REALLY terrific lens. The only downside is that it’s very big and heavy. But otherwise it’s outstanding.

The Enthusiasm Project I don't mind a big lens If it can use ND filter especially 77mm filter. Because later I want to buy 70 200mm III and 85mm l is. So if I have ultra wide lens with 77mm filter I need only 1 filter to apply all my lenses.