I got it for $1100 USD, new. No other wide in my full frame repertoire before this, so I've been very happy with it. It's a delight. Thank you for your reviews, Chris!

Thanks for this fair review. I think I'll hold onto my EF 16-35 F4L for awhile longer. I don't shoot that wide often enough to justify it, especially at the price.

Great review as always. It so happens that I broke my piggy bank and bought this 2 days ago, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm using the more forgiving R6 and on that body it's flawless. I was also very suprised to see very pronounced sunstars at f4 and I can happily report that even with a NiSi v7 filter holder with 10 stop filter + soft grad I suffer from no vignetting after applying the default lens profile correction in Lightroom. What a time to be alive with all this "next-gen" technology!

The prices Canon is charging for its native mirrorless glass totally deters me from seriously thinking about mirrorless. Not sure what market Canon have in mind, other than a shrinking one! Will remain with my not new,but perfectly adequate for my needs, 6D and L glass etc. Good review thanks Chris.

1:10 your cake? No comrade, OUR cake

Canon's strategy on lens design and pricing is discouraging for hobbyists and enthusiast shooters. Prices are just out of affordability range. Luckily, sony and nikon have not abandoned this group.

Thank you Mr Frost. Have a super day. :)

I purchased this lens as a replacement to my landscape workhorse EF 17-40 f/4 L, the RF 14-35 f/4 IS L has been an excellent tool allowing me so much versatility and it produces incredible images for its size and weight. I love it. Also no more EF-RF adapter which is fantastic! I will be converting all my lenses eventually, thanks for the review.

14-35 perfect for my golf vlogs!!

So compared to the Nikon Z equivalent, it seems the differences are: - 5mm at the long end, obviously - Nikon is a bit smaller and lighter - Nikon clearly wins for sharpness at the wide end across the frame - The Canon does seem to edge it out wide open at the long end, though - A little less distortion than the Nikon, though both are pretty brutal at the wide end. Nikon also flips into significant pincushion distortion at the long end. - Vignetting is pretty bad on both, though Canon recovers a bit at the long end - Close-focusing capabilities of the Canon far outstrip the Nikon - Better against bright lights than the Nikon - Bokeh similar on both, though the Canon might have a slight edge - But that price difference: in my country it's about $700USD! Seems kind of hard to recommend Canon RF over Nikon Z to landscape photographers at this point, given this and the price advantage the Z7 has over the R5.

So glad I decided to buy the 15-35 2.8

is the autofocus internal or does the lens move when focussing? I can't seem to find that answer anywhere

Yessss thats what i was asking for 👍👍👍🍻

Canon got so comfortable relying on digital correction to compensate the flaws of its cheaper lenses, that started moving the practice to the L line. The high price that Canon charges for its glass should be delivered as high performance glass, and not as the camera ability to correct its lower points.

I just grabbed one on sale for $1299 US. Very happy with it

I always check out these reviews when considering a lens purchase and I must say that this one in particular was the deciding factor in my upgrading my EF 16-35mm F4L on and adapter for the RF 14-35mm F4L for my EOS R body. I got the EF version initially for use on my M50 with benefit of it also being usable on my EOS R. But the improved image quality combined with the size and weight advantages were enough to persuade me to make the change. I should mention that I use this class of lens mainly for real estate and landscape so I am always on a tripod so the slower f4 is not a problem and the wider field of view is a big plus.

that 14mm wide range is tempting, but at over double the cost of my 16-35 f/4 it just doesn't seem worth it.

Awesome video

I'll wait for the RF 14-35 f/4 mk II

Hi Chris, New sub here. Nice video. I have this lens coming in the next couple of weeks since I’m traveling and won’t be back until then. I’m reading through the comment section and can understand the frustration of the expensive RF zooms lenses at 2.8, but for this particular one, I see it different: - you can add filters in the front - you don’t need to buy another 14mm lens to carry around with you - it’s lighter and compact for long hikes and travels - the size and balance when you change the focal length makes it easier to balance on gimbal without having to rebalance it - if you don’t need to shoot in lowlight and save $600+. I shoot landscape and need sharp images at f8 and above so this works perfect I do agree that the sweet spot is $1200-$1500 but that would cannibalize the 15-35/2.8 so from Canon’s perspective, why would they do that. If you want to get these prices, wait when other RF lenses are released and there will be aftermarket sellers going for the latest or better IQ and/or 3rd parties. I got mine for $1400 on Ebay and my copy was used once and person decided to switch system. I also have the EF 16-35/4 with a metabones adapter that I will keep as it will give me f2.8 when I ever need lowlight shooting. -

The more digital doctoring the lower the resolution and this lens needs a lot at the wider half. I predict this will be the first "L" series zoom to get a "II" version.

I wonder why there are no videos comparing this lens to the EF 16-35L f/4. I'd love to see if this lens is 1.5x better, and worth the price

Canon is smart by launching excellent value 16stm and this 14-35L at the same time. $299 vs $1699 both reply on digital correction. They are going to sell tonnes loads of 16stm. On the other hand, Nikon 6 glasses 4 group 40mm F2 sounds smells looks so vintage, also at $299. People are spoiled with choices.

Get the Sigma 14-24 instead, which has the added bonus of being f/2.8. Not as small and light but it is spectacular.

Canon heavily advertised their huge mount as an advantage to their system but all it does it makes all of their lenses massive no matter what.

I so want this lens, I would be interested to see how it compares to the venerable 16-35 F4L on the R5.... Good job...

Very good review, really like your channel. As for this lens, as many others similar in aperture, they show the overall trend on the market towards slower and smaller lenses. And this trend in full frame actually confirms my decision to stay with MFT. Going to FF for the supposed increase in performance (which is a valid argument), to end up pairing the camera bodies with slower lenses than you can get in MFT for cheaper and smaller, sort of DEFEATS the PURPOSE.

Optically seems worse than Nikon's z 14-30 especially given the price. One can say it has 35mm on the long end, but for the price of this lens you can almost buy Nikon's 14-30z and 24-70 f4 together.

I got this lens discounted, so far I’m very happy with it , I wanted the more compact size over the 2.8 , the 14-35 range is more practical than 14-24. Canon has rarely gone in for discounts since the RF mount inception. All manufacturers these days are relying more & more on software correction, so I consider the criticisms of Canon to be a little unfair in comparison to other brands. All lenses are a trade off this for that. Very keen to seen the new Nikon z 24-120 f/4 review !

For this price you demand perfection, yet it isn't there yet.

That zoom range though

Surprising "high recommended ". Absolutely a convenient lens for its range and stabilization, but a terrible performance to price ratio. The Nikkor Z 14-30/4 seems much better in that regard. Anyway appreciate your reviews, there awesome 🤗

great video as always - i noticed you compare to a 14-24 from other brands (not as good as these you mention) - can you elaborate on which lenses you referring to?

Hi, another great review! How would you compare its performance against the RF 15-35? Your review on that was with R so not 100% the same to compare. I am torn in my choice between those 2...

Clearly Canon is charging very high for this, if I have to buy an ultrawide lens today I will chose the 15-35 rf f2.8 over this. Expected it to be priced below 1200$

Another excellent review. Some time ago I was watching some old videos about weird lenses and I saw your review of the Canon 24-85... and it was great! What do you think about the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5? Is it as sharp as the 24-85?

I would have liked to see a comparison of angles. Firstly to get a grip on how wide 14mm are and secondly because apparently the in-camera-corrections lead to you not getting "real" 14mm. Otherwise a super great show of the lens. I never buy before watching your video on any lens!

So it's fourth canon RF lens with this cut corners on wide end. If I were reviewing this lens, I would just stop at this point. I fundamentally do not accept such a phenomenon and consider it a critical design defect. I am not satisfied with the excuse that it is a "cheap lens", or a "kit lens" - there's no such things on EF 24-105 4-5.6 stm, or even ef-s 18-55. Not even close ! But when it appears on "L" lens....

Thanks for the review. I’m considering in buying an UWA-lens for my R6, but this one is to expensive for me. Canon released recently the cheaper RF 15-30 lens. Can we expect a review of this new lens too?

Very impressive lens! If I was rich, I would be using a Canon R5 with Canon lenses. But as is, I'm happy with my Sony A7riii and Tamron 17-28 😛.

I have this lens & love it.. I use it for real estate photography & videos for various things.. It's stabilization is top notch & it works well with both my R5 & R6

I am curious which focal length has decent enough distortion so that it does not compromise image quality like on 14mm. Hopefully around 16-18mm?

Not particularly impressed with the minuscule improvement stopping down has on corner sharpness at either extremes of the focal length range, even at f8 it is not very sharp.

I'm definitely keeping my EF 16-35 f/4L IS after seeing this review... I would prefer to have the lens do the work of distortion compensation instead of the camera body.

Please could you do the updated Fuji 10-24 and the 70-300. Thank you

The extending barrel makes this lens feeling like the EF-S 10-18 lens... not necessarily 'L'-like in my eyes. I see why they did this, perhaps to save some space and weight - however, that is a tedious decision.

L class lens which doesn't even cover the full frame image circle at the wide end. That was low, even from Canon

Thanks for the GREAT review 🙏 I am looking for a Canon RF lens for video walks (probably to couple with the Canon R5C). The FOV should be ~90 degrees which is around 20 to 21mm. Any cheaper option from Canon? Thanks!

can you compare it to 15-35 and 16-35F4L?

I'm hoping that Sony, or one of its third-party manufacturers, design a similar lens in FE. I'd seriously consider it as a "do-it-all" UWA instead of having to combine (or choose between) the so-so Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (which is heavy and only gives you 1 focal length for 500 GBP), Sony's own 16-35mm f/4 (which I have, but is showing its age), and Sigma's or Sony's 14- or 12-24mm f/4s (which lack the very useful 24-35 bit). This does cover so much it's very compelling even at a high-ish price.

I would like to see how good it is for night sky astrophotography

In the end I bought the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Price on that one is 1099$. Puzzling.

Prices are now exorbitant. The EF will definitely stay. I really hope that Tamron and Sigma will be on the R-mount one day.

Might as well get a used 15-35 2.8 IS for that price point, it's too close in price to the 2.8.

Canon just released (for pre-order) a budget 16mm f2.8 RF lens which you have reviewed earlier. I wonder how this one performs compared to the similarly priced Samyang 14mm f2.8 AF RF lens which you have not reviewed (if you did I can't find it) ?

I would like a Sony version of this lens

Hi Chris! Unrelated, but what is your go to for landscapes; your R3 or Z7, and why?

I noticed on some testing of this lens. I don't think it should be call it's vignetting in 14mm. On the early testing with no in camera correction the image look like is not enough to cover the sensor. It's totally black at the corner. Is it they are cropped the image to correct it now？ It seems like a little cheating.

It's a nice lens but i feel like it's very overpriced.

The patch of stars near the ariplane is pleides cluster,but base on the NPF rule for our astro-nerd you shouldn't get star-trails after 2 second.

It's a No-No in so many ways. But great job Chris!

For that price you can buy a 10-25mm f1.7!! For mft. The difference in speed largely make up for the lower performance of mft sensor.

Hi, Thanks for the great reviews over the years. I am a Canon fan and for many years I built up my collection of EF - L Series lens, having the 16-35 f 2.8, 24-70 f 2.8, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f 2.8 and f4 (weight manners) and 100-400 mark I. Now after 2 years, I decided to migrate to Canon R5. Question? Is it worth migrate all my EF- Lens L series to RF L series? or should I stick with the adapter, wich so far, seems to be working fine. I don't see much loss of auto focus and quality. The problem is that RF L series lens price hurt the pocket.....Thanks for all the heads up, I never buy any lens without looking to your reviews.

@christopherfrost what Canon RF lens (upto 100mm) would you say is thé best of the best ?

Another great review, please is the CANON RF 14 - 15mm F.4 better than the CANON RF 15 - 35 F. 2.8 ? Which one do you recommend if money is not a problem ?

If I have the money to buy all I want this gonna be in my kit to :P

Great review, really disappointed with their pricing.

Nikon Z 14-30 is sharper if I remember correctly. But 35mm is very useful. Best thing is the 77mm filter thread where you can probybly use 82mm filters without vignetting. For the Z 14-30 you need 95mm filters ...

Can you compare RF15-35 f2.8 VS RF14-35 F4 without the obvious comparison of F2.8. I want to use to landscape and Timelapse. Thanks

Good optics, lovely suntars, nice IS feature, but is overpriced

I just got this lens sort of brand new in the United States at a big box store for $650. I say "sort of brand new" because it was the display model behind glass and was in mint shape. I couldn't pass up the price.

Am planning to get the R7 with the 14-35/4 as the 18-150/3.5 6.3 is ot in stock. Other than lens will not go as wide angle, are there any issues? Will it be ok as a travel lens?

Tamron 35-150, please

Hey Chris, is the new Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 on your list to be reviewed at some point?

Canon recent design philosophy seems to rely less on correcting distortion and engineer "to the edge" regarding vignetting and later solve it via in-camera correction.

I bought this lens early November and this review made me hate it. I bought because I will be starting a new career in real estate appraisal next year and wanted to have a good lens for it but that distortion at 14mm is insane. I haven't really had a chance to take it out yet and see, I only shot it in 35mm. Why didn't you shoot any 15mm shots to compare withe the 15-35mm? **edit** I love your channel and appreciate the honest review. Not bashing you or anything but ugh I feel distressed after watching this.

1:13 OMG, a soviet-style cafe in Wales? I see ВЛКСМ and М.С.Горбачёв printed on your paper tablecloth. Hope the cake was tasty :)

I opened parallel this review and the one of Nikon 14-30 on the same channel. Watching on my 32-inch PC monitor, the Nikon lens is way sharper @ 14 and equal at other focal lengths when wide open. When stopped down, Nikon lens is sharper across the board. In my country it's also about €500 cheaper. I rarely see such big difference in 1st party lenses. Impressive.

The part that NOBODY MENTIONS is that even after correction the corners look just as good or even better than other lenses that are not relying on corrections.

0:45, it's ok... i sold my left kidney. problem sorted. :D

How would I know what polarizing filter would fit this lens?

A camera and 2-3 lenses should not cost near $10,000… yikes

First! Another once in a lifetime achievement! Cheers!

Great review Christopher, but how sharp is it compared to the RF15-35 F2.8 ? this will make the deciding factor for which one to get :)

For an L lens, and at this price point, I didn't expected it to have such a bad distortion.

Hope you are doing well Here is what i see without scientific experiment. An issue of both of my two R6s but have observed this in all r6 that i have seen!! Please take a look at your body. Take 2 photos with... 1/8000 in a uniform background One shot with mechanical shutter and one with 1C-E shutter mode. In my bodies, the one with mechanical mode shutter, appears more bright in the lower half of the image and darker on the other half. In contrast, the one with 1C-e shutter mode (which the default shutter mode) appears normally exposured. This difference happens on shutter speeds more than 1/1000 and it most exaggerated in 1/8000. This is a major canon r6 and r5 flaw because the two images should look identical. Thank you

It costs too much for f4 lens. Canon overprice their RF glass so I will probably swap for Sony a7iv with sigma lenses.

Thank you for this review. Would you recommend this lens for Canon R7?

Price is shocking considering f4 and how much this lens rely on in camera image correction.

Vs Sony´s FE PZ 16-35mm f4 G

I'd rather have a wider lens of like 10-24

I'm a bit surprised at your recommendation, but I do get how versatile it is. I wonder how it performs on an APSC sensor, since 14mm is really very wide, and going to an effective 21mm would still be fine, but the 35mm would be an effective 55mm .... almost shooting an 18-55mm "kit" lens for full frame.

Have a Tamron 17-35 F2.8- 4 for EF-S system. Mirorrless gear is just too overpriced for hobbysts.

I still own my old EF 16-35 f4 and use it with an adaptor on my R6. Looking at its performance, i dont know what canon did to it... but im dissapointed. I guess ill stick with my adapted 16-35 f4 EF. I eyed at the f2.8 version but that is super expensive and with me wanting to get the 100-500RF if its ever available again, ill skip this. Plus the old EF version doesnt have a huge change in center of mass with the adaptor. (e.g. the old 70-200 f2.8 IS ii, due to its length and weight, is VERY front heavy with the adapter, and thus i got the new one, since its also much more compact - ideal for hiking)

Why does everyone think ultra wides are the standard landscape photography lens? They are rarely the best choice.

Get the sigma 14-24 art and never regret

Nikon's 14-30 is like, $500 cheaper and just as good. That extra 5mm and IS doesn't justify an extra $500. Canon's pricing is really absurd nowadays.

Oof. Way too expensive. I much prefer the offerings from the Sony and Nikon systems. Canon lenses either seem really ghetto and small aperture or super expensive.

As a cheapskate I will stick with the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN on a Sony.

Nikon outperforms Canon at least in the lens dept.