• Welcome to Focus on Photography Forum!
    Come join the fun, make new friends and get access to hidden forums, resources, galleries and more.
    We encourage you to sign up and join our community.

Looking for something wider to go w/ RF 24-105 f/4L on R6 II

M

Mk1Racer

POTN refugee
Joined
22 Mar 2025
Posts
92
Likes
72
Location
Central NJ, USA
Name
Bill
Image Editing
No
Looking at the following:

  1. RF 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM​
  2. RF 14-35 f/4L IS USM​
  3. RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS USM​

The 1 & 2 are essentially the same price ($1150 vs. $1200) and 3 is ~2x ($2100). Wondering if the extra stop is worth it over the f/4L. The upside is that the f/4L will take the same (77mm) filters as the 24-105. Don't think I can justify the extra cost of the 15-35 f/2.8L (especially since I'd like to also get a RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM). So, I'm really looking at 1 & 2, but will consider 3 if there's a really compelling argument as to why I should spend another $1k for it.

Thanks,
 
In my humble opinion, the F/4 is sufficient for most uses. A few years ago, when sensors weren’t what they are today, the F/2.8 was useful for interior architectural/real estate type photography. But with today’s sensors, I see no reason to spend the extra money and lug around the extra weight of a F/2.8 wide angle zoom. I don’t have personal experience with the 14-35 but I have its predecessor, the EF 16-35 F/4, and that is a truly legendary lens.
 
West Coast Birder said:
In my humble opinion, the F/4 is sufficient for most uses. A few years ago, when sensors weren’t what they are today, the F/2.8 was useful for interior architectural/real estate type photography. But with today’s sensors, I see no reason to spend the extra money and lug around the extra weight of a F/2.8 wide angle zoom. I don’t have personal experience with the 14-35 but I have its predecessor, the EF 16-35 F/4, and that is a truly legendary lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks Sam,

I have no experience w/ the new, high-res sensors and cameras. A see a lot of people saying it's easy to get that extra stop by bumping the ISO, w/o sacrificing IQ. For as long as I can remember, fast glass was always the goal, as it gave you flexibility. I had an EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM, and that was also a fabulous lens. I'm sure I'll make my mind up after spending some time w/ the RF 24-105 f/4L IS. If I feel like I really need the extra stop, I'll go w/ the 16-28 f/2.8.
 
If you still have your EF 24-105 stick with it, works like a dream on the R6 II with the adaptor. I can't a pressing need to side-grade to an RF version.
 
Lester Wareham said:
If you still have your EF 24-105 stick with it, works like a dream on the R6 II with the adaptor. I can't a pressing need to side-grade to an RF version.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I no longer have it. Sold it w/ my 7D II when I had to go on hiatus.
 
I very rarely go wider than 24mm, but in general, I agree with west coast birder. I rarely see the point of bearing the cost and weight of f/2.8 lenses.
 
I bought the EF 16-35 F/4 L IS in 2015 for a trip to Rome. As I like to shoot bracketed images -2, 0, +2 in the older Cathedrals where tripods are not allowed usually, Hand Held is the only option. Image Stabilization was and is the key. Since then spot on with the smaller, lighter f/4.
For ten years now I leave the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II state side as the the 70-200 f/4 L IS goes with me.
Simply put the size and weight of the f/4’s outweighs the additional stop.
Now the IBIS and IS in lens, I would go with the smaller lighter f/4 L IS in the RF series as well.
 
At this time, I have been using your option #2, the RF 14-35 f/4L IS USM, for a little over a year.
In the time that I have owned the lens I have used it for a little less than 10% of the photos. It is a nice lens.

I like it and haven’t encountered a use where I needed f/2.8 - yet.
I agree with the other replies.
 
What percentage of time do you expect to be using an UWA zoom?
For me, it was/is less than 5% of the time (even less than 3% most likely) so I went with the EF 16-35 f/4L over the f/2.8L back in the day (which I still have btw).

So here would be my opinion:
Usage >20%, RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS USM (for build & image quality, focus speed, f/2.8)
Usage 10~20%, RF 14-35 f/4L IS USM (for build & image quality, focus speed)
Usage <10%, RF 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM (for smaller size & weight)
 
Last edited:
If your expected usage is less than 5% and just need a "just-in-case" lens, I would recommend getting the RF 16mm f/2.8 STM and not worry about the 17mm~23mm gap in coverage.

The cost savings will definitely help fund the RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM that you also want to get.
 
Last edited:
Mr Roboto said:
What percentage of time do you expect to be using an UWA zoom?
For me, it was/is less than 5% of the time (even less than 3% most likely) so I went with the EF 16-35 f/4L over the f/2.8L back in the day (which I still have btw).

So here would be my opinion:
Usage >20%, RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS USM (for build & image quality, focus speed, f/2.8)
Usage 10~20%, RF 14-35 f/4L IS USM (for build & image quality, focus speed)
Usage <10%, RF 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM (for smaller size & weight)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input. My guess is probably the 10%-20% range, but I'll have to see once I get back out there. When I had a 7D and a 7D II, my EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lived on the 7D II, and my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS pretty much lived on the 7D. It's my understanding that since the 17-55 was an EF-S lens, that it was a true 17-55mm on the APS-C body, and did not get the 1.6 crop factor that the 70-200 got. I liked that lens a lot, and really enjoyed shooting with it. I still have it, and will try it out on the R6 II to see how it does. No rush to something wider than the RF 24-105 f/4 L now, but I'm starting to feel a relapse of G.A.S. coming on.
 
RF 16 f/2.8 STM prime is a nice lens and at a good price too.
 
I think you are mixing a couple of things up.

If you liked the 17-55 on the 7D and didn’t feel the need to go wider, then a 24-70 or 24-105 or some such zoom would be ideal for you. Remember that the 17-55 on a 7D will have the same field of view as 27-88 on a FF camera.

If you feel like the 17mm wasn’t wide enough for you on your 7D, then as Hideta and Paul suggest, get a 16mm prime and see what you think. That’s got the same field of view on a FF as a 10mm would on a crop camera, so quite a bit wider than your 17-55. The 16/2.8 is pretty inexpensive, around $250 and is small and light, so it might be a better choice than a bulky and expensive zoom.

Look up images by @Lubos-PM. He uses the 16/2.8 quite a bit.
 
Mk1Racer said:
Thanks for the input. My guess is probably the 10%-20% range, but I'll have to see once I get back out there. When I had a 7D and a 7D II, my EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lived on the 7D II, and my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS pretty much lived on the 7D. It's my understanding that since the 17-55 was an EF-S lens, that it was a true 17-55mm on the APS-C body, and did not get the 1.6 crop factor that the 70-200 got. I liked that lens a lot, and really enjoyed shooting with it. I still have it, and will try it out on the R6 II to see how it does. No rush to something wider than the RF 24-105 f/4 L now, but I'm starting to feel a relapse of G.A.S. coming on.
Click to expand...

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think you may misunderstand.

The focal length is the focal length. It doesn't change when you put the lens on a camera with a different size of sensor. What changes is the angle of view. the smaller the sensor, the smaller the angle of view. Similarly, the longer the focal length, the narrower the angle of view. So if you put ANY 17mm lens on any APC-C camera, you are getting the same angle of view as you would get with a focal length of 1.6*17=27mm on a full frame body (assuming the Canon crop factor of 1.6). It makes no difference whatever whether the lens is labeled EF or EF-S.

So if what you want is an angle of view on the R6 II as wide as you were getting with a 17mm lens on an APS-C body, the 24-105 more than gets you that wide.

The EF-S label refers to other things entirely. APS-C cameras have a smaller mirror, so they can use lenses with a shorter distance from the rear element. In addition, because of the smaller sensor, they can use lenses with a smaller image circle. If you use an EF lens on an APS-C camera, the sensor will lop off the outer part of the image circle.
 
Last edited:
Bill - here's perhaps a (great) compromise:

Canon's refurb site is currently blowing out the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L v3 for $999!
Yes, it's EF and not RF but a cheap adapter will make it work.
But it's an f/2.8L! And v3! And cheaper than the f/4L version!

But you may want to act quickly if you're interested. They tend to run out of stock very quickly on sale items.
 
Mr Roboto said:
Bill - here's perhaps a (great) compromise:

Canon's refurb site is currently blowing out the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L v3 for $999!
Yes, it's EF and not RF but a cheap adapter will make it work.
But it's an f/2.8L! And v3! And cheaper than the f/4L version!

But you may want to act quickly if you're interested. They tend to run out of stock very quickly on sale items.
Click to expand...
Where are you seeing this? It's not on the Canon site. Searching for an EF 16-35 only shows the F/4 L version.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Looking for some input for lens choice
Replies
8
Views
196
Mk1Racer
M
gjl711
  • Sticky
Link table for Canon Lenses
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Mr Roboto
Mr Roboto
Spitfirejd
Wide angle zoom options for RF
Replies
8
Views
347
Spitfirejd
Spitfirejd
Back
Top Bottom