First impressions RF 15-35 f2,8 (photos added)

[Ben Egbert]

I just received this lens yesterday from Unique Cameras in NJ, Thanks to Jameel for the tip. This lens is still backordered at B&H. I sold my EF 11-24 f4 to fund it. That was a great lens, but required and adaptor and lens corrections did not work properly. I also have the Rokinon 14 f2,4 which also requires an adaptor and suffers from the same lens correction issue.

All I have done so far is compare the RF15-35 to the Rokininon lens. The Rok is a sharp lens if you get critical focus, and I cannot do this consistently. Since the Rok is primarily a night lens, I did a side be side test at f2.8 with focus at 14 feet which is the hyperfocal distance. I used the manual focus guides in the R5 to focus the ROK, and the AF for the RF lens. There was no comparison, the RF blows the ROK away. Now somebody who is good at manual focus might get better results, but that is also a good reason to bench the MF lens in my case.

But the near and far and corners were also better with the RF, the target was in focus in both cases.

The lens correction works as expected with the RF 15-35. At f2.8, the image was almost as good as at f8 and would be clearly acceptable for night images.

I also notice that the RF 15-35 is sharper and has less CA in the edges than the EF 11-24 f4. The EF11-24 was super at flare and sun stars, not sure the RF 15-35 will match it, but I am happy I got this lens instead of waiting for the RF 14-35 F4 which is too slow for night work.

 

[Littlefield]

Ben, nice ! Also, on RF lens you can use that in screen focus scale under menu 7 in manual to reach infinty. My Tokina 11 - 20 2.8 and old Canon 50mm 1.4 say lens not compatible when try. I can use manual focus guide and peaking on both though.
Don

 

[Jameel Hyder]

Nice writeup Ben. Good to know this lens is as advertised. Would be interested in seeing how this does for night photography esp. how well is coma controlled.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Ben, nice ! Also, on RF lens you can use that in screen focus scale under menu 7 in manual to reach infinty. My Tokina 11 - 20 2.8 and old Canon 50mm 1.4 say lens not compatible when try. I can use manual focus guide and peaking on both though.
Don

Thanks Don, I did use the focus guide as well as peaking for this.

Nice writeup Ben. Good to know this lens is as advertised. Would be interested in seeing how this does for night photography esp. how well is coma controlled.

On my list, just waiting for the next good MW night, maybe August 11th.

 

[Littlefield]

Ben , was talking about this and think only RF lens can get the in screen focus scale in live view. Maybe since RF lens do not have markings on lens.
Don
https://kathyadamsclark.blog/tag/ca...aEfHK75h26mWz5WpHWmo_pSuwv24#jp-carousel-2416

 

[JimFox]

Hey Ben,

That is great news! I am glad to hear this new RF lens is checking out so well.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Ben , was talking about this and think only RF lens can get the in screen focus scale in live view. Maybe since RF lens do not have markings on lens.
Don
https://kathyadamsclark.blog/tag/ca...aEfHK75h26mWz5WpHWmo_pSuwv24#jp-carousel-2416

Right Don, the Rokinon does not show the scale, the RF does when in MF. The Rokinon has a scale on the lens and I have used it for infinity focus for star shots and it works ok, but leaves the foreground OOF.

 

[Jameel Hyder]

Ben, the distance scale on the rokinon lens isn’t accurate by any means. Neither is the infinity. There are ways in which one can calibrate infinity. There is a lot of copy variation as well. For my 24/1.4 I found critical focus on a bright star wide open and then taped the focus ring. I only use this for astro. My copy of the 14/2.8 has its infinity correct so I just turn the ring all the way and shoot. Again I use that for Astro only. The ground ends up reasonably sharp in both cases esp the 14mm.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Jameel, I have found the best setting for infinity on my 14 f2.4 and its between the 2 and 3 meter marks, the stars are always sharp here, but the corners are pretty ragged. The center foreground is also reasonably sharp. I use lens correction for the CA correction and then use geometric correction for vignetting, but it is way too much correction so I typically reduce the correction value by 70%. This process is unsatisfactory to me. The RF 15-35 does need nearly as much and when corrected looks perfect.

 

[Ben Egbert]

15-35 at F2.8 focused at 14 feet The flowers near the center)

Rokinion 14 at f2,8 same focus point

 

[AlanLichty]

I like the sharpness of the new lens better than the Rokinon - especially notable with the tree leaves in the upper left and the large pine poking above the roof on the right.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Exactly Alan, and more obvious at 100% the lower edge grass is much sharper in the RF lens.

 

[JimFox]

Ben, it seems like the new 15-35mm is the lens to use. While the Rokinon is acceptable I think, the 15-35mm is just better.

It looks like this is your new Astro lens, and maybe even WA landscape lens?

Does it take regular filters on the front?

 

[Ben Egbert]

Yes, Jim, it is for sure my astro lens and also my landscape lens. It does take regular filters. 82 mm which I already have.

 

[Kyle Jones]

One thing I still want to see is the coma performance for night images. Canon lenses are typically not great (I'm being generous) for coma. That's the place where the Rokinons shine.

Jameel - the 14/2.4 is much more solid than the 14/2.8.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Ben, it seems like the new 15-35mm is the lens to use. While the Rokinon is acceptable I think, the 15-35mm is just better.

It looks like this is your new Astro lens, and maybe even WA landscape lens?

Does it take regular filters on the front?

One thing I still want to see is the coma performance for night images. Canon lenses are typically not great (I'm being generous) for coma. That's the place where the Rokinons shine.

Jameel - the 14/2.4 is much more solid than the 14/2.8.

As soon as a get a clear sky I will try to shoot a sky shot and show the coma here. I think I am looking for elongated stars at the edges. Should I keep the shutter speed a bit shorter to avoid trailing? I could maybe boost the iso to 4000 and drop the shutter to 20 seconds.

 

[Kyle Jones]

Coma isn't trailing so it would be a good test either way

 

[JimFox]

As soon as a get a clear sky I will try to shoot a sky shot and show the coma here. I think I am looking for elongated stars at the edges. Should I keep the shutter speed a bit shorter to avoid trailing? I could maybe boost the iso to 4000 and drop the shutter to 20 seconds.

Why shorten your shutter speed? We all shoot our 14mm's at between 25 to 30 secs.

I am not sure what else you need to test Ben. You have done some tests, you are finding it easier to focus with the 15-35mm and that it's sharper. To me that's the end of the story. Just start using the 15-35mm and pack up the 14mm and see if you can sell it.

A lens that for whatever the reason focuses easier at night, I would take that over almost any other lens. A lot of lens issues can be cropped off (like bad corners) or corrected with ACR Lens Correction. But one thing you can't fix in post.... out of focus stars. So if the 15-25mm focuses easier for you like you said, look no further.

With my Sigma 14mm f1.8. Obviously I love to death the extra stop of light being able to get down to f1.8 brings. But you know the other thing I love about it? How easy it is to focus. It also has AutoFocus, and I just aim, let the focus lock in, turn off the AF, and I am good to go.

 

[Kyle Jones]

I just remembered my friend Alejandro has that lens. The coma performance was actually really good. I don't think you have anything to worry about