So I finally made the jump from my old 5D Mark IV to the R6 Mark II and man the autofocus is killer but I'm totally stuck on what glass to get for my landscape stuff. I've been using the EF 16-35mm f/4L with the adapter but honestly it feels kinda front heavy and clunky now and I want to go native RF. I've been looking at the 14-35mm f/4 and the 15-35mm f/2.8 but the price jump for the 2.8 is making me hesitate big time. I mostly shoot stopped down anyway so do I even need the extra stop? I'm heading out to Zion next month for a big solo trip and I really want to nail the wide shots without carrying a brick.
Here is what I am looking for:
Is the 14-35mm actually as sharp as people say or am I gonna regret not getting the faster glass for blue hour? The barrel distortion on the wide end of that 14-35 seems a bit crazy from what I read online but maybe the in-camera corrections fix it? I've been shooting for ten years but this mirrorless transition is way more expensive than I expected...
Grab the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. In my experience, f/2.8 is just dead weight for hiking. The R6 II handles the distortion automatically and it fits your budget perfectly.
Unfortunately, I was pretty disappointed by the raw files on the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. The distortion at 14mm is honestly wild before the camera crops it out. Check out the test charts on The Digital Picture website to see the mess. If you want peak sharpness for big prints, the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM is way better, but its so heavy for 10-mile hikes... kinda sucks tho. Maybe look for a used copy to stay near your budget?
Big if true
Just wanted to say thanks for everyone chiming in. Super helpful discussion.