30/09/2026 7:10 pm
Topic starter
Notifications
Clear all
0
Honestly so fed up with my current setup right now. I spent all last weekend hauling gear up to the peaks in the Cascades, only to get back home and realize half my shots look soft in the corners. Like, seriously? I am using an older adapted EF lens on my EOS R5 and I think the adapter is finally giving out or the glass just cant handle the sensor resolution anymore. It is driving me absolutely insane because I missed out on some incredible light while I was busy fussing with the mount connection. I have a big commercial print gig for a local tourism board due in three weeks and I am terrified that if I keep using this, I am gonna lose the contract or look like a complete amateur.
I need to upgrade to something reliable and sharp before I head back out there. My budget is around 2500 bucks, give or take a little, but at this point I just want something that actually works. Ive been looking at the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 but the price tag is making me sweat a bit, though I guess I cant really put a price on not having my gear fail on me when the sun is setting. Is that lens overkill for strictly landscape work? Or should I just bite the bullet and get it instead of settling for something cheaper that might just frustrate me again? Im sick of dealing with weird focus shifts and soft edges when I am trying to capture high-detail landscape shots. If you had to pick one RF lens that is actually bulletproof for landscapes, what would you even buy right now?
9 Answers
11
30/09/2026 7:50 pm
Just catching up here and honestly, dont kill your budget on the 15-35 unless you really need that f/2.8 for astro too. I was in your shoes last year and picked up the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS USM instead. It is lighter and the sharpness is just mind-blowing for prints! Save that extra cash for a solid Benro Mach3 Series 2 Tripod so you dont have to worry about gear shifts ever again.
10
30/09/2026 7:30 pm
Honestly, grab the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM. It saves you a ton of weight for hiking compared to the 15-35, and the corner sharpness is absolutely insane for landscapes.
3
30/09/2026 7:10 pm
Man, I feel your pain. Dealing with gear failures when the light is perfect is the worst. I have been using the R5 for years now and honestly, native glass makes a huge difference. Before you drop that much cash, I have a couple of questions:
- Are you mostly shooting wide landscapes or do you find yourself needing more reach?
- Do you need that f/2.8 aperture for night shots or just standard daytime work?
3
30/09/2026 9:35 pm
Interested in this too
3
30/09/2026 9:45 pm
My buddy told me the exact same thing last week. Guess he was right lol.
2
30/09/2026 7:50 pm
.
2
30/09/2026 8:15 pm
Regarding what #3 said about dont kill your budget, they are spot on. For pure landscape, honestly, save your cash and grab the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM.
- It is tiny
- Incredibly sharp for the price
- Keeps your kit light for hiking You wont regret saving that money for a solid Benro Mach3 Series 2 Tripod.
1
30/09/2026 9:15 pm
Building on the earlier suggestion, the 14-35mm is a solid workhorse, but honestly, if you are printing for a tourism board, we need to talk about diffraction and micro-contrast. In my experience, shooting on the R5 with anything less than top-tier glass is just asking for trouble with those 45 megapixels. I have used almost everything in the RF lineup over the years, and honestly, the corners on the cheaper glass often fall apart when you actually need to pull detail out of shadows. Before I give you my final verdict, are you strictly focused on ultra-wide perspectives, or do you find yourself needing to isolate peaks with a bit more reach? TL;DR: Don't buy the f/2.8 if you dont need the speed. Look for a used Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS USM instead. You get L-series reliability for way less money, leaving enough budget for a solid set of filters.
1
30/09/2026 11:15 pm
Can confirm