hello everyone, and welcome to this short review about two lenses that I bought for myself because I think they are just great. In this comparison, the Canon RF 14 to 35 millimeter F4 SL version for only 1800 bucks, and the Canon RF 16 millimeter F 2.8 STM for only 350 bucks. If you like this video, I would be happy if you buy, for instance, the lens, the memory card, or the camera using the link provided in the video description below. Thank you. The RF 16 to 35 millimeter weighs only 165 grams. The lens hood was not included, but you get this one here for just under 15 bucks under the link in the video description. The 14 to 35 millimeter is already a bit heavier with 540 grams, and the lens hood feels just too cheap. It is included, as well as a protective bag. I like that I can still use all my 77 millimeter filters on this lens. For the 16 millimeter, it gets a bit more special because for that, I need a

43 millimeter filter. The 14 to 35 millimeter has a zoom ring, a focus ring, and a programmable RF ring that you can use to change the aperture, ISO, or shutter speed. For example, for me, I use it to change the focus area. The 16 millimeter has only one ring; you can use that to focus or to adjust the parameters mentioned. Now to the ultra annoying part: if you want to switch between the autofocus and the manual focus, you can only do that via the Canon menu. An extra switch for the autofocus and manual focus and the image stabilizer can be found on the side of the 14 to 35 millimeter. I would worry less about chromatic aberrations. Vignetting is very pronounced at fast apertures with both lenses. The remedy is Adobe Lightroom; it can be corrected in less than a second using the automatic correction. The situation is somewhat different with flaring; depending on the angle, they can be very pronounced or less pronounced. Both send us a perfect companion for your travels because

everything fits on them, ideal for Landscapes and Interiors. The 16 millimeter has the better aperture, of course, in case it's dark. So, that is the 16 millimeter in 4k, using my Canon EOS R6 and its internal microphone. Maybe one or the other is trying to film himself using the super wide angle lens here, the 16 millimeter for TikTok or Instagram. And that's how it looks like on my Canon EOS R6 in 4k 50. Since we are in video mode, let's have a look at a few more examples. The autofocus is extremely fast on both. The only thing that annoys me is that I can only switch from autofocus to manual focus via the Canon menu on the 16 millimeter. In terms of focus speed, I would say they are almost the same. [Music] Foreign [Music] ERS are extremely sharp, starting wide open. You can check if the red ring makes a difference. You can find the sample files in the video description. Also in

raw [Music] I use the RF 16 millimeter when I shoot videos for you at home, and I have little space. In addition, of course, for landscapes and architecture, the 14 to 35 millimeter is, of course, much more flexible, a bit heavier, and has the worst aperture, but you have a zoom ring that can make the difference. Feel free to write me what you use one or the other lens for. I found bokeh to be very nice with both lenses. At a 35 millimeter, you might also think that the photo was taken with the RF 16 millimeter at 2.8 in the dark. However, you do notice the difference between a 4 and a 2.8 aperture. [Music] foreign [Music] Distance is an amazing 20 centimeters for the 14 to 35 millimeter and 26 centimeters for the 16 millimeter. Ideal for detail shots, for instance, in nature. [Music] foreign [Music] I promised you a short comparison and

that brings us to the conclusion. The 14 to 35 millimeter is much more expensive, a bit heavier, and has the worst aperture, but you have the maximum flexibility and have to spend 1800 for the 15 to 35 millimeter with a 2.8 aperture. You have to spend a little more. The 16 millimeter is absolutely cheap for this performance, impresses with a 2.8 aperture, and unfortunately has no extra switch for the autofocus and manual focus. For that, it's an ideal travel lens, shooting in the dark, and for video blocks sharp and fast are both lenses. I am curious about your feedback. Which lens do you have or like the most? If you always want to be up to date, make sure to follow me on TikTok and Instagram. See you very soon on Twitter. [Music] Hold up.

Canon 14-35mm vs RF 16mm | $1800 vs $350 which one is better?

Canon 14-35mm vs RF 16mm | $1800 vs $350 which one is better?

스크립트