Finding the right wide angle lens is critical if you're shooting real estate, landscapes, or even vlogging. Here's a look at two popular options from Canon.
Coming to you from Josh Sattin, this practical video puts the Canon RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM through its paces, testing it in a genuine professional shoot and directly comparing it with the more expensive RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L IS USM. Sattin showcases the lens’ sharpness and overall image quality by presenting clips from an actual real estate project. While the RF 16-28mm delivers sharp, clean images suitable for professional use, he highlights some notable limitations. For instance, he discusses the narrower zoom range, pointing out that 16mm isn't quite as versatile as the broader 15mm found in competing lenses, something that becomes particularly relevant when photographing interiors.
Sattin then closely compares stabilization features, showing real-world clips to illustrate differences clearly. He walks viewers through both handheld vlogging and static shooting scenarios, emphasizing the camera’s built-in stabilization (IBIS) paired with the lens’ stabilization capabilities. Interestingly, despite different price points, the stabilization results between the RF 16-28mm and RF 15-35mm are remarkably similar. He does, however, caution about typical corner wobble issues inherent with wide lenses on Canon mirrorless cameras, advising how to mitigate this by adjusting digital stabilization settings.
An important consideration is autofocus reliability. By performing controlled autofocus tests, Sattin reveals that the RF 15-35mm is slightly more responsive and accurate compared to the RF 16-28mm, noting noticeable focus breathing with the latter lens. However, he points out Canon’s built-in focus breathing correction, which largely solves this issue if your camera supports it, though at the cost of a minor crop.
Beyond technical details, Sattin shares personal insights gained from years using the RF 15-35mm. He describes subtle yet meaningful differences in image quality, suggesting the RF 15-35mm produces images with richer color, enhanced contrast, and more appealing lens flares. The RF 16-28mm, by comparison, controls flares exceptionally well, which may or may not suit your style depending on whether you prefer a clean or more creative aesthetic.
Physically, the RF 16-28mm has distinct advantages for certain scenarios like travel, hiking, or gimbal work. Sattin explains how its compact size and lightweight build (just over a pound) make it significantly easier to handle compared to the bulkier RF 15-35mm. However, he also points out the compromises—mostly plastic construction, absence of an included lens hood, and a unique locking mechanism that requires adjusting the zoom ring before shooting.
Financially, the RF 16-28mm offers an attractive value at around $1,150 new. In comparison, the RF 15-35mm, while superior in overall build and image quality, retails around $2,300 new (though cheaper used options exist). Sattin briefly suggests another alternative—the RF 14-35mm f/4—for those wanting an even broader range and lighter weight than the RF 15-35mm but needing to balance cost and aperture. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Sattin.
