As a professional landscape photographer who’s spent countless hours in the field with both these lenses, I can tell you that choosing between the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM isn’t just about specs it’s about how they perform in real-world shooting situations. I’ve tested both extensively, from sunrise shoots in the mountains to night photography in the city, and I’m here to share everything you need to know to make the right choice for your photography journey.
Quick Comparison: At a Glance
Before diving deep into the details, here’s a quick overview of how these two wide-angle powerhouses stack up against each other:
| Feature | Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM | Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM |
|---|---|---|
| Focal Range | 15-35mm | 16-35mm |
| Maximum Aperture | f/2.8 | f/2.8 |
| Image Stabilization | Yes (5 stops) | No |
| Lens Elements | 16 elements in 12 groups | 16 elements in 11 groups |
| Closest Focusing Distance | 0.28m (0.92 ft) | 0.28m (0.92 ft) |
| Filter Size | 82mm | 82mm |
| Weight | 840g (1.85 lb) | 790g (1.74 lb) |
| Dimensions | 88.5 x 128mm | 88.5 x 127mm |
| Weather Sealing | Yes | Yes |
| Mount | Canon RF | Canon EF |
Build Quality and Design
When I first picked up the RF 15-35mm, I immediately noticed its slightly more modern feel compared to the EF 16-35mm. Both lenses feature Canon’s signature L-series build quality with weather sealing, but the RF version has a more refined finish that just feels premium in hand.
The RF lens includes a customizable control ring that can be assigned to adjust various settings like ISO, aperture, or exposure compensation. I’ve found this incredibly useful when shooting in challenging conditions where I need to make quick adjustments without taking my eye off the viewfinder.
The EF 16-35mm, while slightly older, still boasts exceptional build quality that’s stood the test of time. During a recent trip to the Scottish Highlands, my EF lens got drenched in rain and even took a few knocks against my tripod, and it performed flawlessly throughout.
One notable difference is the lens hoods. The RF version comes with a petal-shaped lens hood that’s slightly more compact, while the EF’s hood is a bit bulkier. For travel photographers like myself, every bit of space counts, so this small difference might matter to some.
Image Quality and Sharpness
This is where things get interesting. Both lenses deliver exceptional image quality, but there are subtle differences that might influence your decision.
The RF 15-35mm shows slightly better corner-to-corner sharpness at wider apertures, particularly at 15mm. During my landscape photography workshops, I’ve noticed that students using the RF lens consistently get sharper corners in their wide shots without having to stop down as much.
The EF 16-35mm is no slouch either. It produces beautifully sharp images across the frame, though you might need to stop down to f/4 or f/5.6 for optimal corner sharpness. I’ve used this lens for countless professional shoots, and clients have always been impressed with the detail and clarity.
Where the RF lens really shines is in its ability to maintain sharpness throughout the zoom range. At 35mm, it’s noticeably sharper than the EF version at the same focal length. I discovered this while shooting architecture in Chicago last year, where I needed the versatility of a zoom but couldn’t compromise on detail.
Chromatic aberration is well-controlled on both lenses, but the RF version shows slightly less purple fringing in high-contrast situations. If you frequently shoot backlit scenes or cityscapes at night, this could be a deciding factor.
Autofocus Performance
Canon’s mirrorless system gives the RF 15-35mm a distinct advantage in autofocus performance. The Dual Pixel CMOS AF in RF-mount cameras combined with this lens is nothing short of remarkable.
I’ve shot everything from fast-moving wildlife to low-light concerts with the RF 15-35mm, and the autofocus locks on quickly and accurately. The near-silent operation is also a huge plus when shooting video or in quiet environments.
The EF 16-35mm, when used on a modern DSLR, still offers excellent autofocus performance. However, when adapted to an RF-mount camera using the EF-EOS R adapter, there’s a noticeable difference in speed and accuracy. During a recent wedding shoot, I found myself reaching for the RF lens more often because I could trust it to nail focus in those critical moments.
One area where the RF lens excels is eye detection autofocus. When shooting environmental portraits with my RF-mount camera, the combination of the RF 15-35mm and the camera’s eye AF is incredibly reliable, ensuring sharp focus on the subject even when using wider apertures.
Low-Light Capabilities
Both lenses feature a constant f/2.8 aperture, making them excellent choices for low-light photography. However, the RF 15-35mm has a significant advantage with its built-in image stabilization.
Canon claims 5 stops of stabilization with the RF lens, and in my experience, this isn’t just marketing hype. I’ve successfully handheld shots at 1/2 second that would have been impossible with the EF version. This makes the RF lens incredibly versatile for night photography, indoor events, or any situation where using a tripod isn’t practical.
During a recent astrophotography session in Utah, I was able to capture the Milky Way with sharp stars at ISO 3200 and 2-second exposures, handheld with the RF lens. With the EF version, I would have needed to push the ISO higher or use a tripod to achieve similar results.
The EF 16-35mm still performs admirably in low light, especially when mounted on a camera with in-body image stabilization. However, if you’re using an older DSLR without IBIS, you’ll find yourself limited to faster shutter speeds or needing to use a tripod more often.
Special Features
The RF 15-35mm comes with several modern features that set it apart from its EF counterpart:
Image Stabilization
As mentioned earlier, the 5-stop image stabilization is a game-changer. It not only helps with handheld photography but also makes video shooting much smoother. I’ve used the RF lens for documentary work, and the stabilization allows for a more cinematic look without the need for a gimbal.
Control Ring
The customizable control ring on the RF lens is something I didn’t think I’d use much at first, but it has become an essential part of my workflow. I typically set it to control ISO, allowing me to make quick adjustments without changing my grip on the camera. For video work, I often assign it to aperture for smooth exposure changes during recording.
Improved Coating
The RF lens features Canon’s Air Sphere Coating (ASC), which significantly reduces ghosting and flare. I’ve shot directly into the sun with both lenses, and the RF version handles these challenging lighting conditions noticeably better, with less contrast loss and fewer artifacts.
The EF 16-35mm, while lacking these modern features, still benefits from Canon’s Subwavelength Structure Coating (SWC) and Super Spectra Coating, which do an excellent job of controlling flare and ghosting.
Size and Weight
There’s not a significant difference in size and weight between these two lenses, but every ounce matters when you’re carrying gear all day.
The RF 15-35mm weighs 840g (1.85 lb) and measures 88.5 x 128mm, while the EF 16-35mm is slightly lighter at 790g (1.74 lb) with dimensions of 88.5 x 127mm. In practice, I’ve found the difference negligible when shooting, but the RF lens feels slightly better balanced on RF-mount cameras.
If you’re a backpacker or travel photographer who counts every gram, the EF version might have a slight edge. However, when you factor in the image stabilization of the RF lens, which can eliminate the need for a tripod in many situations, the weight difference becomes less significant.
Compatibility with Different Camera Bodies
This is perhaps the most crucial consideration when choosing between these two lenses. The RF 15-35mm is designed exclusively for Canon’s full-frame mirrorless cameras (the EOS R series), while the EF 16-35mm is intended for Canon’s DSLR lineup.
If you’re using an RF-mount camera like the EOS R5, R6, or R3, the RF lens will provide optimal performance with full compatibility. The EF lens can be used with an adapter, but as mentioned earlier, you may experience slightly slower autofocus and won’t have access to some of the RF lens’s special features.
For DSLR users, the EF 16-35mm is the clear choice. While you could technically use the RF lens with an adapter on certain DSLR models, this isn’t a practical or recommended setup.
If you’re considering switching from DSLR to mirrorless or maintaining a hybrid system, it’s worth noting that the EF lens adapts very well to RF-mount cameras. Many professional photographers I know have successfully transitioned to mirrorless while keeping their favorite EF lenses.
Price and Value
As of 2025, the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM retails for approximately $2,299, while the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM sells for around $1,999. The $300 price difference might seem significant, but when you consider the added features of the RF lens, particularly the image stabilization, the extra cost is justified for many photographers.
The used market offers some interesting options, with the EF 16-35mm often available for $1,400-1,600 in excellent condition. The RF lens is still relatively new, so used savings are typically less substantial.
When considering value, it’s important to think about longevity. The RF lens represents Canon’s latest optical technology and is likely to remain relevant for many years to come. The EF lens, while still excellent, is based on older technology that may eventually be superseded as Canon continues to develop its mirrorless system.
Real-World Usage Scenarios
To help you understand how these lenses perform in practice, let me share some experiences from different photography genres:
Landscape Photography
For landscape work, both lenses excel, but I’ve found the RF 15-35mm to be slightly more versatile. The extra millimeter at the wide end makes a noticeable difference when trying to capture expansive vistas. During a recent trip to the Grand Canyon, I was able to include more foreground elements with the RF lens, creating more dynamic compositions.
The image stabilization also proved invaluable for sunrise and sunset shots when I wanted to use slower shutter speeds to blur water or clouds without increasing ISO.
Architecture Photography
When shooting architecture, the RF lens’s superior corner sharpness and reduced distortion at 15mm give it an edge. I recently photographed a modern building in downtown Seattle and was impressed with how straight the lines remained at the edges of the frame with the RF lens.
The EF lens still performs well for architectural work, but you might need to spend more time correcting distortion in post-processing.
Event Photography
For weddings and events, the RF lens is my go-to choice. The combination of image stabilization and superior autofocus performance means I can capture sharp images in challenging lighting conditions without missing important moments.
During a dimly lit reception last month, I was able to shoot handheld at 1/30s with the RF lens, something that would have been nearly impossible with the EF version without introducing motion blur.
Astrophotography
Both lenses are excellent for astrophotography, but the RF lens has a slight advantage due to its wider focal length and image stabilization. I’ve used both for Milky Way photography, and while the results are similar, the RF lens allows for slightly longer exposures when shooting handheld or on a less stable tripod.
Sample Images Comparison
While I can’t show actual images here, I can describe the differences I’ve observed in my work:
With the RF 15-35mm:
- Corner-to-corner sharpness is excellent even at f/2.8
- Minimal chromatic aberration, even in high-contrast scenes
- Excellent control of flare when shooting into the sun
- Slightly more contrasty images with richer colors
- The extra 1mm at the wide end makes a noticeable difference in composition
With the EF 16-35mm:
- Very good sharpness, but corners improve significantly when stopped down to f/4
- Slightly more visible chromatic aberration in challenging situations
- Good flare control, but not quite as effective as the RF lens
- Images have a slightly more “neutral” color profile
- Excellent performance when stopped down to f/8-f/11 for landscape work
Who Should Buy Which Lens?
Choose the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM if:
- You own a Canon mirrorless camera (EOS R series)
- You frequently shoot in low light without a tripod
- You value the latest technology and features
- You shoot video and need smooth stabilization
- You want the absolute best image quality and sharpness
- You’re willing to pay a premium for cutting-edge performance
Choose the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM if:
- You own a Canon DSLR
- You’re on a tighter budget
- You primarily shoot landscapes where you’ll be using a tripod anyway
- You already have an investment in EF-mount lenses
- You want excellent performance without the latest features
- You’re considering adapting lenses to an RF-mount camera
Final Verdict
After spending countless hours with both lenses in various shooting conditions, I can confidently say that both are exceptional wide-angle zooms worthy of the L-series designation.
The Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM represents the pinnacle of Canon’s current lens technology, offering superior image stabilization, slightly better optical performance, and modern features that make it a joy to use. If you’re invested in the RF system, it’s unquestionably the better choice.
The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM, while slightly older, is still a fantastic lens that delivers professional results. It’s a more budget-friendly option that doesn’t compromise significantly on image quality, making it an excellent choice for DSLR users or those adapting to RF-mount cameras.
Ultimately, the decision comes down to your camera system, budget, and specific needs. Both lenses will serve you well for years to come, producing stunning images that will impress clients and viewers alike.
FAQ
Is the Canon RF 15-35mm worth the upgrade from the EF 16-35mm?
If you’re using an RF-mount camera, yes, the upgrade is worth it primarily for the image stabilization and slightly improved optical performance. However, if you’re on a tight budget or primarily shoot landscapes with a tripod, the EF lens with an adapter is still an excellent option.
Can I use the EF 16-35mm on RF-mount cameras?
Yes, you can use the EF 16-35mm on RF-mount cameras with the official EF-EOS R adapter. Autofocus performance is very good, though not quite as fast as native RF lenses.
Which lens is better for astrophotography?
Both lenses are excellent for astrophotography. The RF 15-35mm has a slight advantage due to its wider focal length and image stabilization, which can help with composition and focusing. However, the EF 16-35mm is still a fantastic choice for night sky photography.
Do these lenses work on APS-C cameras?
Yes, both lenses work on APS-C cameras, though they’re designed for full-frame sensors. On APS-C cameras, the effective focal range will be multiplied by the crop factor (approximately 1.6x for Canon), making them less wide.
How do these lenses compare to third-party alternatives?
Third-party options from manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron offer similar performance at lower prices. However, they may not match the build quality, weather sealing, or autofocus performance of Canon’s L-series lenses. The RF mount currently has fewer third-party options compared to the EF mount.
Related Content
If you found this comparison helpful, you might want to check out these related articles:
- [Best Canon Lenses for Landscape Photography in 2025.
- [Canon RF vs EF Mount: Complete Guide for Photographers]
- [Wide-Angle Lens Techniques: Mastering Perspective in Your Images]
- [Top 10 Accessories for Your Canon Wide-Angle Lens]
Pro Tips for Wide-Angle Photography
- Use a tripod for maximum sharpness: Even with image stabilization, a tripod will give you the sharpest possible results, especially for landscape photography.
- Stop down for optimal sharpness: While both lenses perform well at f/2.8, stopping down to f/8-f/11 will give you the best overall sharpness and depth of field.
- Watch your edges: Wide-angle lenses can distort objects at the edges of the frame. Be mindful of this when composing your shots, particularly for architecture and portraits.
- Use foreground elements: Wide-angle lenses excel at creating a sense of depth. Include interesting foreground elements to add dimension to your images.
- Clean your lens regularly: Wide-angle lenses are more susceptible to dust and smudges affecting image quality. Keep the front element clean for the best results.
- Consider a polarizing filter: A high-quality polarizer can enhance colors and reduce reflections, particularly for landscape and water photography.
- Experiment with perspectives: Get low to the ground or find unique vantage points to make the most of your wide-angle lens’s expansive field of view.
I hope this comprehensive comparison helps you make an informed decision between these two excellent wide-angle lenses. Both have served me well in different situations, and I’m confident you’ll be happy with either choice depending on your specific needs and camera system.
Be sure to bookmark this page for future reference, as I’ll update it with any new information or sample images as I continue to test these lenses in various shooting conditions. Happy shooting!