The term “Holy Trinity” is a biblical concept, but ask any photographer and they will instantly identify a wide, medium, and telephoto assortment of lenses.  This lens combination enables you to photograph just about anything aside from perhaps sports or wildlife.  Although you could do this with a large behemoth like a 28-300 mm, you often sacrifice speed, aperture, size, and potentially image quality for the benefit of carrying one lens.  

Whereas the holy trinity can apply to either primes or zooms, zoom lenses give you the most options.  As Canon has evolved into mirrorless, they have been doing some groundbreaking work moving from older EF glass to the newer RF lenses.  

Introduced in 2018, Canon RF lenses have notable improvements over older EF models.  A bigger mount and shorter flange distance allow for larger apertures and more flexibility in design.  One underutilized but helpful feature is the control ring, which is easily missed because of how well it blends in.  Though unnecessary, it adds a really convenient degree of functionality.  For example, I set mine to ISO when shooting manual.  Between the control ring and the other dials, I can rapidly adjust shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and white balance quickly during portrait sessions without ever entering a menu or using a touchscreen.  

Maternity Photo shot with Canon RF 15-35

I started out doing cityscape and landscape photography and felt that I wanted to get wider and wider with increasing experience.  I’ve made some incredible images with my Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 and questioned whether the RF 15-35 f/2.8 would be worthwhile.  Though the f/4.0 version takes some amazing photos, I upgraded to the f/2.8 because I want to get into astrophotography and aperture really matters in that case.  Because of the increasingly lower noise at higher ISOs with today’s cameras, I personally think the EF f/4.0 version is a fine substitute instead of the RF f/2.8.  That said, they seem to weigh about the same amount in the hand (the RF version is slightly more). 

Regardless, the build quality on both is phenomenal but it just seems to be a little more solid with the RF version.  Overall, I think the image quality is amazing with minimal edge distortion.  Frankly, this is a great lens that I anticipate being one of my most used, though I tend to shoot wide overall.  Additionally, I’m thankful for having the extra 1 mm at 15 mm for future shoots in really tight areas like European churches.  

Pros: 

  • Excellent image quality
  • 5 stop image stabilization

Cons:

  • Expensive $2,299 vs $1,099 for the EF f/4.0
  • Slight but essentially imperceptible difference in weight from f/4.0 version
Maternity Photo shot with Canon RF 15-35

I started out doing cityscape and landscape photography and felt that I wanted to get wider and wider with increasing experience.  I’ve made some incredible images with my Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 and questioned whether the RF 15-35 f/2.8 would be worthwhile.  Though the f/4.0 version takes some amazing photos, I upgraded to the f/2.8 because I want to get into astrophotography and aperture really matters in that case.  Because of the increasingly lower noise at higher ISOs with today’s cameras, I personally think the EF f/4.0 version is a fine substitute instead of the RF f/2.8.  That said, they seem to weigh about the same amount in the hand (the RF version is slightly more). 

Regardless, the build quality on both is phenomenal but it just seems to be a little more solid with the RF version.  Overall, I think the image quality is amazing with minimal edge distortion.  Frankly, this is a great lens that I anticipate being one of my most used, though I tend to shoot wide overall.  Additionally, I’m thankful for having the extra 1 mm at 15 mm for future shoots in really tight areas like European churches.