If you're debating between Canon’s RF 15-35mm f/2.8L and the newer RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM, understanding the actual performance differences can save you money and hassle. Lens choice isn't just about price—it's about matching your shooting needs to practical differences in performance and handling.
Coming to you from Jake Sloan, this practical video directly compares Canon’s RF 15-35mm f/2.8L to the smaller, cheaper RF 16-28mm STM. Sloan tests differences photographers actually care about—weight, focal range impact, stabilization quality, and distortion. Immediately noticeable is the considerable size and weight difference; the premium 15-35mm is nearly twice as heavy. Sloan emphasizes this might be a deal-breaker if you're shooting handheld video or hiking long distances. He also evaluates the seemingly minor 1mm difference at the wide end (15mm vs. 16mm), highlighting how much impact that extra bit of width has in tight spaces like waterfalls or small interiors. On the long end, 35mm versus 28mm proves surprisingly significant, affecting framing versatility when you can't physically move closer or farther away.
Stabilization comparisons yield an unexpected result. Sloan notes that despite its budget-friendly design, the 16-28mm STM slightly outperforms the 15-35mm L lens in handheld stabilization tests. He points out this performance is achieved using purely mechanical stabilization—without digital enhancements—which gives a realistic view of everyday handheld use. Sloan also explores focus breathing—how the image subtly zooms as the lens refocuses—and discovers clear differences. The 15-35mm lens exhibits much less focus breathing than the STM, crucial for smooth video transitions. He then tests flare and sun stars, finding the cheaper STM lens surprisingly better at producing cleaner, more defined sun stars with less ghosting in daylight scenarios.
Sloan provides a valuable breakdown of distortion control, demonstrating clearly how the cheaper lens relies heavily on in-camera software corrections, while the 15-35mm's premium optics inherently produce less distortion. This matters significantly if you frequently shoot architecture or landscapes and prefer minimal post-processing. The physical controls on both lenses differ substantially, with the 15-35mm offering dedicated focus and control rings, plus additional switches. Conversely, the simpler design of the 16-28mm STM prioritizes compactness and minimalism, better suited to those prioritizing ease of travel or hiking.
Optical quality comparisons provide another surprise: the inexpensive 16-28mm STM occasionally produces sharper, more detailed images under certain conditions. Sloan openly shares that these results influenced his own gear choices significantly, ultimately leading him to sell his 15-35mm and keep the lighter STM lens for his own work. His reasons—weight savings, easier travel, and surprisingly close performance—might align closely with your priorities, especially if you often work outdoors, travel extensively, or simply prefer a lighter kit. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Sloan.
