I'm torn on this one, if it is indeed real. My head is swirling these sort of thoughts right now:
- If it's for event photogs, one would think it's a stop too slow, right?
- If it's for video, where's the IS?
- If it's for landscapers, how do you filter it? We'd be stuck in Wonderpana world, wouldn't we?
- If Canon insists on going pound for pound with Nikon's 14-24 ultrawide, they will be a stop slower. Isn't the Nikon an f/2.8 design?
Well, lets go through them. First, 11-24 is not for event photogs, thats that the 16-35 is for. Thus why the new one has IS.
It's also not for video, as its impractically wide and would only be used for very specific shots. Far more likely that someone would want the 16-35 range for that (and again, that has IS).
Landscapers have been filtering lenses without threaded filters for many years, and many that would buy this $2k+ lens either already own filter systems, or dont mind spending a little more on some new filters. Nikons 14-24 doesnt have threaded filters either, nor does Canons 17mm TS. Even if this did have a threaded filter, it'd be wider than the 77mm or 82mm filters people already own...so, new filters would be needed anyway
If Canon is going pound for pound with the 14-24 from Nikon, then Canon is 3mm wider, which some might trade the f/2.8 for. Especially if its as sharp at f/4 as the Nikon is. Likewise, it'd make Canon's the widest rectilinear lens out there I believe. The few people that NEED 14mm f/2.8 could either get Canon's, or do what most of them are already doing, save $1000+, and buy the Rokinon. Most astro guys [main user I can think of that would want/need f/2.8] already own the Rokinon because it's 1/5th the price of the other options.
The new 16-35 makes this lens slightly less desirable than it probably was 6 months ago. But there are still plenty of landscapers that will buy it if its on par with the sharpness of recent Canon lenses. Especially if it comes combo'd with a 30+ MP sensor