When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.
I guess I'm weird.
My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear. I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear. I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear. That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years. I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.
Oh, you're fine. An ultrawide zoom isn't what everyone wants.
But there are so many people here who have been posting repeatedly asking for the 14-24 and praising the Nikon, I wonder where they are hiding now. Even yesterday someone responded to the 50 1.4 IS post by saying where's the 14-24.
They're in shock.... and wondering how hey're going to save up all that money!
I know someone that switched to Nikon for the 14-24. When he got it, he was so happy. A year later he switched back after realizing he almost never used the 14-24.
It's not that it doesn't have its uses, but it's uses are so limited for many that it just doesn't get used that much. 14 is awfully wide for a rectilinear, giving you very stretched corners, having "only" 24mm on the long end makes it even less useful than the 16-35 or 17-40, and landscapers ought to be using the 17TSE or 24TSE instead.