I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.
The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ... IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.
16-50 F/4 IS is an intriguing concept. A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70. I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70. I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.
The 14-24 has massive shoes to fill. I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation, but landscape work has been one of the perceived chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium. Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.
For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element. Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies. It's that amazing, apparently.
I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work. I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF). I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare. I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.
Am I missing something or the Fuji X100S Image quality is on pair with full frame cameras regarding high ISO performance, despite the fact that is using an APS-C sensor.....
This camera is really that good?.... in real life situations?