Need advice: Rumored 14-24 f/2.8L vs existing 16-35 f/2.8 L Advantages?

[pedro]

@infared: Thanks a lot. Yes, time will tell us. So, while the 16-35 is out there, that's a way to go. I wouldn't buy the nikon plus adapter. So I might purchase the classic L WA by summer and see what happens. If I wanna go UW for stars, there is still an 14 f/2.8 MF Samyang at a decent price, to provide as much as exposure value as possible while applying 500/600 rule for moonless nightsky shots.

[infared]

@infared: Thanks a lot. Yes, time will tell us. So, while the 16-35 is out there, that's a way to go. I wouldn't buy the nikon plus adapter. So I might purchase the classic L WA by summer and see what happens. If I wanna go UW for stars, there is still an 14 f/2.8 MF Samyang at a decent price, to provide as much as exposure value as possible while applying 500/600 rule for moonless nightsky shots.

Wow...if you want it for shooting stars the Sam Yang could be a great way to go for you...you get a LOT for that price...you can always sell it later.
If the Canon SWZ actually materializes AND is as good as the Nikon I plan on selling my 16-35mm L and my Zeiss 21mm..I might even have a little $ left over after the purchase!!!! LOL!

[Axilrod]

Sure, who knows what it will cost, hell it's ALL speculation. Nobody knows Sh_t about this lens. Nobody.

No one knows for sure but you can still make an educated guess based on pricing of recent Canon gear and pricing of similar equipment from other manufacturers.  Nikon 14-24 is $2k, it's safe to say that the Canon will cost at least that much.  But based on recent pricing it's safe to guess that it will be slightly more, so $2499 doesn't sound unreasonable and isn't a complete shot in the dark.