Nikon's offerings are looking to be as strong in the glass arena anyway (*awaiting reviews of the new primes). I've always envied the 14-24.
Being aware this borders on hearsay, I'll repeat this in hope someone could expand on the subject.
Having read the reviews about the Nikkor 14-24mm a short while after it came out, I felt envy as well. Then one of the guys I trust at the local photo shop said that Nikon have made a lens that gets good results on what's easy & common for testers to check, such as sharpness, but is inferior in areas harder to quantify and grade, such as the quality of colors and amount of light absorbed by the lens' elements.
Then he said to wait and see how many copies of the lens would show up in the shop's used lenses section as an indication of how happy the buyers are with it. Sure enough, there are a couple of them there already, I guess because the buyers were disappointed with it.
I'm far from being an expert on the subject, and therefore find it hard to evaluate the guy's claims. Maybe there are other participants who could throw more light on the issue.
I would personally say Nikon's offerings are stronger or most evident in the FX ultra wide angle zooms (14-24/2.8, 16-35/4.0 VR, 17-35 2.8 ) compared to Canon's 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4.0 excluding the new fisheye zoom, because I personally find it really isn't meant as a zoom.
In regards of the 14-24 I would say it's almost a very specialized lens, some would say more landscape oriented and some could use it for low-light receptions. There could just be numerous factors in regards of customer returning it, such as maybe they don't use it enough to justify the costs of having it, maybe as landscape photographers they need to have the ability to use neutral density filters (like on the 16-35/4.0 VR or 17-35/2.8 ), the paranoia of dragging around an exposed bubble front lens - not to mention the poor quality cap of the 14-24 lens is horrendously designed compared to like the solid twist-on caps of the bubble-front17mm ts-e canon lens. A scenario that may be occurring are many of these people are rushing to buy the lens based on excellent reviews without really experimenting and testing out the lens beforehand. When it comes to handling the lens and dealing with the various example factors such as the exposed front element and the downsides of not being able to use front filters, some individuals might find it's just not the lens for them and other alternative Nikon options might fit their needs more.
But these factors alone, or the amount of 14-24 lenses for sale I believe don't really correlate to the reasoning if a lens is good or bad, the 14-24 is a superb lens in the field and does what it needs to do given the focal length and other competition in the field. Customer satisfaction for that lens can be hard to justify without asking or receiving feedback from those original owners as the reasoning behind parting with the lens. Some of the perspectives I provided may provide some examples in why they might not be satisfied, but I personally haven't heard anyone returning the lens because they weren't satisfied with the overall image quality of it. Most of the time it was because they don't use it as much, the angle of view was to wide for use to their shooting style/photography, and/or they need the ability to use filters.
On a similar related note, I sold a 17mm TS-E for the now 24mm TS-E II (as when shooting waterfalls I did want the ability to use ND filters). I shoot mainly landscapes and from my experiences in places in a desert sandy regions, up close along sandy coastal beaches, or in high windy elevations I always feel paranoid shooting with an exposed front element. Two experiences I've had are dust/sand specks scratching the front element of my 15mm fisheye along a mild/moderate windy beach environment and a B+W UV filter was marked/impacted in two areas from dust/sand specks shooting on top Angel's Landing at Zion National Park on my 24-105mm lens in mild/moderate windy conditions at the time. While I'm sure the newer lenses now have better coatings than maybe an older 15mm fisheye, I am probably scarred in whipping out any exposed front element lens in any mild windy conditions where there is plenty of sand to go around.
A very small upgrade to the popular G11. We can assume Canon is just coasting with this series of camera, theyâ€™ve had no real competition. The P7000 may look like a G11, but if it continues the Coolpix heritage, Canon doesnâ€™t have much to worry about.
Should it have been more of an upgrade? It depends who you ask, but all people were criticizing with the G11 was the lack of HD video. Thatâ€™s been somewhat rectified with 720p.
I am asking why the f/2.0 at the wide end of the lens like the S9x series wasn't added, or expanding it to 24mm over 28mm...those are my biggest criticism.