New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion

[Axilrod]

The only way I even care about new Canon wides is if they finally become edge sharp.

Regarding the tail end of the article, when does the Zeiss 15mm finally make it to the channels?  I love my Zeiss 21mm (its become my landscape walk-around) and the 15mm would complete my needs at the wide.  Except for maybe a Canon TS-E 17mm or if I want to fisheye with the 8-15mm

But if Canon finally does get their sharpness at the level of some of their longer lenses... maybe I would consider.  But that would mean they care about more than wedding and sports.

Yeah I love the 21mm as well, it's ridiculously sharp for a wide angle.  As for the 15mm, I think some people have already gotten their hands on it (in Europe at least), but I've seen some tests and it blows the 14L II away.  Then again it is almost $3k and takes 95mm filters (but at the same time the 14L doesn't take filters at all).

[preppyak]

3. Patent from April 2011: EFS 11 f/2 - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/

Actually, this one was a lens for a projector; not for a DSLR

[Otter]

I would love to see a 16-35 III, as well as a 14-24 f/2.8!  Wider and sharper Canon! 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2. and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.

Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.

[marekjoz]

My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2. and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.

Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.

Looking on TDP at comparisons  between those lenses it looks like Nikons are worse than Canons in edges (less resolution, more CA) but slightly better in midframe. Tests are achieved with the use of different cameras, but intending the switch, one should consider the combo, not lenses alone.

N 14-24 F2.8 vs C 16-35 F.28 II, N 16-35 F4 vs C 17-40 F4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=689&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

As I read those resolutions charts I conclude, that N 17-35 2.8 is a complete disaster.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=616&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2