Good to hear about this. I've currently got a 17-40, and was debating whether or not to get a 16-35. I guess this solves the debate...
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:Thoughts:
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.
- A
hambergler said:I don't agree that canon has massive shoes to fill in the landscape department. If you are already on a tripod and doing serious landscape work than I'd put the 17 TSE against the Nikon 14-24 anyday.
Sensors are another matter of course.
HallelujahCanon Rumors said:One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L, that will complete Canon’s run of lenses covering 14mm to 560mm.
Hallelujah once againCanon Rumors said:We’re told one of the configurations in test is an EF 16-50 f/4L IS.
ddashti said:Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.
ddashti said:Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.
+1Zv said:ddashti said:Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.
I highly doubt that.
Daniel Flather said:dadgummit said:Anyone want to buy a used 16-35 II?
I'll wait till the 14-24 is out and the market will be flooded with 16-35s
hambergler said:I don't agree that canon has massive shoes to fill in the landscape department. If you are already on a tripod and doing serious landscape work than I'd put the 17 TSE against the Nikon 14-24 anyday.
Sensors are another matter of course.