- Status
The 16-35 and 17-40 come pretty close -- almost so that it might not make sense to have overlap for an extra couple mm on the wide end (from a business point of view.)
If it were made, I'd buy it, but only because I don't have the 17-40mm or 16-35mm anymore.
14-24 + 24-70 + 70-200 makes a nice kit.
If it were made, I'd buy it, but only because I don't have the 17-40mm or 16-35mm anymore.
14-24 + 24-70 + 70-200 makes a nice kit.
Upvote
0
2mm on the wide end is quite a bit, especially for wide-angle junkies. That is not to mention anything of the jawdroppingly good optics on Nikon's 14-24. I agree, however, that an overlap doesn't make a lot of business sense, especially since the 16-35 is already f/2.8. For that reason, I think that if Canon does release a 14-24 (and I hope they do!), it will probably replace the 16-35 rather than becoming a third wide-angle zoom in the lineup. If it does happen, I'm sure the loss of the extra range would be bemoaned by some, but at the price it would need to be there shouldn't as much concern about complementing it with a normal zoom of some type. The switch to a bulbous front element could be troublesome, but then again it's not like the already-excellent 16-35 II would be going anywhere.
As for actual rumors, I've heard nothing of the sort.
As for actual rumors, I've heard nothing of the sort.
Upvote
0
I have the 16-35 2.8 II and it's a great lens, but if Canon could produce a 14-24 2.8 with the optical quality of Nikon's 14-24, I'd sell my 16-35 in a flash. From what I've read the Nikon 14-24 blows the 16-35 II away in terms of sharpness.
Upvote
0
Z
Z-06
Guest
Boppe said:
Yes, although 16-35 and 17-40 are fantastic, 14-24 from Nikon seems a step above them. I think both those lenses have quite a bit of overlaps with the 24-70 and 24-105. A 2mm (~14%) difference is huge in wide angles. I think if Canon goes to 12-24 mm it will not overlap with its other two brethren.
May be my perceptions are incorrect, but Canon's wide angle lenses, especially at edges, need some more improvement compared to its telephoto lenses, which are really high quality.
Upvote
0
for full frame you have the tokina 16-28 f: 2,8. http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx16-28profx-a.html
some reviews says is similar to nikon 14-24 in IQ, the only bad is not possibility to use filters.
some reviews says is similar to nikon 14-24 in IQ, the only bad is not possibility to use filters.
Upvote
0
But they've already got the 14mm f/2.8 and 16-35mm f/2.8. If they make a 14-24mm f/2.8 then that's one lens that you'd have to buy instead of two, why would they do that and drop sales of their €2050 prime? [/sarcasm]
If they make a 14-24 f/4 then they can keep all 3 models, 14mm f/2.8 prime (€2050), 16-35mm f/2.8 fast zoom (€1270), 14-24 f/4 slower but wider zoom (would slot nicely in at €1800?). Then the 17-40 f/4 becomes more of a "My First Wideangle L Zoom" lens on the cheaper end (currently €690). I'm not expecting a 14-24 f/4 zoom to be much cheaper than the 16-35, although it could go up a bit higher than the 14mm prime depending on IQ.
If they make a 14-24 f/4 then they can keep all 3 models, 14mm f/2.8 prime (€2050), 16-35mm f/2.8 fast zoom (€1270), 14-24 f/4 slower but wider zoom (would slot nicely in at €1800?). Then the 17-40 f/4 becomes more of a "My First Wideangle L Zoom" lens on the cheaper end (currently €690). I'm not expecting a 14-24 f/4 zoom to be much cheaper than the 16-35, although it could go up a bit higher than the 14mm prime depending on IQ.
Upvote
0
+1dr croubie said:
A 14-24 f/4 would blend in perfectly. If it would be razor sharp.
I like that idea, because the landscape & architecture fotos I make are usually in acceptable or better light conditions. So such a lens would be well suited for travelling...
For poor light, I would prefer a good wideangle prime.
My 2 cents
Upvote
0
J
jwong
Guest
Abraxx said:+1
A 14-24 f/4 would blend in perfectly. If it would be razor sharp.
I like that idea, because the landscape & architecture fotos I make are usually in acceptable or better light conditions. So such a lens would be well suited for travelling...
For poor light, I would prefer a good wideangle prime.
My 2 cents
No filters though... All the wider lenses than the 16-35 have convex front elements. The 16-35 is also over 30% lighter than the 14-24mm. For reference, the Nikon 14-24 weighs more than the 85L II, which is already a special purpose lens. As much as people complain about the 16-35's performance compared to the 14-24, I can imagine that the 16-35 would have to get wider and heavier to match Nikon performance, and the 16-35 already uses 82mm filters.
I do like Croubie's idea of an f/4 14-24 though. It would help Canon get around Nikon's patents, and it would be more portable and lighter, which is always a good thing.
Upvote
0
D
dswtan
Guest
Anyone here tried the adapter route (e.g. Novoflex), putting the Nikon on a Canon body? Lack of AF doesn't seem to be much of a drawback on WA.
Personally I'm currently happy with my sharp copy 16-25 II and 14 II, but I've been tempted by the adapter in the past. Access to the Lee SW150 is one attraction.
Personally I'm currently happy with my sharp copy 16-25 II and 14 II, but I've been tempted by the adapter in the past. Access to the Lee SW150 is one attraction.
Upvote
0
Doesn't the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 also have low distortion?
For me, 35mm + focal range is better covered by primes, where I want the ability to shoot at < f/2.
I would gladly sacrifice some focal length range for that amazing sharpness, high IQ, and low distortion.
+5 for the 14-24mm f/2.8 being one lens that makes me want a Nikon FF body. (Not that I have the $$$$ for it ;-)
For me, 35mm + focal range is better covered by primes, where I want the ability to shoot at < f/2.
I would gladly sacrifice some focal length range for that amazing sharpness, high IQ, and low distortion.
+5 for the 14-24mm f/2.8 being one lens that makes me want a Nikon FF body. (Not that I have the $$$$ for it ;-)
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 380853
- Lenses