Ayelike said:Excellent news! I've had my mouse hovering over the buy button of a 16-35II or 14II for some time
I found a mint & cheap 14mm II so no regrets. However, I was sorry I lost a 16-35 2.8 II used sale.dlleno said:Ayelike said:Excellent news! I've had my mouse hovering over the buy button of a 16-35II or 14II for some time
you and me both; for once, the timing of this rumor is a benefit!
16-50 f/4 would fit the crop bodies, to be sure, but wouldn't compete directly with the 17-55 due to the aperture. I can see room for all three -- the 16-50 f/4, 16-35 III, and 14-24
As a general statement, if you are to be taken seriously as a 'test pilot' sitting on info of to be released gear, just once you should post a statement about something new that is to be released that is not just a response to what CR has already posted. Otherwise, one might come out as not so credible.privatebydesign said:M.ST said:I can confirm that a EF 16-50 f/4 prototype exist.
The EF 14-24 f/2.8 is tested over a long time.
You can't even post an image of a discontinued lens you claim to own, no NDA, privacy issues, or indeed any genuine reason to not back up your inflated claims in that instance, why should anybody have any trust in your hinted insider information when you can't even post a picture of your own lens?
Knut Skywalker said:The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.
dlleno said:I can see room for all three -- the 16-50 f/4, 16-35 III, and 14-24
EchoLocation said:i love this rumor. if the 14-24 accepts filters I may be interested if it's priced under $2500.
I'm really interested in this 16-50 if it is sharp and around $1300 or less. I had the 17-40 but it was really soft, so I sold it. That extra 10mm of reach gives this lens a big advantage over pretty much anything else on the market(for full frame.) I can't think of anything else available for full frame that goes from that wide to that long(anybody?)
This 16-50 could be an awesome everyday sorta lens for people who appreciate the 24 side of the 24-70 more than the 70. I'm just not sure I could give up my 2.8 aperture for it.
Still, it is exciting to think about.
Etienne said:I am most interested in an improved 16-35. Sharper, less distortion ... smaller and lighter would be great too, even if it has to be 18-28
Sabaki said:About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.
6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.
Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.
Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.
So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.
Ellen Schmidtee said:Sabaki said:About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.
6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.
Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.
Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.
So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.
The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?
I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.
liyan said:for 14-24mm f/2.8
I would buy, if this lens accept regular (100mm) filters, I already have a filter collections, that's already very expensive. I wouldn't buy larger filters (>150mm) cuz they're insanely expensive.