Not every lens is going to be perfect for every photographer.
For me, if I looked at the full frame ultra-wide zooms that have come up in this posting so far:
17-40 4 - Size and weight are great, accepts filters, f4, soft unless stopped down. I've seen a lot of great images taken with this lens, but nobody "loves" it. The softness overall and the softer corners keep me from jumping on it. The price is great though, especially when there is a special at the refurb store.
16-35 2.8 II - Bigger and heavier than the 17-40, reportedly not a whole lot sharper, a lot more expensive, but it does accept filers, and it's fast. If I found a good deal on a used copy, I'd give it a try, otherwise the one stop difference doesn't matter that much to me (with the emphasis on "to me").
16-35 4 IS - About as big and heavy as the 2.8. Sharp across the frame. I don't really see the need for IS on this wide of a lens for how I would use it, and I wish there was a smaller lighter version without IS but with the same sharpness, but that doesn't exist. It's not cheap, but not crazy expensive. Something I will consider when it shows up in the refurb store.
Nikon 14-24 - The biggest and heaviest of these lenses. Sharp and fast. Bulbous front end won't take filters without giant filter system. Expensive. If this was a native Canon lens, it's not something that I would be thinking about anyway. For me, the cost, size, and filter situation outweigh its strengths.
Do I want Canon to come out with new fancy ultra-wide zooms? Sure. The advances they make on one product seem to make their way into others, and it could possibly lower the price of their other zooms. Would I buy it for myself? Probably not. I doubt I could afford it. And if it's huge and heavy and can't take normal filters, I don't have a whole lot of use for it. On my radar right now in this category is the 16-35 4, when it goes on refurb. There's a small chance I'd pick up one of the older lenses used or refurb at the right price. Until then, I'll make due with my Rokinon 14.
I'm not sure how many more lenses they would actually sell if Canon came out with their version of the 14-24 2.8. I'd have to imagine that it would be very similar to the Nikon. Yes, there are always people on boards like this clamoring for such a lens, but I think that in real world numbers that wouldn't really be that many sales for Canon. Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened once or twice.
For me, if I looked at the full frame ultra-wide zooms that have come up in this posting so far:
17-40 4 - Size and weight are great, accepts filters, f4, soft unless stopped down. I've seen a lot of great images taken with this lens, but nobody "loves" it. The softness overall and the softer corners keep me from jumping on it. The price is great though, especially when there is a special at the refurb store.
16-35 2.8 II - Bigger and heavier than the 17-40, reportedly not a whole lot sharper, a lot more expensive, but it does accept filers, and it's fast. If I found a good deal on a used copy, I'd give it a try, otherwise the one stop difference doesn't matter that much to me (with the emphasis on "to me").
16-35 4 IS - About as big and heavy as the 2.8. Sharp across the frame. I don't really see the need for IS on this wide of a lens for how I would use it, and I wish there was a smaller lighter version without IS but with the same sharpness, but that doesn't exist. It's not cheap, but not crazy expensive. Something I will consider when it shows up in the refurb store.
Nikon 14-24 - The biggest and heaviest of these lenses. Sharp and fast. Bulbous front end won't take filters without giant filter system. Expensive. If this was a native Canon lens, it's not something that I would be thinking about anyway. For me, the cost, size, and filter situation outweigh its strengths.
Do I want Canon to come out with new fancy ultra-wide zooms? Sure. The advances they make on one product seem to make their way into others, and it could possibly lower the price of their other zooms. Would I buy it for myself? Probably not. I doubt I could afford it. And if it's huge and heavy and can't take normal filters, I don't have a whole lot of use for it. On my radar right now in this category is the 16-35 4, when it goes on refurb. There's a small chance I'd pick up one of the older lenses used or refurb at the right price. Until then, I'll make due with my Rokinon 14.
I'm not sure how many more lenses they would actually sell if Canon came out with their version of the 14-24 2.8. I'd have to imagine that it would be very similar to the Nikon. Yes, there are always people on boards like this clamoring for such a lens, but I think that in real world numbers that wouldn't really be that many sales for Canon. Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened once or twice.
Upvote
0
