ahsanford said:YuengLinger said:I've seen many examples of photojournalistic and event photos from the Nikon. Not sure why you are so hung up with UWA being for landscape only...ahsanford said:
- We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
- We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
- We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
- We don't have a great astro zoom.
Then again, what you most want is a 50mm IS the size of a pancake.
What about my list above implies that I am hung up on landscapes? I think I gave equal air to landscapes / U-UWA / all-purpose use in my post above.
I would contend that Canon has just about everyone covered here on the UWA end:
Travel: 16-35 f/4L IS
Landscapes: 16-35 f/4L IS
Video: 16-35 f/4L IS
Sports: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Events: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno: 16-35 f/2.8L III
(Environmental) portraiture: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Architecture: 11-24 f/4L (or T/S)
U-UWA lovers: 11-24 f/4L
So I ask you: what large group of shooters is being left out in the cold by Canon not offering 14mm @ f/2.8 in a zoom?
(And not wanting a big pickle jar retrofocal 50 prime is not remotely the same thing as wanting a pancake, and you know that. )
Just about covered, yes!
Their current 14mm f/2.8, while attractively smaller than the Sigma 1.8, just doesn't get solid enough reviews for me to go for.
I was under the impression from earlier posts that you were focused on landscape. I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.
One thing the 16-35mm f/2.8 III has going for it is significantly less distortion than the f/4 IS--at least from what I see on TDP comparisons. The vignetting is a bummer and what's keeping me from trading up.
A 14-24mm f/2.8 with even less distortion and vignetting would be very welcome. More welcome from Canon, but I hope Sigma makes a better one than Nikon's. I'm interested!