- Status
J
J. McCabe
Guest
Heidrun said:
The EF 16-35mm was released 4 years ago, and the 17-40mm & 14mm were announced around the same time.
As Canon has problems with the super teles it has already announced (300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, 600mm f/4), is commited to it's "pre-announced" 200-400mm, and is probably planning to release new TS-E 45mm & 90mm, I wouldn't expect Canon to come with a response to the Nikkor 14-24mm any time soon.
Personally, I've bought the new Sigma 12-24mm, which does the work for me. It isn't as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm, but it is cheaper and available on the shelves.
I find the Nikkor 14-24mm very attractive, and the rumor about an FX Nikkor 10mm very interesting, which makes me think of either switching over to Nikon, or maybe use the money I'm saving to buy a Nikon D700 / D800 + Nikkor 14-24mm (+ 10mm, if announced), rather than spending it on more Canon equipment.
Upvote
0
J. McCabe said:
Or, given that you're going to use it for landscapes i'd guess, and if you're like me they're MF/Liveview, just buy a $5 adapter from ebay to mount the nikkor on your canon body. (As long as it's not a nikkor 'G' lens, they're stuck wide-open using an adapter)
Upvote
0
J
J. McCabe
Guest
dr croubie said:
The 14-24mm is G lens. Whether the rumored 10mm lens would have an aperture ring, if it would ever be, is unknown.
There are occasions on which I would like to have 2 DSLR bodies, having a Nikon body would allow me to buy the best lenses from each manufacturor, and the 14-24mm makes for a nice excuse to spend the money.
Upvote
0
Ooh, looks good, although damned expensive.pharp said:
Just gotta wait a while until china picks it up and makes their own for $20.
would be very nice on some lenses, most new nikkors are 'G', look at the performance difference of their 85/1.4 G and non-G, the 'G' beats the samyang and sigma versions easily.
Upvote
0
P
photophreek
Guest
quoted from Heidron:
"16-35mm f2.8 II needs a replacement for bad performance"
The ver II of this lens was released in 2007 and I'm more than happy with it's performance. So, I'm not sure what the OP means by "bad performance".
This site indicated a while back that Canon might release a 14-24mm 2.8L to compete with the nikon version. I don't think this lens is considered a 16-35mm replacement.
"16-35mm f2.8 II needs a replacement for bad performance"
The ver II of this lens was released in 2007 and I'm more than happy with it's performance. So, I'm not sure what the OP means by "bad performance".
This site indicated a while back that Canon might release a 14-24mm 2.8L to compete with the nikon version. I don't think this lens is considered a 16-35mm replacement.
Upvote
0
I would love to see Canon release a 14-24mm f2.8L. First of all I'd love to have one. And secondly I think it's a range that Canon needs to address. It gives ASP-C and FF camera users excellent coverage with 3 lenses at f2.8. 14-24mm > 24-70mm > 70-200mm. Pricey coverage but good coverage.
Upvote
0
photophreek said:
Just from reading the photozone.de review (and not owning one), that's probably directed at the nearly 3-stops of vignetting at 16mm f/2.8, and the corner softness (1700lp vs 3300 in the centre).
Still, for my money it beats the wide-open softness of the 24-70L at 70mm, and its field curvature. It also beats the off-the-charts corner softness of the 17-40L at 17mm f/4.
Designing fast-zooms in the ultra-wide range is by no means easy to keep every design aspect under control, but i'd say those two probably are lower-performers than the 16-35v2..
Upvote
0
A
aldvan
Guest
Same astonishment of as neuroanatomist...neuroanatomist said:Heidrun said:
Bad performance?
"Bad performances, horrible defects, the latest model is trash" etc etc seem to be very easy statements on the Internet. Too often they are third-hand claims, based on stretching minimal differences found during some pedantical test, or on a bad example, may be one bad on ten thousand, superficially regarded as the norm by people spending all their time in front of a monitor.
The 16-35 L II is a wonderful lens that meets 100% of my architectural issues. In the real world my 16-35 has less barrel distortion than my 24 -105 and I use it very often as a standard lens. Outdoor I seldom use it at 2.8, and in interior I never found any problem also at full opening...
Upvote
0
Tokina AT-X 16-28 F2.8 PRO FX seems to be a very good lens for this range. And it is available now.
Also I'm thinking at it.
Perhaps there's someone which has hands-on experience with it to share?
Also I'm thinking at it.
Perhaps there's someone which has hands-on experience with it to share?
Upvote
0
I
ianhar
Guest
Heidrun said:
The 16-35 is quite light weighting just around 650g compared to the 24-70 which weight around 900g. From this point of view i dont think you need an IS for 16-35. I dont own any 16-35 but i do own 50 1.2 which is just 100g lighter than 16-35 and even a shaky like me could hand held it at a shutter of 1/25.
I dont know about anyone else but for me this lens does not have a priority to have an IS compared to other lens.
Upvote
0
Heidrun said:
The shutter speed should be 1/Focal Length and not 1/60. Hence you're ok with 1/16 - that's why this lens, and generally the WA and UWA doesn't have IS.
HTH
Upvote
0
A
aldvan
Guest
It's just less simpler than the old '1/Focal Length' formula. Long telse and long zooms are very heavy and, obviously, 'long'...
So, focal length geometry apart, it's more difficult a steady grip on those than on a WA zoom, that is bulky but shorter and lighter than a tele... 1/8" is a shutter time that anybody without essential tremor can easily stand...
So, focal length geometry apart, it's more difficult a steady grip on those than on a WA zoom, that is bulky but shorter and lighter than a tele... 1/8" is a shutter time that anybody without essential tremor can easily stand...
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
