What is interesting is the
Novoflex adapter is $269, yet there are other vendors (
FotodioX and
Vello) which go for a mere $68.61 and $34.95, respectively, and have better reviews.
The new Canon 16-35 does sound like a good lens and a great deal. My problem with this lens is the range of 16-35.
Nikon's range of 14-24 just makes more sense, conceptually, given the fact its next zoom is a 24-70, and for the life of me I don't know why Canon doesn't make this same 14-24 range available (as both companies make 24-70, then a 70-200, then a 200-400, to blend together nicely and cover all ranges.)
So where does 16-35 come from? Why would I need the overlap from 24-35 that my 24-70 already covers? It's a minor point, but it's something my OCD can't process (lol).
Nikon's 14-24 not only is a great lens, covering its range with the highest marks, but it just is conceptually sensible to me as the lens to come before my 24-70, with no wasted overlap. Not only that, but Nikon's is as good as any of the primes within its range, and that includes the Zeiss 21, and yet offers the flexibility of a zoom.
I don't know what Canon was thinking by making a 16-35, rather than a 14-24, given the fit/ranges of its other zooms that follow.
I like the specs and reviews of the new f/4 iteration from Canon, but like both the specs and the sensible range of the Nikon even better.
I don't want to buy from an outside vendor (Tamron, etc.), and I especially don't want to with a range where there's overlap. I would consider using Zeiss, because their build quality is superior to Canon's L (not inferior, like the rest), but their 16-35 not only isn't as good as the Nikon 14-24, but it has the same inane range as the Canon.