Considering the DOF you obtain at such short focal length, f/2.8-f/4 is very useful on a super-wide, especially for night and other low light situations. I have the 16-35mm f/4 VR and it is a trade off. When on a tripod I'm usually well into the aperture range, but handheld I traded 1 stop of aperture for 3 stops of VR. While also losing some sharpness and distortion control, but gaining some ease of use. At the excellent $700 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and Nikon has 3 great options in the wide angle zoom arena.
I can see how that would make sense.
Each maker has particular lenses that are standout performers. It's interesting though, that the lenses you are discussing are ones in which Nikon created the standard by which others have been judged. The 24-70mm f/2.8 had no peer at it's release and soft corners f/2.8-4.0 (still sharper in the center) and CA issues aside it is still a stellar performer. The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is still the standard (though not quite as good, IMHO as the 3rd Gen 80-200mm f/2.8 that Nikon still sells). The AIS Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 ED was an excellent performer, but sold less than 500 copies. But when Art Wolfe got a good deal on one and used it to make numerous award winning images, the used marked went wild causing Nikon to bring it back in 2003 as an AF-S VR lens. Which brings us to the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 which is the current standard and the one even you are judging the new Canon lens against.
Had ...
was ...
used to be ... etc. ... I was talking about today
![Tongue :P](https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
The Nikon's 24-70
is sweet also, true, but I am not sure it is better than the Canon version. I am pretty sure most charts say No. The pricepoint is easier to swallow though. I also don't think the
Nikon 70-200 II is quite as sweet as
Canon's 70-200 II ... and I definitely know the old Nikon 200-400 cannot compare to the newer Canon 200-400 + ext.
Further, for those people who don't want to spend $6000 on a Nikkor 200-400, or $12,000 on a Canon 200-400 +ext ... the good news is Canon now has a quite awesome
100-400 II for only 2K, with some pretty nifty stats.
For a nature photographer looking to cover the 100-400 mm range, with a pro-level (not 3rd party) zoom, this new 100-400 is pretty nice. That said, I think Art Wolfe did what most Canon shooters did, take advantage of the fact
he could select one or two of Nikon's then-better lenses, and put them on his Canon, something which Nikon shooters
can't do in the reverse ...
To me, if these are the lenses a person covets, then it seems they should have been shooting Nikon the last 8 years. ![Tongue :P](https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
LOL, no, they should do what Art Wolfe did, and that is enjoy their ergonomically-superior Canon cameras, and just get the one or two of Nikon's superior lenses.
The thing about it is, those "few better" Nikon lenses are becoming
fewer and
fewer ... for whatever reason, they never placed importance on the tilt-shift race, they've been edged-out almost completely in the zoom race, and pretty much their only stronghold was the 14-24, which front-running seems like is about to lost too.
As someone who is just about to "reinvest" in a whole new system, camera-wise I am going to sit tight, until I see a truly decent sensor
and 4K, and IMO it is only a matter of time before Canon's sensor,
and 4K video offerings, come forth ... same as they pioneered the the DSLR ... and same as they pioneered HD video production in-camera also. The way I am seeing things, when Canon does catch-up sensor-wise, they will already have pretty much
all the brand new, upgraded lenses to put in front of that camera. What's more, what few (if any) lenses they don't have,
can be adapted to their camera with a $30 adapter ... which Nikon users will
not be able to do in the reverse.
It seems to me that it will be
much easier for Canon to finally drop a new sensor into their already ergonomically/functionally-superior cameras ... than it will be for any other camera manufacturer to reinvent/create an entire lens line-up to match Canon's (Nikon perhaps not so much, but the other companies definitely).
That's the way I see what's happening anyway.
Cheers,
Jack