Did you mention the vaunted Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 which some Canon users used to use with an adapter because that "lovely" 17-40L wasn't good enough for them? Did you say, why doesn't Canon have a 14-24 lens??
I tried a 17-40L back when I shot Canon. I wasn't impressed, although others seemed to like it. Canon's lack of decent glass in the UWA zoom category was what started me down the path to Nikon.
Well with a 14-24 and a 17-35...the chances are slim. A Nikon 70-200 F4vr would be more useful to me, (always thinking of me, of course)...now that's a Canon lens i miss.
codeninja wrote:
I'm not trying to say 17-40L is a better lens, but I found the range useful and would love to see it on Nikon side.
They're saying you have it, 17-35 2.8... that 5mm (35-40) isn't buying you a whole lot, and you get a faster, sharper lens. Nothing to worry about.
Grab one and enjoy.
codeninja wrote:
As a guy who used to own Canon camera, I wonder why there is no 17-40L equivalent lens from Nikon. For FF camera, the range makes lot of sense.
In non-DX pro glass, Nikon only uses f4 in a four lenses and they are super teles and the 200-400 zoom. Their marketing plan calls for faster glass in all other pro lenses, but, they have decided against 1.2 glass. The zoom ranges are pretty standard. I'm sure their research doesn't feel a 17-40 would be profitable.
Personally, I would prefer a 24-105 f4, with IQ on par with the 24-70, as a general walk-around lens. However, reality will require a switch to Canon for that lens--not a good enough reason for me..
James R wrote:
Personally, I would prefer a 24-105 f4, with IQ on par with the 24-70, as a general walk-around lens. However, reality will require a switch to Canon for that lens--not a good enough reason for me..
Nikkor 28-105 f3.5-f4.5D discontinued, but available used at around the $200 range is worth looking at, surprising quality for the price.
