Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2009 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

teh_rebel
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

be sweet to have but realisticly, most likely no. for the wide end, cz21 is great for me

Nov 11, 2009 at 01:54 PM

Doo-bop
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

I would rather buy a 4 17-40 IS and give up the 3mm on the wide side. No interest in the 200-400

Nov 11, 2009 at 02:26 PM

deepbluejh
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

If the image quality was on par with the Nikon 14-24, I'd gladly sell my 16-35 to pick up a 14-24.

Nov 11, 2009 at 02:32 PM

willis
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

I think the interest in a 14-24 stems mainly from nikon's superlative 14-24. If performance were more typical of your average Canon wide zoom I cant see much advantage over 16-35II and a 14L. I'd actually quite like to see an 18 or 20mm prime with a fast aperture.
I'd happily stick with my 400DO and 100-400L over a 200-400 so I don't think either would really interest me greatly.

Nov 11, 2009 at 04:57 PM

Ernie King
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

chez wrote:
I'd love the 14-24, but with a f4 aperture to keep its size and price within reason. I shoot landscape so the 2.8 is of no use for me.

+1

Nov 12, 2009 at 01:07 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

I'd buy none. Too heavy. Too expensive.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nov 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM

ChrisDM
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

Don't really see the need for the 14-24 with the 16-35 and 17-40 already available, but a 200-400 f4 would be fantastic.

Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com

Nov 12, 2009 at 02:42 PM

Emile Gregoire
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

Voted 200-400 before I saw your price quote, in which case: detract one for the 200-400 and add one for "Wouldn't buy either". My 16-35 II is more than wide enough wide for me. If I were to get another wide angle, it would be the 17 TSE.

Nov 12, 2009 at 03:10 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

burningheart wrote:

Would I? Of course I have this minor issue of being a lens aholic, now someone please pour me another lens.

Robert, I never look upon you as a mere "lensacholic". I just see you as having very diversified photography interests.....from IR to penguins in flight.

I wouldn't bother with a 14-24 f/2.8 (or something like that) lens. My current UWA needs are being met by 16-35L MkII and 17-40L perfectly.

A refractive 200-400 f/4 would be another matter. I'd take a very serious look at that lens along the following criteria:

(1) Not heavier than about 3kg
(2) IQ in the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4 league.
(3) Doesn't cost more than 400 DO, which is already priced outrageously high in my view..

Nov 12, 2009 at 03:16 PM

molson
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

I would be interested in a Canon version of the Nikon 200-400 f4VR, but only if the AF was faster and more accurate than the Nikon version...

Nov 12, 2009 at 04:00 PM

timpdx
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

I would be interested in a 14-24 if it performed like Nikon, rectilinear, and F4 to keep size and cost down.

Nov 12, 2009 at 04:02 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

PetKal wrote:
My current UWA needs are being met by 16-35L MkII and 17-40L perfectly.

I hope you don't mind me asking this but I can't help wondering why you need both.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nov 15, 2009 at 12:25 PM

JackCnd
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

Give me a 500 5.6 over a 200-400 anyday.

Nov 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM

dagr
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

chez wrote:
I'd love the 14-24, but with a f4 aperture to keep its size and price within reason. I shoot landscape so the 2.8 is of no use for me.
+1

Nov 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

Yakim Peled wrote:
PetKal wrote:
My current UWA needs are being met by 16-35L MkII and 17-40L perfectly.

I hope you don't mind me asking this but I can't help wondering why you need both.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I really don't need both. It is just that when I got 16-35 Mk I and later Mk II, I never bothered to sell 17-40L. The only time I use 17-40L these days is when the probability of lens damage/loss due to sand/water exposure is high.

Nov 15, 2009 at 01:28 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

You never bothered to sell it? WOW! I'm green with envy.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nov 15, 2009 at 01:30 PM

Pedro H
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

I'll second the 500 f5.6 (or even a 600 f5.6), it wouldn't even need Image Stabilizer in order to keep cost down. It's a shame that Canon makes 3 variations of the 400, yet doesn't make any economical alternatives to the 500 f4/600 f4.

A 100-400 and a sensibly priced 500/600 f5.6 would be a great combination, better than 200-400 f4, IMO.

- Pedro

Nov 18, 2009 at 05:12 AM

lovinglife
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

i would really like Canon to make a mini/compact DSLR, like the size of a leica, with the ability to mount existing lenses

Canon already has some awesome wide angles and of course some great telephotos

Nov 18, 2009 at 05:29 AM

Dpic_arctic
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

I voted that I'd buy both, but if the 200-400mm f/4L IS was as expensive as the Nikon, I'm not so sure. If it were that expensive, it would have to be equal quality with the rest of the super-Ls for me to buy it (or significantly cheaper than the super Ls).

Nov 18, 2009 at 05:37 AM

dolina
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · Canon 14-24 and 200-400 F4 Would You

JackCnd wrote:
Give me a 500 5.6 over a 200-400 anyday.

You'd love the weight at 1.5-2.5kg only.

Nov 18, 2009 at 06:36 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end