Nikon announced 16-35f4 VR and 24f1.4, the Nikon forum is in euphoria.
But, in my opinion it is not that exciting. Canon has an excellent 17-40f4 for years, all they need to to is some little updates and add IS. The 24mm L is in its second edition.
Nikon does have nice zooms (14-24 and 24-70)
for twice the price it better be
That's why I said, Canon just need to do some minor improvements on the 17-40 then it has a winner.
Btw, I don't know why Nikon doesn't have a 70-200 f4L
Nikon Canada's prices are consistent with those numbers. For comparison, here are the Canon prices:
EF 24mm f/1.4L II: $1700
EF 17-40mm f/4.0L: $730
EB-1 wrote:
Canon 17-40 is not so good in the corners. The Nikkor is almost certain to be better.
EBH
Well, considering the Nikkor 16-35 f4 is barely 15% cheaper than Canon's EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, it better be. It's scary that Nikon's press release describes the lens as an "affordable" alternative the Nikkor 17-35 f2.8. I guess I have a very different idea of what the word means.
Tri Tran wrote:
Btw, I don't know why Nikon doesn't have a 70-200 f4L
Tell me about it!! I mention that this is what I would want with the D700 (and a standard f/4 zoom), and I get ripped to shreds on the Nikon forum. Get the 70-300 VR they say. Nice lens (maybe the best 70-300 out there), but I don't shoot long, and I would rather have f/4 at 200mm than f/5.3 at 200mm on the 70-300 VR.
Come on, Canon! Help me out here. Release a body close to that of the D700. FF or APS-H, I don't care. I love my D700, but I am getting tired of waiting for lenses that I would use day in, day out.
I thought the $1679 that I paid for the 24LII was very much in the ouch territory, way, way at the very edge of what I will ever pay for a lens. But $2200? Holy crap! The 24LII is pretty much perfection, I can't imagine spending $500 more because my body says Nikon.
Tri Tran wrote:
for twice the price it better be
That's why I said, Canon just need to do some minor improvements on the 17-40 then it has a winner.
Btw, I don't know why Nikon doesn't have a 70-200 f4L
Probably the same reason they don't have a 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 400 5.6, 800 5.6 .
17-40 is really bad in the corners...i am certain that the new nikkor will be much better in the corners. I have no direct experience with canon 16-35 but from the tests that I have seen it is incredibly sharp in the center but not so much in the corners.
snooked123 wrote:
17-40 is really bad in the corners...i am certain that the new nikkor will be much better in the corners. I have no direct experience with canon 16-35 but from the tests that I have seen it is incredibly sharp in the center but not so much in the corners.
You guys make it sound like the 17-40 is garbage. I've seen some amazing shots with it. Oh wait, including my shots
Actually I want to try one of Canon's wider TS lense one day soon.
I almost forgot I also use the 28 on my Panasonic G1 and D700.
The same thing was said about the Canon 200 F1.8 when the 200 F2.0 was released. The price didn't drop that much. For me doesn't matter I have no plans on selling the 28.
But does this mean Canon needs to release the 24L MKIII now. Stan are you testing one yet?
I mention that this is what I would want with the D700 (and a standard f/4 zoom), and I get ripped to shreds on the Nikon forum. Get the 70-300 VR they say. Nice lens (maybe the best 70-300 out there), but I don't shoot long, and I would rather have f/4 at 200mm than f/5.3 at 200mm on the 70-300 VR.
I almost forgot I also use the 28 on my Panasonic G1 and D700. 