Mike Mohrmann wrote:
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. ...Show more →
7D for AF and fps, 5D2 for everything else. Pick one and fllllyyyyy Pick both and have your spouse beat on you, a lot. My wife wants to beat on my I'm sure.
Nikon's 70-200 2.8VR is so good, that they don't need 4-5 70-200 zooms in their line-up :P Just messing around.
burningheart wrote:
Probably the same reason they don't have a 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 400 5.6, 800 5.6 .
Most of those lenses are very exotic and not very big sellers. (And NIkon has a good 80-400mm f5.6 VR already.) Nikon really hasn't had much of a line up of modern lenses to support its newer FX cameras. My guess is that for every buyer for a 50mm f1.2 there will be 5,000 buyers for a 70-200mm f4 VR. It's the f4 VR zooms that Nikon most needs, and it looks like they have begun to address that. I would be highly surprised if Nikon doesnt' come out with more for this series. It's what they need to sell FX bodies to non-pros, and maybe some pros who are looking for lighter lenses with great optical quality.
Tri Tran wrote:
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.
Of course you can get good shots with it but the requirements differ from user to user. I was very satisfied with my 17-40mm until i compared the corners to my zeiss 35-70mm and than i realized what I was missing. Does that mean I will get myself a zeiss 21mm prime no cuz I don't need it.
I'm almost sh*tting my pants just thinking about how good the 24/1.4 could be (judging by the 14-24, probaby very) but the cost.... We're encroaching on leica territory. Oh the things we do for fast lenses.
Interesting that have VR on a 16-35. I would love Canon to update the 17-40, although I hadn't thought we'd see IS, maybe, it's not so silly. I'd love to see how the 16-35 f/4 VR stacks up against the excellent 17-35 f/2.8 not to mention the 14-24 f/2.8 as well of corse Canon's offerings. If per chance the 16-35 is cheaper than the 14-28 and demonstrably superior to the Canon glass, I'd consider it for my 5D II.
Slowly but surely Nikon is filling in the gaps, but they still have a long way to go: 70-200 f/4 VR, 80-400 f/4-5.6 AF-S VR II, 300 f/4 AF-S VR II, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 AF-S VR, something similar to Canon's MP-E, 100 f/2 AF-S VR.
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.
Really bad, I don't find this at all on FF. Not saying it's in the 24 TS-E II class, but stopped down to f/8 it's pretty good, especially at 24mm+ and the 16-35 II is not much better if any in the corners.
Hey now, the Nikkor 50mm 1.2 Ai-S is a great lens, I use it on my FM2n all the time. Perhaps not so hot at 1.2 but few lenses are. At 2.0 it's beastly...and for arout $600 new or like new, I'll focus that puppy myself, thank you!
(ok, I'll also set the aperture myself, too!) :P
burningheart wrote:
Probably the same reason they don't have a ...50 1.2,...
Tri Tran wrote:
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)
Did you use all the images of Nikon glass on your Flikr page to sell stuff on eBay before switching to Canon?
The 16-35 f/4 is most likely, as many have pointed out, to offer better IQ in the corners than the Canon 17-40. It also has VR, which is cool. Now, if Nikon's D700 had a resolution as high as the 5D Mark II, and had the 5D Mark II's movie capability, I think I might even contemplate a switch to Nikon.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Really bad, I don't find this at all on FF. Not saying it's in the 24 TS-E II class, but stopped down to f/8 it's pretty good, especially at 24mm+ and the 16-35 II is not much better if any in the corners.
I found the 17-40L "okay" in the corners stopped down (on 5DII), but only okay. Center is sharp.
I have found both versions of the 16-35L to be sharper in the corners than the 17-40 at similar apertures, but again not great, and they don't compare well to what other lenses (notably, good primes) provide.
My experience only. But for me, none of the Canon wide zooms really blow my skirt up.
it is strange that some people already assuming the Nikon 16-35 VR is the gold standard. The speculations are worthless without pictures
I want proofs.
Apart from price, Nikon seems to be shoring up its weak spots rather quickly. Next thing you know there will be a Nikkor 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and a 70-200/4VR. Good job Nikon! (again, apart from price).
I've never needed IS with my EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. IS in a lens with a focal length that short seems superfluous. When I use my 28-135, I barely notice the IS at the shorter focal lengths compared to the longer focal lengths.
kakomu wrote:
I've never needed IS with my EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. IS in a lens with a focal length that short seems superfluous. When I use my 28-135, I barely notice the IS at the shorter focal lengths compared to the longer focal lengths.
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.
Pick both and have your spouse beat on you, a lot. My wife wants to beat on my I'm sure.
Perfection? Yeah, right....