If its good, it could replace my 14 Samyang and 16-35 f2.8 Mk2 and maybe for hikes, i leave the 17TSE as well. Just two lenses, 11-24 and 24-70. That would be sweet.
With a 40mp camera, I could also use 11mm unshifted but leveled and crop the top or bottom for the 9x16 ratio I normally use anyway for UWA.
If true and it performs well this will be the last lens hole in the Canon system vs Nikon, with the Nikon system still having plenty of holes like the 17mm TS-E, image-stabilized short primes, lighter tele-exotics, etc..
snapsy wrote:
If true and it performs well this will be the last lens hole in the Canon system vs Nikon, with the Nikon system still having plenty of holes like the 17mm TS-E, image-stabilized short primes, lighter tele-exotics, etc..
One hole when considering Canon vs. Nikon lens lineup is that Nikon has a (near) full lineup of up-to-date f/1.8 primes (now from 20 mm through 28, 35 and 50 to 85mm) whereas Canon's lenses in this vein are either dated or nonexistent, the 28/1.8 being particularly far from stellar, as per reviews). The 35/2 IS is, unless I'm missing something, the only new moderately affordable fast prime.
This ground has been more or less pioneered by Sigma with two generations of their 12-24mm lens, which is FF type.
I've got the original Sigma, and it's far from being "L" quality! But it does pull in a wide-WIDE angle of view. This is 1mm wider (which is significantly wider) and being an "L" we can be guaranteed quality imaging.
I agree, if it is great, I could sell my Samyang 14 and the 16-35L II, taking this into the field with a 24 TSE (or 24 IS) and 35 IS (or the 24-70L or 24-105L IS) and be pretty well covered for my wide angle shooting. We'll have to see how it holds up for distortion and corners.
It might be a "must have" $2200 lens, in the league of the new 24-70L II and 17/24 TSE lenses.
