These two lens are often quoted as lens that people have said they wish Canon made. Of course they aren't available who knows for sure if Canon is designing.
But the question I pose is
If Canon was to release these L lenses today and the IQ was the same as the Nikons and the pricing the same 14-24 $1829 US and 200-400 $6299 US would you realistically go out and buy these (assuming you had the cash available)
I pose this because there are people that decided after having a 14-24 it was not the range that met their needs so they sold it off and got a 16-35 or some other lens. Also for those who have never used a 200-400 a great lens but it is big and weighs a lot.
Think about it before you answer.
Would I? Of course I have this minor issue of being a lens aholic, now someone please pour me another lens.
I think the 200-400 would appeal to some sports shooters. The 14-24 doesn't really interest me. Money no object, I get a 200-400, but money no object and I've got a 400 f/2.8IS
Eventually, I'd get both! The 14-24 would be nice on both the 7D and the 5D2, and the 200-400 f/4 would be an awesome sports/BIF lens for the 7D. Slap on a 1.4X and have a nice 280-560 f/5.6 lens.
burningheart wrote:
Also for those who have never used a 200-400 a great lens but it is big and weighs a lot.
That is a lot of lens - according to the Nikon manual, their 200-400 f/4 weighs 7.2 pounds. That compares to 5.6 pounds for Canon's 300/2.8 IS, 4.3 pounds for the 400/4 DO, and 11.8 for the 400/2.8 IS. Definately a little more hefty than the 300/2.8.
I guess I would go for both. However, I would much rather have a 200-500 f/4-5.6L instead of a 200-400 f/4L. As far as the 14-24 goes, it makes sense in the line up because it would fit in perfectly with the 24-70/70-200 and I'm sure it would be excellent based on Canon's latest wide offerings.
If money were no object I would probably have both but I voted no because I just wouldn't be able to afford them...however, I don't find myself really missing or needing that combination as my current set-up seems to meet my needs & style of photography.
I've been asking for a 200-400 f/4 for some time... Obviously, no love from Canon...
I'd have to think about the 14-24 f/2.8 since I have both the 17-40 f/4 and the 16-35 f/2.8; I didn't, however, say I'd think too long... You and I share the addiction...
The 200-400 is of no interest to me.... the 14-24 is interesting but really I am quite happy with my 16-35 and would rather compliment it with the likes of a 24 1.4 L II or Zeiss 21 2.8.
I'd like both, but I don't know if we'll ever see a 14-24. I mean, this lens would be used at 14mm most of the time and we already have a very good 14LII.
A variable fstop 200-500 would be much more wantable to me. Max aparure of 5.6 at the long end to keep the cost down. An f4 200-400 is just going to be far to costly
