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.
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.
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..
Yakim Peled wrote:
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.
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.
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
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).
