Quote Originally Posted by Trowski
. I realize you're comparing it to the Nikon version, but that lens is more expensive than the 16-35mm

Well, most Nikon lenses are about 20-30% more than their Canon counterparts -- but I wouldn't consider the 14-24 as the counterpart to the 16-35 -- they're pretty different IMHO.


Quote Originally Posted by Trowski
The Nikon also doesn't have IS - not sure if you wrote that out of habit, but I wouldn't really see the point of IS in such a wide angle lens since it might add more to the price than it would be worth in practicality.

You're probably right, but the "neat" factor would be there. Nikon added VR to their new 16-35 f/4. Imagine four stop I.S. at 14mm. If you normally can do 1/15 at that focal length, it would allow you to do a full 1 second exposure. Nightscapes, blurred street life, lots of possibilities. Practical reality is probably more like two stops, though.


Quote Originally Posted by Trowski
My personal wish list starts with a replacement to the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS. I'd love to see a normal zoom (non-push/pull), weather sealing, updated IS to 4-stops, and maybe a little improvement in quality at the long end. This formula probably equals a $2000 lens, but I'd likely buy one.

Well, at least Canon met you half-way with the new 70-300. []