My first slr was a Canon back in the early 1970’s. That was my jump from an instamatic rangefinder to something that would enable me more control over my picture taking.
When I started shooting professionally I continued using Canon equipment. Why Canon and not Nikon? Where I worked Canon Canada would bend over backwards to give special pricing and camera service to professionals. The price was not a little lower. It was A LOT LOWER!
I had been using Canon equipment for over thirty years and saw no reason to switch even when digital arrived. When I started seriously shooting landscapes that changed. You see I love wide lenses for landscapes. I had at the time a state of the art Canon 16-35 f2.8 lens that cost a pretty penny. It was when I started submitting images for stock where they were very picky about image quality that I started seeing the shortcomings of the Canon lens.
Nikon had a lens a 14-24 f2.8 that absolutely blew my Canon lens away in terms of quality. It wasn’t only at 1:1 magnification that it was noticeable but at smaller sizes there was a visible difference.
Rather than switch systems I got an adapter that allowed me to use the Nikon lens on my Canon digital body. Autofocus was lost as was automatic aperture control but any inconvenience was overcome by the exceptional image quality.
Fast forward a few years and I have sold all my Canon equipment and now use Nikon lenses and bodies the exception being the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon lenses that I use for aurora or milky way pictures. Those cheap Korean lenses are a third the price of Nikon or Canon lenses and at wide open apertures equal or exceed image quality.
So now you might be asking yourself how did Canon miss the boat?
For half a dozen years at least Nikon has been head and shoulders better than Canon at least for the lenses that I use. They had been teasing for ages that they would offer a similar lens to the Nikon super wide angle and it has been finally announced.
Firstly the lens is way too expensive for what it is and I don’t care how good the quality of it is. It is suggested to be around $3000 US over a thousand dollars more than the Nikon. I think that I bought mine for $1500 Canadian.
Secondly and most importantly it is a F4 aperture. Huh? F4? Now you might ask what the big deal is. No biggy if you shoot in the studio or if you usually take your pictures in bright sunlight but at night time one stop makes a HUGE difference in exposure times. F2.8 to f4 is much greater than you think at night.
Thirdly I have an f4 medium zoom and at f4 before the sun rises the lens is a bugger to try and focus. Compare that to f2.8 and it is literally night and day.
So Canon you blew it again (no high megapixel body yet) with an overpriced, slow lens that I would never buy even if it cost the same as my Nikon.