Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 and EOS 5D mkII?

http://www.16-9.net/ and see for yourself.
the 14-24 is amzing piec of work indeed..good luck :-)

no auto focus , no auto aperture !
if you think you can't live without these then wait for canon to be sensible and instead of wasting their energies in pixel jamming , they should use it to produce something comparable to 14-24.

I know there is an easy way around the fact that it is a "G" lens, just can't remember. A search here will get you the answer.

I have a Nikon 14/2.8 that I used to use on a 10D before switching to full frame F-mount body. If I had the money I'd be very tempted by the Canon 17 TS-E. I shot with a Canon FD 17mm for 15 years so I could accept the narrower angle for the incredible ability to correct verticals in architectural and landscape photography. If you place the horizon anywhere but the centre of a 14mm lens you create very noticeable converging perspective in vertical trees that gets very disturbing as you tilt the camera even more. At least consider it.

Look into the Sigma 12-24mm lens. You may be pleasantly surprised.

It is by all accounts a great lens. I don't think the lack of AF is a very important issue, although it is more significant at the 24mm end. Personally, despite the excitement, I do feel that this lens is quite specialized. Only some people need frequent use of a lens wider than say 24/21, and given this frequency of use the 14-24 is a behemoth and very expensive (especially if you add in the cost of the EOS-G adapter). Admittedly the alternatives are not exactly cheap or particularly small either. My advice would be to really think about it. You previously asked about the 16-35mm which strikes me as a much more useful and versatile lens, even if its performance is not as good. I would like a super wide myself, but I would never consider buying the Nikon, I would be more likely to buy the new VC 20mm or the fine Canon 15mm fisheye - both are much smaller and a quarter the price of the 14-24mm.

I also happen to think the 17mm TSE is very specialized too - good for renting, but not necessary to actually buy for most people.

Another thing is that I feel certain that Canon will produce a 14-24 equivalent. I doubt they will leave this segment alone now that Nikon have got so much good publicity with theirs.

A couple thoughts... you don't really need a fast aperture lens for landscape shooting. Also, you can't use a polarizer or ND grad filters with the 14-24, which would be a deal breaker for me. 11x17 is not that big of a print, I doubt you could see much difference between the 14-24 and the Canon 16-35/17-40 at that size.

“Also, you can't use a polarizer or ND grad filters with the 14-24, which would be a deal breaker for me.”

Apparently Lee have been working on a solution ; an adapter for a polarizer might soon follow.

Thanks Hans for the link. Quite interesting but expensive, and the fact that I cant use autofocus is a killer for me. Not so much that I need auto focus for landscapes, since I have been using live view, but I also love using it on the streets in low natural light.

@Sheldon, so the 2.8 is critical for me along with the fact that is goes beyond 16mm. I have the ef-s 10-22, that is why I have been putting off the idea of the 16-35L II. The widest I have and currently use for my 5DII is the 24mm f1.4 mkI, dont use much for landscapes but I take out a lot on my 5D2 and 7D for friday night urban photography. I do wish I had a 14mm zoom up to 24 from canon, and fast.

I guess I'll keep on waiting. Before the 7D came out I was about to go over to the dark side, but Canon listened and came out with something better than the d300, I hope they do it again. For the 14-24 and I would also love to see a 24-70L IS.

Get the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2.8, made for Canon. Or there others see artical
Ross