Photoclubalpha

http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Introduction,1868.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the same site I looked to the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 review: much better, graphs are stunning!

Maybe the tests cannot be compared: CZ has been tested with a900, Nikkor with the D3 (I guess), at half the resolution.

--
Andrea Olivotto
http://www.andreaolivotto.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It agrees with what I observed on the prototype 16-35mm. Having already used the 14-24mm Nikon, I was interested, but even the way the geometry was handled did not really suit me. For my money the 17-35mm D is pretty much as good, the corner unsharpness is of a different quality (more streaky than blurry) and extends a little further into the frame, but there is none of the 'sudden death' the 16-35mm appears to have when you hit about 4mm from the corner. Mind you, the centre sharpness looks wonderful. I just considered the price, the bulk, the risk of using such a lens the way I use lenses (quite casually) and realised I would not be slinging a 16-35mm on my 900.

David

David, in many ways that's my issue too.

The 16-35 has been becoming more interesting to me lately. But I don't like having really expensive lenses. I'm very afraid in my usage of my 70-200G and freaked out big time when the first white paint came off it.

My 400G even more so. Fear of using it is always a problem.

I would really like to see a good wide angle FF lens for the mount. But to be carrying around a lens as expensive as the 16-35 would have me freaked out. I would be very happy to have all F4 lenses that cost 1K or less. At that price I wouldn't freak out so much, and if they get beat up over many years of usage, I would be ok.

Of course when it comes to really wide angle, it's also hard to justify spending much when the lens isn't a PC or TS design. Otherwise it's usage becomes very limited.