F/2.0 is significantly faster than f/2.8, but the advantage in speed and DOF is neatly negated by the smaller sensor. However, you're misinformed about the the Olympus 7-14mm. 7mm (equivalent to 14mm on a 35mm, or 9mm on an APS-C camera) is significantly wider than 16mm on a full-frame. Also, it sells for $1569 at B&H, which is pricier than Canon's 16-35mm at $1399, but not by a whole lot. Sure, it's a stop slower, and lacks USM, but it's pretty reasonable for what you get. You can't get a wider rectilinear zoom without getting an EF-S type reduced image circle lens, or the slow and bulky Sigma 12-24mm. I'm a Canon shooter, but there's plenty to disparage about Olympus without resorting to making things up.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
F/2.0 is significantly faster than f/2.8, but the advantage in speed and DOF is neatly negated by the smaller sensor. However, you're misinformed about the the Olympus 7-14mm. 7mm (equivalent to 14mm on a 35mm, or 9mm on an APS-C camera) is significantly wider than 16mm on a full-frame. Also, it sells for $1569 at B&H, which is pricier than Canon's 16-35mm at $1399, but not by a whole lot. Sure, it's a stop slower, and lacks USM, but it's pretty reasonable for what you get. You can't get a wider rectilinear zoom without getting an EF-S type reduced image circle lens, or the slow and bulky Sigma 12-24mm. I'm a Canon shooter, but there's plenty to disparage about Olympus without resorting to making things up.