Why has Canon Abandoned F/2.8?

Steve W wrote:

rrccad wrote:

DavidNJ100 wrote:

A basic set of lenses consists of three zooms. For Nikon those were 12-24, 24-70, and 70-200 F2.8 zooms. For Canon they have been a 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 F2.8 zooms. In both cases only the 70-200 have IS. Tamron and Sigma have 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 zooms. Tamron has a 15-30 zoom coming out early next year.

Canon introduced the 70-200 in 2010 and the 24-70 in 2012

both lenses are best in class - the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II.

the only lens that needs an update from the 2.8 lens lineup is the 16-35mm.

I'm not convinced the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II needs an update. If you have the new 16-35mm f/4L IS and 11-24mm f/4L and agree those are targeted at the landscape/ (architecture ?) shooter then the f/2.8L II is a great lens for the event/photojournalist and doesn't need an update. That's how I view it. I'm really curious about when Nikon photographers use the f/2.8 aperture on their 14-24mm? I know a dozen or so an most use it at f/5.6 and above but I'll ask them again. Then again I know a few that won't even travel with it because they can't protect it with a filter. Its their most expensive lens and they baby it.

With four zooms between 11-35, and the 14L II, TS-E 17L and the TS-E 24L I think Canon has the landscape covered now with lenses that perform well. Sure I love the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and the Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be a great lens but I don't think we have much to complain about.

Canon's strength is its lenses. The 16-35/2.8 is a good lens...but were you expecting to new F4 lenses rather than an update for the 2.8? 
And yes...Canon dominates tilt-shift and telephoto more than making up for any advantage Nikon may now have in camera bodies, especially in the recent D610/D750/D810 vs the aging 6D/5DM3. There is even a firm that converts the 17mm TS-E to a Nikon mount.