Our review of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II has been posted. Justin was eager to know whether or not it was worth the money over the very good EF 17-40 f/4L.
For the type of event work Justin does, it looks like he does think it’s better. Although I’d be less inclined to recommend it over its cheaper cousin if you’re primarily shooting landscape. The corner softness on the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II isn’t any better than the EF 17-40 f/4L, the filter size difference could also be an issue for some people. However, if you need that stop of light, the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II is really your only choice in the Canon lineup.
“The 16-35mm f/2.8 L II beats my 17-40 f/4L in all aspects hands-down, except for cost. While I won’t find myself making the upgrade anytime soon, I did find the superior optics and faster aperture a boon in many situations I was in while working with the 16-35. The weight difference became less significant, and I actually mistook one lens for the other while packing my kit one day.”