I currently own an old 17-35 f/2.8L which might be about twenty years old...I'm quite satisfied with the sharpness, in the center, even at f/2.8 it makes the job.
I'm concerned by a strange occurrence : when shooting with a strong backlight, i have some kind of de-contrasted circle in the center of the frame. Like a white haze. That's ugly and ruins my shots.
That's why i was wondering about getting the 16-35 II, which is two versions younger than my 17-35 and is supposed to be better. But, reading the forums, i often notice than no one is really happy with his 16-35II. That's why I need your help to determine how better the 16-35II is compared to my 17-35. If it is real better, i'll get it sooner than if it is not that better.
So i need you, 16-35II users, to tell me how good/bad/disappointing it is. Is it a pleasure for you to take it, or you only use it when you NEED an ultra-wide and it 'makes the job" ?
Are you, like me, waiting for a 16/18mm f/1.8 Canon prime ?
I have the 16-35II..it's very good "for a zoom"...but doesn't touch the IQ of my 35mm sigma f/1.4 or my 17mm TSE...or my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8...NOT EVEN CLOSE.......but it has versatility and fast autofocus.....everything in photography has trade-offs. What we are ALL waiting for is a 14-24mm to compete with the Nikon!