I am actually disappointed with the score given to the 16-35 f4L IS placing it on par to the 17-40 f4L. My copy is way sharper than the 16-35 f2.8L and 17-40mm f4L at similar partures and focal lenghts.
I can understand why. ANybody can explain this to us in the forum?
+1, my 16-35/4L is night and day compared to the trusty old 17-40L I used to have for more than 3 years. You can actually read some relevant information from DxO, but never trust the score number, as there is no telling, whether it's a pure sumation, or weighted average or whatever mumbojumbo number that is...
So true! The new canon 16-35mm f/4 just throws the 17-40mm on the ground and stomps on it in all aspects....and I personally sold my 16-35mm f/2.8'II to own a copy of this new lens...It offers this photographer more in shanpness, handling and cost.
Why DxO says that "adding IS is targeting videographers more", is totally off the mark,too as far as I am concerned. I only shoot stills and I find that IS is a welcome asset to help retain low ISO's when shooting stills and was definitely one of the most important selling features of the lens to me as it makes the f/4 aperture less of deterrent in many low light situations. II find that this lens is a break-thru WA for Canon whose WA zooms have been underwhelming compared to the competition...this is the first lens that helps dispell that well-earned reputation.