Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.
This new lens seems pointless to me - it's even longer than the f/2.8II and weighs almost the same. The 17-40 is the hands down winner for travel and portability in general. If I'm going to lug a WA that big, then it better have a 2.8 aperture.
Totally disagree. I could care less (grammar police, using this in the NEW accepted form so shhhhh ) about f/2.8 for this range. IS matter a lot more as does raw image quality.
I think this just shows how different everyone's needs are. I think I fall in between the both of you. I don't really care about IS at this focal length. F4 is probably fine. The sharpness of the new lens is the selling point for me.
The negatives are that it's basically as big as the 16-35II, which is quite a bit bigger than the 17-40 when you are trying to fit everything in a backpack with your other hiking gear/photog gear/lenses. Also, while the price seems great compared to the 16-35II, it's quite a bit more than the 17-40. The 17-40 on the refurb store goes on special for $570ish quite often.
I think I will still end up buying this lens over the 17-40 if real world tests confirm the charts, but I will have to wait until the price drops/goes on sale/shows up in the Canon refurb store.