« on: June 09, 2014, 06:06:18 AM »
My advice was to buy the new one outright, compared them and then sell the f2.8....but I guess this advice is a little late now!That was my plan, too, but I thought I'd go ahead and get my lens out there before eBay is saturated with them. With 3 days left in the auction, my lens is at $1085 with 12 watchers, so I think I've timed it well. Also, when I get the new lens, I'd rather be using it instead of shooting comparison photos . If the lens isn't amazing, I'll just return it and use my TS-E 17 until the 14-24 f/2.8 or whatever comes out.
P.S. Okay, I admit that I might have to indulge in a few 16-35 f/4 IS vs. TS-E 17 f/4 comparisons...
The 16-35L f/2.8 II market has softened quite a bit already. I got mine used about 2 years ago for about 1200 (lens, caps and hood only) when most of used copies were going for 1300, and I sold mine on eBay for 1150 (even with 30+ watchers). I tracked a few others before selling mine and they were going in the 1150-1250 (with box, pouch, etc.) range unless scammers were involved (i.e. 0 feedback accounts bidding the prices up).
Ideally, I think I would have preferred a 16-35 f/2.8 III to the 16-35 f/4 IS if it is at least as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS's MTFs. I tried the 24, 28 and 35 IS, and I don't find the IS as useful at these shorter focal lengths, but the 16-35 f/4 IS looks so much better than the 16-35 II that I'm switching now and am willing to lose the 10-20% of the price until the 16-35 f/2.8 II's replacement comes to market, whenever that may be.
Of the 10+ lens I have bought, this is the first that I've ever ordered before it was widely available and reviews were already out. I blame the Canon store's error in giving 125 off the new lens price for my hastiness/impulsiveness.
@GMCPhotographics: I agree that the used market prices for the 16-35 II won't change much now. I've been considering selling the 16-35 II for months, especially after snagging a refurbed Zeiss 21. If canon can design the 16-35 f/2.8 III as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS with good coma control wide open, then I'll be looking to the 16-35 f/2.8 III to replace both the 16-35 and the Zeiss 21.
It's too bad Canon couldn't stretch the 16-35 f/4 IS to be a 16-40 design. All this typing to distinguish between the 16-35 f/2.8, 16-35 f/2.8 II, 16-35 f/4 IS and the 16-35 f/2.8 II replacement (III?) is going to be a pain!
The 17-40L was expanded at the long end so that it could perform two specific roles. An ultra wide zoom for the full framers and die hard film users. Full frame digital users were very few in those days when this lens was released. The other crowd was the other 99.9% of Canon DSLR users who were mostly 1.6x crop users. This lens predates the EF-s mount. It was envisioned as a cost effective standard lens range for those users (28-65mm effective). The only other option was the very expensive 16-35L and out of the pocket for most users....so much has changed! In those days, Canon saw the 1.6x crop as a temporary thing and had a plan to make their entire range full frame within 10 years. When Canon saw that many users liked the 1.6x crop, they backtracked and started to develop the ef-s mount and lenses. So the long term future of the 17-40L has always been questionable. I'm sure Canon has thought...hmmm, 17-40 f4L needs replacing and it's original mandate is no longer valid....so lets start with a blank sheet of paper...an ultra wide f4 lens...lets make it a 16-35mm with an IS unit....yeah that'll work well.