^ Posting web sized pictures to justify your point of view is pretty silly, unless they are 100% crops. The poor corner sharpness of the 16-35L II (and 17-40L) has been proven over and over again.
They are mediocre when compared to other L zoom-lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 24-70L II, and they pale in comparison to the Nikon 14-24.
Time for an update! But the same thing can be said about a boat load of other lenses from Canon.
So you think those things you listed will make a great image any more sellable? No it won't...so I would say that the metric by which you judge a lens is way off base...and I'm sure that Canon are in no hurry to replace it becuase it's still selling well.
The sun star image would be hard to do with a 14-24mm lens...sure it might be sharper....although at f16 I seriously doubt there will be much difference in sharpness. The front element on the 14-24 is so bulbous that it's very flare prone. The 16-35IIL is very good at handling flare, far beter that the new 24-70IIL which every one seems to rave about.
The same is true with the lower image of the light house. The 14-24mm is hard to use filters (not impossible, but a PITA) and the flare issue is a serious concearn to a landscape photographer....but of corse if your only metric is wide open sharpness then yes the 14-24mm is a great lens too.