Please let me know if I should create a new, separate post for this, but:
Reading through this thread has given me some concern. The 16-35 2.8L II is on my list for my next lens purchase. I want to cover the focal range at 2.8 (16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8 ) and I already have the 24-70.
The 16-35 would primarily be for landscape photography and night/sky exposures. From reading this post, it makes it seem that the 16-35 2.8L II doesn't deserve the "L" when you look at results, especially compared to the 17-40 f4L. Is this true?
Can anyone recommend a good review that compares the 16-35 to the 17-40? While the 1mm is doable, the extra light from a 2.8 would be missed.
Thanks for any opinions