Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?
The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.
I don't think anyone waiting for a new version of this lens is hoping for a different zoom range.. The thing this lens needs is a big improvement in sharpness! I would never use the current 16-35L II for landscapes, not even if someone gave the lens to me for free.
I've been waiting for a new EF lens to rival the legendary Nikkor 14-24. Many people are hoping for a 14-24L, but I'm more interested in a razor sharp 16-35L III.
It is very sad that Canon still don't have a truly sharp UWA-zoom lens.
Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.