I've read a good few reviews stating the high quality of the EF-S 10-22mm and these reviews generally include a direct comparison to the EF 16-35mm II.
Sure, the edge definitely goes to the 16-35 but by the smallest margins.
Since the D800 launched a few years back, it has become apparent that shooting landscapes has more to do with lens/body combinations than just the qualities of the lens.
So my question; head-to-head, some reviews say the 16-35 is marginally superior to the 10-22 but I'd like to know how much better a 5D mkIII mounted 16-35 compares to say a 70D mounted 10-22 for landscape photography.
Thanks for any feedback folks