EF 16-35 f/4L, Now that it's been out for a while, what are your thoughts?

[SPL]

I tell you, the more and more I use this lens, the more I'm tempted to go back to a FF Zoom Trinity as my main setup (with macro as the exception)

Very Happy!

+1
Yep!, I'm considering that also!

Trouble is, I'd have to sell 2 lenses (Sigma 35, 24-105)to buy one (24-70 2.8 Mk2)

+1
I know!, I'm selling my 24-104 and a few primes to offset the cost of a 24-70 2.8 II. The 16-35 & 24-70 are awesome !

 

[slclick]

My current kit has found me with the widest FL of 24 and I have been mulling over the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I have owned both the 17-40 and 2.8 16-35. Also a Zeiss 18 3.5.

I'd like to hear from those who own/owned/rented this supposedly super sharp in the center, sharp in the corners lens.

TIA

Are you expecting us to tell you something you already know? This is the best UWA for Canon. Take it as you self-Christmas gift.
I owned the 10-22, 17-40 and 16-35L II and I was never happy because the borders sharpness. This is blew them out of water

I had a hunch

 

[RLPhoto]

I want for nothing out of this UW.

 

[slclick]

I tell you, the more and more I use this lens, the more I'm tempted to go back to a FF Zoom Trinity as my main setup (with macro as the exception)

Very Happy!

+1
Yep!, I'm considering that also!

Trouble is, I'd have to sell 2 lenses (Sigma 35, 24-105)to buy one (24-70 2.8 Mk2)

+1
I know!, I'm selling my 24-104 and a few primes to offset the cost of a 24-70 2.8 II. The 16-35 & 24-70 are awesome !

I just put both Siggies and respective filters on Amazon, just about halfway there already! Now to get that 'Street Price' on the 24-70 from Gordon at CPW

 

[Mr_Canuck]

I think if I had found one on sale for like $800 in Canada I would have jumped. But instead I decided to go with the 24-70/f4 and keep my Voigtlander 20. When I had a 10-20mm on apsc I didn't really know what to do with it, and found that 20mm was really where I could "see" things. So I'm planning for travel and hiking to take the 24-70 and tuck in the tiny voigt 20 when I need to go ultra-wide. And the 70-200/f4 when I have more space.

The 16-35/f4 does sound like many people's answer though. Sounds like way more people value corner quality and IS over f2.8.

 

[ejenner]

The 16-35/f4 does sound like many people's answer though. Sounds like way more people value corner quality and IS over f2.8.

Well, the people interested in the 16-35 f4 certainly. As with any lens, if you need 2.8, f4 isn't going to cut it. I honestly think the IS is a nice bonus, but most that bought it only needed f4 to start with.

Personally I can't quite figure out how to say how good this lens is, so instead I'll just say it sucks big time instead. Or perhaps just say it's not as sharp as the TS-E 24mm and doesn't have tilt/shift, nor is it as fast as the 24L and it's not as light as the 17-40.