I've owned this lens before and agree it is a great lens but I feel the review is misleading or at least unfair. It says the 16-35 F/2.8 II has superior optics to the 17-40L... it doesn't. I've owned several copies of both. Not to say it isn't good, neither is it necessarily worse... but superior? No. The 17-40 F4L is actually slightly optically "superior" if i had to give a nod to one. But it's so small it's not worth mentioning. Go take a look at The Digital Picture test charts. It's roughly the same throughout all apertures and focal lengths with a slight edge going to the 17-40--duh it's simpler in terms of internals and doesn't have to bend as much light. (to put it in caveman terms) Of course, the 16-35 F4 IS beats both hands down. The only reason to own the 16-35 is if you absolutely need 2.8. But I suspect at F4 and a strobe of some sort, you'll have more than enough... not to mention better depth of field =)
The review also shows how "awesome' this lens is and gives many example shots. And they are great shots... but those shots are stopped down--could've been taken with a lighter (optically equivalent) 17-40L or with superior 16-35 F4 IS. So not sure what the point of the review is.
I've owned about three copies of the 16-35 2.8 II and 7-10 of the 17-40L. Both are great but found the 17-40L the easier lens to justify. I now own the 16-35 F4 IS and am very impressed by it. Now that is an optically superior lens.
I mistakenly had this in "JPG" when I shot it but you get the idea. I love my 16-35 F4!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=il734-20&linkId=CRVDZTWMJWH5AGJA
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/
The review also shows how "awesome' this lens is and gives many example shots. And they are great shots... but those shots are stopped down--could've been taken with a lighter (optically equivalent) 17-40L or with superior 16-35 F4 IS. So not sure what the point of the review is.
I've owned about three copies of the 16-35 2.8 II and 7-10 of the 17-40L. Both are great but found the 17-40L the easier lens to justify. I now own the 16-35 F4 IS and am very impressed by it. Now that is an optically superior lens.
I mistakenly had this in "JPG" when I shot it but you get the idea. I love my 16-35 F4!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=il734-20&linkId=CRVDZTWMJWH5AGJA
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/
