17-35 F2.8 L V.S. 16-35 F2.8 L ??

[photography By Evangelos]

I have the canon 17-35 "L" and have found at 17mm at F2.8 it's a bit soft. It is much better at F4 and higher F-stops. I guess I am wondering is the new 16-35 F 2.8 any sharper at 17mm at F 2.8? And is it worth the up grade over the older canon L .

[reittila]

Check this : http://www.fredmiranda.com/17_35VS16_35/

[mdavids]

Or check out this review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

(The conclusion here is that the 16-35 is much sharper.)

[AGeoJO]

I had a 17-35mm before and actually I could not think of any situation where I used it at f/2.8 for any focal length setting. When using a wide angle (zoom or fix) lens, unlike a telephoto lens, I tend to stop down more. Well, at least, it is my photography preference/style. Recently, I switched to the 16-35mm and I am happy as a clam. I did not do any side-by-side comparison between the two since I sold and packed the 17-35mm basically on the same day I received the 16-35mm but several reputable reviewers already did that anyway and I relied on their conclusions. The relatively closer focusing distance and the extra 1mm (noticeable on the 10D), among others, are welcomed improvements for me. Go for it and happy shooting!

Joshua

[photography By Evangelos]

Thanks for all the good Info I think I will up grade to the new canon 16-35 L . It seems to be alot better. I very often use the lens at 17mm at F2.8 for wide shots since the 1.6X on digital I often use the 17-35 L for alot of my wedding work. So I want it to be sharper at F2.8 at 16mm and I think the new lens will do the trick.