Just got the 16-35 f4L IS!! :-)

Corner to corner sharpness, finally Canon managed this after so many years!!!
I tested all f stops f4-f22 and all corners seem sharp, I must be dreaming.

Next market strategy of Canon will probably be the 16-35 f2.8 IS, also sharp across the whole frame.
A bigger zoomrange 16-70 2.8 IS would be a dream but probably impossible to make

Have you used the 17-40 before you bought this? Interested in real world comparisons

As UWA lenses are used for my main photography I had the most known uwa's in past :16-35L I & II, 17-40L, Tokina 16-28 2.8, Tokina 17 3.5
If I would't have this 16-35 f4L IS, I would have stayed with Tokina.

If you want to upgrade your 17-40L I would advise :
1. Tokina 17 3.5 ATX-Pro
If you enjoy a light compact sharp UWA prime (they are seldom, this one is a gem!), very sharp, no flare! filters! and if you don't mind buying on Ebay - not produced anymore.
This one is even cheaper than your 17-40L, I didn't mind having no zoom for the small range and you can still crop.

2. Tokina 16-28 2.8 ATX-Pro
If you don't mind no filters, heavy, flare, built in lens hood, corner to corner sharpness.
IQ wise it's perfect, if you shoot with bright light falling in you need to learn to avoid the flare.

If you want to stay Canon, the 17-40 is a great price, I even prefer it over the 16-35 I & II, I just didn't like the corner unsharpness.
I just took out of hand shots with IS at all f-stops and all corners are sharp, unbelievable!

JohnPh wrote in post #17171036
Have you used the 17-40 before you bought this? Interested in real world comparisons

I already have the 17-40, I like and use the 17-30 range, not happy with corner to corner on the 17-40 so the 16-35 seems to fit the bill plus I use grads a lot. Whether it's worth the £££'s upgrade is something I'm still thinking about.

The 16-35 2.8LII was no upgrade in my opinion, just a lighter wallet, I even returned to the 17-40 after I had the 16-35 II

I bought the new 16-35 f4L IS at the cheapest site €869.99 here: http://www.eglobalcent​ral.eu …l-is-usm-objektiv-en.html
Cheaper than the 16-35 II of €1155.99 http://www.eglobalcent​ral.eu …f-2.8l-ii-usm-lenses.html

You can see i work with the fastest lenses possible, but for once I prefer the f4 IS in favor of a less corner sharp 16-35 2.8LII.

JohnPh wrote in post #17171036
Have you used the 17-40 before you bought this? Interested in real world comparisons

The 16-35 is noticeably sharper throughout the frame, with corners being the most obvious improvement. In real-world usage, you are still faced with the challenge of getting everything in focus from 12 inches away, to infinity. So depending on the scene, your subject, etc, the challenge is still the same. However, if your edges and corners are in focus, they are significantly sharper with the new 16-35/4.

Thanks to both of you!

JohnPh wrote in post #17171036
Have you used the 17-40 before you bought this? Interested in real world comparisons

It's noticeably better in the corners John. I've been using a 17-40 on my IR bodies and IR does tend to highlight the softer regions (corners) of the 17-40 but the 16-35/4 does show these deficiencies. I still have both lenses currently but the old one is due to depart when I get around to it.

Bob

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17171128
...

I bought the new 16-35 f4L IS at the cheapest site €869.99...

...

You got got fleeced. I got mine for $984 new, white market, official Canon warranty.

congrats on the new lens. Since you have tested and worked with so many other UWAs, I was wondering if you considered the newly announced tamron 15-30 f2.8 VC as a potential competitor before you purchased your lens? I bought my version before I knew it even existed...or "will "exist"

Never heard of it, it's not out yet I see :
http://www.dpreview.co​m …with-vibration-correction

Well the thing is the Tokina 17 f3.5 is superb, but difficult to sell again as a lot of people don't know/buy Tokina over here or don't know the sharpness.
I was glad I could sell it, the glass was great, but had to stop down to f11/f13 which took too much time when taking 3 hdr's each time. That was the only negative!

As UWA lenses are my most used it may be the best, the Canon was the only new lens tested with great reviews everywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I love alternative brands that can do the same for less money.
In past I had a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, a lot better priced than the Canon. Some weeks ago I doubted to buy it back, but recently I read a lot about inconsistent AF's,... so I'll keep my 35 1.4 Art to be sure but also for the f1.4 speed & bokeh rendering.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #17172346
congrats on the new lens. Since you have tested and worked with so many other UWAs, I was wondering if you considered the newly announced tamron 15-30 f2.8 VC as a potential competitor before you purchased your lens? I bought my version before I knew it even existed...or "will "exist"