AlanU wrote in post #18112904
I own both........
The f/4IS produces much better images and it's more similar to the IQ you get with a 24-70L f/2.8 mk2.
The 16-35L f/2.8mk2 is good enough but nothing to be rave about regarding sharpness. I use my for events photography alot an it's welcoming to know mk3 is coming out.
If I was a landscape guy I would have dumped my f/2.8mk2 a long time ago. However my scope of work I want fast primes and f/2.8 zooms in most cases.
Interesting point of veiw 'produces much better images'? and you cant make comparisons with the 24-70 2.8, that lens is in a league of its own, but I will say that as a retired travel/landscape and event photographer
the 16-35 f2.8 mkII is a better lens than the f4IS, I traded in a perfectly good if not slightly work battered f2.8 version to get the f4IS, and as much as I tried I just didn't get on with it, in my view it was pants compared
to my old 2.8 version soft corners and all its faults, maybe I spent too many years using it as my work horse, but the f4IS went back as a part EX on a Canon EF 24mm f1.4 mkII........ this blew the f2.8 and f4 versions of the 16-35 away,
My whole lens collection slowly got switched to primes, 24,35,50,85 and 135, but the 24 and 35 were too close together so I just sold the 35mm f1.4 and picked up a new 24-105 f4 which is amazingly sharp
on the 5d mkII and mkIII, and now I have sold the 50,85 and 135 since retiring I am now thinking about a new 16-35 f2.8 mkIII, for travelling/holidays/family time, its just so versatile and when its tripod mounted it will be a landscape animal.........