Canon 17-40L sharper than Canon 40STM

In the latest issue of Shuterbug, a review of the T4i included the comment that resolution with the 17-40L was higher than that for the 40f2.8 STM. Did I misread the review?
Any of you have both? Is the zoom really that sharp?

The 17-40L was depressingly not sharp at f4 when I had it. The 40mm f/2.8, although I never tested it, shows very good resolution at f/2.8. At f4 I the 17-40 is outclassed. Maybe a very good 17-40 copy to a very very bad 40mm copy... I wouldn't trust just one review.

take it with a grain of salt...but the photozone comparison isn't really close:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

my 17-40 is sharp, but probably not compared wide open to a prime

I've not done an a/b comparison and only had a 40stm for a few days (not mine, on loan) but I wouldnt bet the 17-40 against it at all.

My 17-40 is less sharp than 24-105 at similar focal length.

I was surprised, since most reviews have the 40stm as sharper, especially when you look at the zoom at 40 mm.
My 24-105L is sharp enough to rival a good prime.

40 STM sharper IMO

Not sure about Shutterbug, but I find that many photography magazines don't really know what they are writing. This is sounds like one of those "clueless" comments that pop up once in a while. Kind of sad really with so many people still reading them.

I used to own the 17-40L. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that it is not possible for it to be sharper than any Canon prime of equivalent focal length, much less one that is released in 2012.