I have owned the 16-35 f/2.8L I for years. I just bought the 16-35 f/2.8L II.
I'm going to keep the new one although it is a tough decision. I took shots with both lenses @ 16mm 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, and 22. Then I took shots @ 35mm using the same f/ stops. All tripod mounted @ ISO 100.
I frankly don't know if the ver. II is worth $500. more than the ver. I. ( and the CP cost over $100. more.)
At f/2.8 the edges are a bit softer on the ver. I, but at f/11, 16, and 22 The difference is minimal.
I plan to get the TS-E 17 to use when I have the luxury of time to putz around but will probably use the 16-35 mostly for quick shots or travel.
Am I crazy?


