Canon 16-35 II best wide angle lens?

I tested almost all and I bought/sold them in this order :

Canon 17-40 : best price/quality if you really want Canon, as sharp as 16-35 II
Canon 16-35 I : f2.8 but softer lens
Canon 16-35 II : overall good, but way overpriced for what it is (it's still not perfect for this price!!!)
Canon 17-40 : yes I returned a second time to this one, you can't miss
Tokina 16-28 2.8 = The Nikon 14-24 for Canon but WITH AF, also corner to corner sharpness and only a bit more expensive than the 17-40!!!

Conclusion : Tokina is the best UWA that I found, only negative is sometimes flare (bulb design like the Nikon and no filters like the Nikon), it's like a perfect copy of the Nikon, it's that good!!!!

When I need filters, I just put them on another lens like my 24-70 2.8

I sold my copy of the 16-35 II two months ago and now the guy I sold it to wants to send it back to Canon because it's soft in the corners from f/2.8 to f/5.6. He says his old 20-35 is sharper. I guess he expected it to be razor sharp throughout the frame since it's an L lens

Mornnb wrote in post #16438755
Take a look here. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

The 17-40mm, is actually sharper than the 16-35mm II. So I would stick with the 17-40mm unless you really need 2.8, such as for shooting rock concerts.

This has been my experience as well. 17-40 is sharper with less distortion and superior flare handling.

Get Zeiss 21mm there goes all of your sharpness in all the damn corners. Lol
Got the 16-35 for specific work but for landscape & other similarly related stuff that I don't mind moving back for, the Z21 is perfect. Best lens I own.

Eiro wrote in post #16708360
Get Zeiss 21mm there goes all of your sharpness in all the damn corners. Lol
Got the 16-35 for specific work but for landscape & other similarly related stuff that I don't mind moving back for, the Z21 is perfect. Best lens I own.

Im picking up a Zeiss 21mm on Monday, can't wait!

I highly recommend the Tokina 16-28. It's very sharp and affordable.

Eiro wrote in post #16708360
Get Zeiss 21mm there goes all of your sharpness in all the damn corners. Lol
Got the 16-35 for specific work but for landscape & other similarly related stuff that I don't mind moving back for, the Z21 is perfect. Best lens I own.

Or the 24 ts-e. Its actually sharper than the zeiss without any shifts. But who buys a ts-e lens to not use it for its features haha

Eiro wrote in post #16708360
Get Zeiss 21mm there goes all of your sharpness in all the damn corners. Lol

Another option is the 24-70mm Mark II. It's 24mm is not too far from 21mm. It's as sharp as the Zeiss prime, amazingly. And makes a perfect landscape lens among it's many other uses.

At F8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Well, i have 16-35L mk1 and i know it is soft, but i don't make it as a dramatic issue, and i will sell it to get 16-35LII even it is not that much imporvement over 17-40 for example, i have TS-E 24II and very happy with it, later will buy 17mm as well then i am done, if i got 16-35LII i will not cry if it i not very sharp corner to corner, but definitely i can't live with most f4 lenses when i have many f2.8 or faster lenses already, i don't shoot only landscapes or interiors, i shoot other things that may lead me to low light situations.

So think about it, i have 16-35L II which has f2.8, so i can shoot in low light where i need 1 stop more, with 17-40 you will be forced to use 17mm as widest and also f4, when you shoot landscape then your 16-35L also serving you as 17-40 maybe better if you use 16mm, i am suer 16 to 17 is nothing, but think about a lens to be used in different situations, i feel that 16-35II lens = 17-40 - 35.1-40 + f2.8-f3.9