Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

Tvw wrote in post #18270432
It is. It wasn't my intention to over sharpen the image as in not realistic anymore. Do you think I over did it a tad here?
PP isn't really my strong point (to say the least).

"Do you think I over did it a tad here?" To my taste, a bit. This is purely subjective however. My comment was in keeping with the notion that your image had less to do with the 16-35 f4 than maybe 1/2 an hour in front of the computer. I do like it though ;^)

I took a walk and took this lens for the first time.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RutL​n3

I underestimated the strength of the waves and my gear got swept by them. This is what the camera was able to capture before the tripod got completely knocked off.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/S3sB​iX

Oh no.....Any damage?!?

Not to the equipment on the tripod, but the one in my bag which got soaking wet.

Tvw wrote in post #18274639

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Sa9b​yR Singapore skyline with the Jubilee bridge and the Marina Bay Sands Hotel at night by Tim van Woensel, on Flickr

Wowzers.

Added this lens back into my lineup today. I really missed it!

Local barn that is starting to collapse...

Photo from LoneRider's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (840391)

Just ordered one today. Looking forward to using it for a couple international trips later this year.

I once had the 17-40mm and the 16-35 f/2.8 II. Sounds/looks like this model is a different animal altogether.

Its an amazing lens.....I had the 17-40 too and as amazing as that lens still is, this one is just better in all the right spots. TACK sharp all the way across, which was always my biggest issue with the 17-40.