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

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17030711
Two questions:
2. This lens is plastic....what do you think about durability and build quality? Will it survive arctic weather?

Well the 24-70 I had a lot more metal than the 24-70 II and yet the original is a lot more prone to getting certain elements knocked out of place and certain supports shifting.

Also plastic doesn't stretch and shrink as much in temperature extremes as metal.

Roger at LR hasn't cracked one open yet though.

wombatHorror wrote in post #17031472
Also plastic doesn't stretch and shrink as much in temperature extremes as metal.

Not to nerd out here, but this isn't true. It's the opposite, conventional plastics expand and contract with temperature much more than most metals. The coefficient of thermal expansion of steel is around 7 in/in * deg , for plastics the CTE is anywhere from 20-60+ depending on the plastic. With that said Canon likely has additives in their plastic to minimize thermal expansion such as glass filled fibers, or we would all be complaining about our lenses not working properly in cold/hot extreme weather.

Really debating selling my 17-40 and "upgrading" to this lens. Anyone else do this? Is it worth the $500-600 on top of the old 17-40 in terms of pure IQ?

To me, it is a substantial upgrade in terms of IQ alone, and to me it was well worth the extra cost over the sell price of the 17-40. I am not a chronic upgrader, but this was well worth doing.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17032092
Really debating selling my 17-40 and "upgrading" to this lens. Anyone else do this? Is it worth the $500-600 on top of the old 17-40 in terms of pure IQ?

Exactly my dilemma, the 17-40 isn't terrible and it's $800 nzd + to upgrade

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17032092
Really debating selling my 17-40 and "upgrading" to this lens. Anyone else do this? Is it worth the $500-600 on top of the old 17-40 in terms of pure IQ?

I'm going to soon.

Crap, this thread is convincing me to spend more money, though I'll probably end up selling my Zeiss 21 for this lens.

I have to give it up to Canon for this one. It's a pretty damn good lens. I have not been a fan of Canon UWAs, but this one works as it should. It's overpriced though and that's why I haven't bought one.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ocFJ​4k

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nVue​Bh

Puckman wrote in post #17031076
Downtown Los Angeles.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMG_9724.jpg by Puckman2012, on Flickr

Nice shot of DTLA Dean!

I wonder if my girlfriend will recognise that I've exchanged my 17-40 for this 16-35 it looks glorious! Now just to find the cash...

mag10 wrote in post #17032479
Crap, this thread is convincing me to spend more money...

Yeah, I did just today.

Thanks guys... I think.

Invertalon wrote in post #17003774
Some from me:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oaiM​Z3 5D3_3434.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

I love this shot. Can I ask what the black movement streaks in the sky are from?

from the swings. the amusement park ride has people sitting in swings and then swings in a circle. i think it is pretty impressive that the kids in the background are without artifact though the swings leave their artifact quite nicely. very well done.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17030711
Two questions:
1. Anybody compared to 17 TSE or Zeiss 21 in terms of corner to corner sharpness?
2. This lens is plastic....what do you think about durability and build quality? Will it survive arctic weather?

1. Yes, I've done some detailed comparisons (16-35 f/4 IS vs TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 24-70 f/2.8 II, and 24 f/1.4 II), and it's just as sharp as my TS-E 17 at all apertures, and it actually has better contrast. It also has less CA than the 17, but the distortion and vignetting are much higher, for obvious reasons. This is with the 17 in a neutral position.

The only lens I have that beats it for sharpness is the TS-E 24 at 24mm and the 24-70 f/2.8 II at 35mm. The IQ is a very close match to the 24-70 f/2.8 II in terms of color, contrast, and sharpness (at 24mm, at least).

2. The build quality is extremely similar to the 24-70 f/2.8 II which has (so far) proven to be plenty tough in my and many other's hands.