Tokina 17 f3.5 & Canon 16-35 f4L IS

Picturing abandoned places (buildings,churches,vi​lla's,castles,...) is my main photography
In past I tested the 16-35 I & II, 17-40 f4L, Tokina 16-28 2.8, Tokina 17 3.5 ATX-Pro

The last one was the best one (only €350 for that old Tokina 17 3.5 out of production), light, compact, sharp, cheap, no flare, accepts filters. It was corner-corner sharp from +-f11-f13. Even if I sold it, I recommend this one to anyone who is looking for a great budget UWA! You can buy it only on Ebay and when you sell it, it takes some weeks as Tokina is pity enough not so popular brand (unjust!!!).

Everyone is so positive about the new Canon 16-35 f4L, so i'm really curious.
Here I just read it's corner-corner sharp from f8 or even f4!
http://kenrockwell.com​/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm

I use it on tripod for hdr's, so i'll save a lot of waiting time with my f11/f13 before comparing to the f4-f8 now.
We visit these abandoned places in a planned roadtrip is time limited to fulfill the scheme (and not to be the last of the crew ), so time is important.

I wonder how this lens will perform for nightclub photography (sold my Sigma 15 2.8 fisheye as the usuage was too limited).
Now it's f4 + IS vs f2.8 (but I use external flash at 1/20-1/30 anyway for some nice lighttrails)

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17153009
In past I tested the 16-35 I & II, 17-40 f4L, Tokina 16-28 2.8, Tokina 17 3.5 ATX-Pro

I'm thinking about getting the 17-40 to replace my Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 on the full frame.
How did you like it?
I'll be doing landscapes and general walkaround with it.

I can tell you that the f4 IS is that good. Corner sharpness is much better than the 16-35v1 I owned.

Canon 17-40L is good price/quality but I wouldn't buy it again after seeing both Tokina's corner to corner sharpness.
The new Canon 16-35 f4L IS is double the price (like the 16-35 2.8L II) but sharpnesswise worth it.

I wouldn't use the 17-40 below f11 for landscapes. I tried at f8 a few times, but didn't like it. I originally wanted to get the 17 f3.5, but couldn't find it anywhere.

the 16-35 f4 is just peachy at f8. Only thing is I now realize I usually need f11 fro DOF anyway, but the 16-35 still beats the 17-40 at f11. Enough to justify the cost? Probably not for most, but for me, yes.

The IS is superb - a full 4 stops. 1/10s is no problem at all (and I like my shots sharp so no 1/FL for me on a 20MP sensor). 1/4 - 1/2s definitely very doable at the wide and without taking multiple shots. So if you can use those SS, it will be fine, but I don't do nightclubs, so I don't know if f4 will be too slow or not. You could do wide-angle waterfalls hand-held with this lens though.

You should be able to find enough examples. I posted some a while back, but those from Ken are what I would consider normal and what you can expect. I googled sample shots and came up with a bunch.