Thoughts on the 16-35mm 4L?

I'm currently using a crop sensor 7dmk2 and will someday go FF with a 5D. For now though I would like to stick with my 7dmk2.

I was debating whether to go with the 2.8 or the 4.0 as I was thinking of building a nice sports setup. Having that extra stop makes a difference in my experience. However, things have changed and I am now looking into getting an all around/daily user/travel/jack-of-most-trades lens within that focal length.

Also, I am one of those rare folks who hardly ever sells equipment I buy, so I will be sticking with my whatever my choice is for a very long time. Therefore, the 17-55mm 2.8 EF S is absolutely, completely and categorically out of the question. I refuse to buy any more crop sensor lenses, as I regret having gone down that expensive path when I shot with Nikon (now stuck with a useless Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 AF-S DX which I paid full retail when I purchased it brand new for a D200).

So, my concerns with the Canon 16-35 4L are:

- Build Quality. I have read all the glowing reviews of how optically fantastic this lens is, but I want to know if it will last. Is it a delicate plastic piece of junk? I am not rough with my equipment, but I have had plastic lenses fall apart on me.

- Performance at 4.0. Shooting "wide open" at 4.0 would be critical for me as I am already loosing a stop by not having a 2.8. Will I get good details and contrast at 4.0, or will I have to stop down to 5.6 to start getting sharper images?

- Does IS really work, or is it the same gimmick found on cheaper consumer lenses? I have yet to see any noticeable image sharpness hand holding my current consumer IS lenses.

i've had my copy since about launch, here are my thoughts

build quality - it's great, nothing wrong with engineering plastic (in some ways i prefer it actually), lens feels good and solid, as matter of fact i was out shooting one day and long story short tripod fell and lens hit the rocks, nothing happened to the lens, not even a scratch, the adapter ring for my filter holder popped straight out (guess filter holder took blunt of the force) but lens filter thread was perfectly fine, very different story if it was metal i am sure (would've dented no doubt, filter ring would've probably have been stuck in there as well)

image quality wide open - sharpness and contrast all very good, how much better is it stopped down? probably tiniest bit better? never really compared because wide open it looks very good already and the lens is primarily used as landscape for me so it's mostly set at f8-11 but as far as i am concerned wide open looks good

IS - it works, and works very well, it is still no substitute for shutter speed if that's what you need, but for still life it works perfectly fine, as matter of fact (and this is at ideal situation - me sitting down, relaxed and shooting at 16mm) i've gotten perfectly (pixel peeped) sharp images handheld at 1 sec shutter speed, YMMV of course

the only thing is that 16-35 is kind of a weird focal length for a crop body (not wide or long enough), if you are not thinking of going FF anytime soon i think i'd rather invest in some other lens if i was you

The 16-35 f/4L probably gets more love on forums than any other lens. Canon owners of the 24-70 f/2.8L II and their 70-200f/2.8L IS II might argue that point, as they are all great.

I've owned the 16-35L f/4 IS for a couple of years now -- replacing a 17-40L that I sold. However, I have only used it on a full frame body. The build quality is quite good, and the lens performance is excellent. As has been said already, though, it's not the best focal range on a crop body. While you mention that you do not like to sell equipment off, this is one case where I think looking for a used or refurbished EFS 17-55 or 18-135 makes sense. If you buy used or refurbished, you will lose little value on resale and will not have to compromise on focal range while using your 7D2.

Buy for what you have and use today, not for what you "might" own "someday", since you never know what the future may bring. Maybe you'll decide to stick with a crop body for many, many years. Unless you have definite plans to buy a full frame in the immediate future, I would look at what makes sense for your current equipment.

I bought the 17-40 for my 60D, before the 16-35F4IS came out. The 17-40 makes for an excellent, light general purpose lens on a crop body. The format crops out the corners. I now use it on my 6D.
If I didn't like the 17-40 as much as I do, I would probably go for the 16-35F4, if only for the IS. Outside, as I often use the 17-40, the lens is sharp stopped down. The advantage of the newer lens, although with a reduced focal length range at the long end, is reported to be sharper performance wide open.
IS can help. I use the ultrawide on full frame for travel. I have been in places where I was forced to shoot at ISO 25,600 and IS would have helped me with the slow shutter speeds (in Bath, England).
The main reasons I haven't upgraded to the 16-35 include the smaller size and lighter weight of the old 17-40L. My copy is sharp, but does have some distortion that can be a problem at the wide end. Indoors, the 16-35F4IS benefits from IS, is reported to be sharper wide open, and has better optics. I didn't see the optical corner problems on a crop camera.
I don't sell lenses either, and decided some time ago to stop buying crop lenses. I am glad that I went this route, as I knew I would go full frame. Incidentally, F4 becomes less of a problem on a full frame camera, because of the great high ISO performance.
I now tend to use the 17-40L for travel on full frame and general use on a crop camera. You are likely to want something like the 24-105L for your future full frame camera. The 24-105L makes a fine general purpose lens on a crop camera, and is even better on full frame. Many people like the 24-70F2.8II for full frame, but I prefer smaller, lighter lenses. Frankly, I never thought I would consider the 24-105L to be smaller or lighter.
The 35 mm focal length is excellent as a general purpose lens on crop, and is perhaps more versatile on full frame. I like the 35F2IS. If you don't have a fast prime with IS, you should take a look. Of course, the intended purpose and use of the lens matter the most.

I concur with the thoughts of others. Just an FYI, there are no wide zooms on the market today that compare. I've evaluated other options with f/2.8 as a much-needed replacement but decided to stick it out for awhile longer.

Tapeman wrote in post #17942593
The 16-35 f/4L probably gets more love on forums than any other lens. Canon owners of the 24-70 f/2.8L II and their 70-200f/2.8L IS II might argue that point, as they are all great.

I wouldn't argue the point! I am delighted with my 24-70 F2.8 V2 but I have an awful lot of love for my 16-35 F4!

Build quality of the f/4 is fine, and the IS and AF both work well. I love mine. Plug the two lenses in here to compare, at least optically at various settings, and even with crop and FF:

Link

Thanks everyone!

I forgot to mention in my original post that I currently own a 10-18mm EF S , 50mm 1.8 EF STM and a 70-200 2.8 L (non IS version). Also two EF S kit lenses (18-55 and 55-250) I rarely use (came with a T3i I keep for local travel snapshots).

So, I am looking for sonething that covers from 18mm up. While my 10-18 is slow it will make do for the few wide angle shots I take for now. Plus, the 10-18 and 50 are small/light enough to throw in the bag without taking up too much space or added weight.

My two main lenses would be the 16-35 and 70-200.

snegron wrote in post #17943596
My two main lenses would be the 16-35 and 70-200.

While your 8-70 and 55-250 technically fill the 35-70 gap. I'd start saving my ducats for a decent 24-70 f/2.8

In my mind, the 35-70 range is pretty important, and it would be worthwhile having good glass.

snegron wrote in post #17942520
Also, I am one of those rare folks who hardly ever sells equipment I buy, so I will be sticking with my whatever my choice is for a very long time. Therefore, the 17-55mm 2.8 EF S is absolutely, completely and categorically out of the question. I refuse to buy any more crop sensor lenses, as I regret having gone down that expensive path when I shot with Nikon (now stuck with a useless Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 AF-S DX which I paid full retail when I purchased it brand new for a D200).

I can understand not wanting to buy APS-C lenses if you intend to add a FF body in the near future, but no one is "stuck with" a 17-55mm f/2.8. That's the most popular standard zoom lens available for the FX format and you could sell it here in a New York minute. There's no reason to keep that if you're not going to use it again, it will only depreciate further and maximize your net loss.