Experience with 17-85 to 16-35 Mk I?

Just wondering if anyone has experience with both of these lenses on 1.6x crop body.
- Is 16-35 MkI a good upgrade? MkII is too expensive at this moment + 82mm filters are expensive
- Which one has better image quality? Any example?
- Is it worth keeping both?

I have the 17-85 for a yr and I don't think it's a bad lens at all. however, f2.8 zoom aperture is something I am looking for. Thx.

I have owned both. I have since sold my 17-85. I thought it was a good general walk around lens, but for performing arts and indoor sports (which is what I photograph most these days), it was just not fast enough. The 16-35 mk I is an excellent lens. Obviously, you sacrifice some length, but the overall IQ is superior. On a 1.6X crop body, 16mm is not that wide, but it depends on what you shoot as to whether it is wide enough.

I have no intention of upgrading to the mk II for the same reasons you mention in your original post.

If you gonna take with 1.6x crop body in the future, i would recommend both 17-40F4L or 17-55F2.8 IS both are very quality but depend on your usage. If you mostly taken on outdoor so go with 17-40F4L as its price has dropped a lot. But F4L is not good for indoor or low light condition, i've to push ISO to a mininum of 800 often.

tomtam wrote in post #3678475
If you gonna take with 1.6x crop body in the future, i would recommend both 17-40F4L or 17-55F2.8 IS both are very quality but depend on your usage. If you mostly taken on outdoor so go with 17-40F4L as its price has dropped a lot. But F4L is not good for indoor or low light condition, i've to push ISO to a mininum of 800 often.

Got my 16-35 last week and tested against my 17-85. I snapped some photos of the same scenery with both lenses for comparsion. Again, it proves that 17-85 quite a lens.
- 17-85 match/exceed the L in center sharpness at the same focal length & aperture.
- L has much better conrner & edge IQ (no surprise since it's 35mm lens)
-L has better CA & distortion controlled
- L has slightly better color & contrast, very very slightly only noticeable if you have the picture for comparsion.

In the end, the L does get me faster constant aperture, better built but more weight and money. I never considered the 17-40 F4 since I don't gain lot. 17-55IS is nice but 16-35 is at a good price now with Mk2 being the new kid on the block.