Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II VS Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L

I was wondering what is the improvement?? So far from the research I have done there is a price difference and lens rentals has it that they are closing the original out of stock. I am looking into this lens for weddings and portrait use. I will only be renting this one but hope to add a few L's to my rig. Oh and neither of them have IS should I rent something with IS instead? I am learning a lot just trying to get a feel for what will best fit my needs. I rented the 24-105 F4L IS for my last wedding and got awesome results. Just wanted to know if faster is really better?? Oh and I almost forgot to mention I do have a mono pod that the camera is mounted to most of the time also. Thank you, Mary

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

MKII has better edge sharpness. Also has less barrel distortion.

For wedding work, you'll hardly be worried about corner sharpness. F2.8 will be your main consideration. The older model is optimised for the longer end of the focal range and the newer version is optimised for the wider end. Both are good lenses and can out perform most of their users. The MK II version offers slightly better optical performance but uses a 82mm filter thread. If you want to put a filter on it, it's more costly. There seems to be a few QC issues with both versions. I have seen both good and bad copies of both.
My advice is to try before you buy.

Really i wish to get 16-35L MKII, but as long my MKI doing great then i shouldn't worry much, in all cases i have to get something else rather than getting same focal length lens but newer version.

When I got my 16-35L last year it wasn't a difficult decision. I really didn't want to buy a couple more expensive filters. I really didn't want to spend $1500 for a lens I knew I would use but not often. What clinched it was the deal I got on the classifieds here, truly like new for $850.

The difference is not significant on crop cameras. (So I hear.)

When I bought my 16-35 (mkI) RIGHT before the new version (Didn't know about it. Lameee.) It actually couldn't focus on anything out of the box. After a long angry phone-call to B&H (which yielded no result.) and a trip to Canon Irvine, I now have a great copy of the original 16-35. My copy is very sharp, and for me I am never worried about corner sharpness because I am almost always at a wide-open (or close to it) aperture. I love this lens.