Replace the 17-25 with the 16-35?

I've been thinking about changing my twelve year old 17-35mm L lens for the current version of the 16-35mm.
Is that a good idea? Will I notice much of a difference? Or, should I keep using the older lens?

(I have been using the 17-35mm since the film days....now I have a 40D (and before that, a 10d) and will probably get a 5d at some point.)

I don't think you will notice a lot of difference maybe except some CA/focusing.
really.. just keep it unless you really want that extra 1mm.

I have the 17-35mm 2.8L and even after I read this review, it was hard for me to justify the upgrade. Current used price on the 17-35mm 2.8L is $750-$900, while the 16-35mm 2.8L USM II is +$1400. For the me, the 17-35mm is good enough
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/17_35VS16_35/

Bongos wrote in post #9181526
I have the 17-35mm 2.8L and even after I read this review, it was hard for me to justify the upgrade. Current used price on the 17-35mm 2.8L is $750-$900, while the 16-35mm 2.8L USM II is +$1400. For the me, the 17-35mm is good enough
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/17_35VS16_35/

Yes, I had read that review, too. It's one of the factors I have been considering....one of the "motivations." Makes the newer version look much better and THAT was before the second upgrade!
I'm also looking for some dramatic positive or negative feedback from users on this forum. I agree it would have to be something significant to justify the extra $$.
(It also requires a whole new filter setup!)

I do notice the CA on my current lens that Replaces mentioned....however, I agree that's not a deal maker or breaker at this point.

Also, if you do not mind used, 16-35mm 2.8L Series I can be found for $850-$900, whih the Series II has a marginal upgrade over the Series I, unfortunately a lot of people know this so the Series I Rarely are seen on the used market

I believe that comparison is with the 16-35 not the 16-35 II

I would be as bold as to say the quality ranking of the UW's is something like this, from worse to best

16-35 I > 17-40 > 16-35 II

The 17-35 falls below the original 16-35.

bohdank wrote in post #9183272
I believe that comparison is with the 16-35 not the 16-35 II

I would be as bold as to say the quality ranking of the UW's is something like this, from worse to best

16-35 I > 17-40 > 16-35 II

The 17-35 falls below the original 16-35.

How far below?
Worthy of replacement?

I haven't had experience with most of them so couldn't tell you. I would think that moving up, in effect, 2-3 generations would show some noticeable improvevemt. Whether it would be worth it... only you could answer that.

Why not get a 17-40? I've heard good things about it as well, and it should be fantastic on FF.

See here the comparison between the 17-35 and 16-35 Mk I:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/16-35.shtml

The 16-35 Mk II is considerably better again.
Compare 17-40L with 16-35L II here:
http://www.slrlensrevi​ew.com …-f4l-usm-lens-review.html
http://www.slrlensrevi​ew.com …l-ii-usm-lens-review.html

I had a comparison between 16-35L and 16-35L II somewhere, but can't find it right now. The Mk II is quite a bit better, especially at the short end and in the corners.

Kind regards, Wim

My 16-35II was much sharper IMHO than my 16-35I