Canon 16-35mm L classic vs 16-35mm L II

Help me decide. I'm finally ready to pick it up,but just want to know if I should spend the extra buck on the II or not.

Thanks.

I bought the 24mm f1.4 last year, wish I would have gone for the markII. When I bought the 16-35 this year I went with the markII.

was curious about the differences myself, and looked them up and came across this. since you're using two full framers, it looks like the mkII is a good idea

http://www.lensrentals​.com …-35mm-f2.8-l-ii/for-canon

also this had some insights:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

search for "Canon's engineers have completely redesigned " and read that paragraph and the following two to find out the differences between the I and II


I would personally go for the II if you have the money

Bump....does anyone have experience with both of these lenses? I'm also deciding if the mark I is worth the savings.

No first hand experience, but I've done some reading on this. My understanding is that the MK2 has different coatings to reduce flare, and also the edge sharpness is much improved on the lens as well. To me that translates to, if you have a crop camera, you won't need to worry as much about edge sharpness as you would with a full frame.

stickshift wrote in post #9443437
Bump....does anyone have experience with both of these lenses? I'm also deciding if the mark I is worth the savings.

I was never really happy with the mk I....I'm happy with the mk II. Not sure I can really quantify that. I went through a 17-40 and 2 16-35 mk I's before I settled on the mk II.

The mk II is better in the corners and edges than the mk 1 on the wide end.

So what is the difference in price today? $1600 to $1000?