16-35 I vs II on crop

I'm looking at buying a 16-35 for my photojournalism work. I am currently shooting with a 7D and plan to pick up another cropper or 1Dii(n) for a backup. I find the rugged build quality and weather sealing irreplaceable for some of my paid work, so the 17-55 is out of the question.

My question is, what would be a benefit of going with the 16-35 II over the mk I for 1.3x and 1.6x sensors. From my understanding, the biggest change was corner sharpness on FF. How about AF speed, fringing, and overall sharpness?

I have owned all three and currently own the 16-35mk2 due to FF. On a crop the 17-55 2.8 IS is the best lens. No matter what you want to believe or tell yourself it is the best lens. Best IQ, has IS, better FL, and lower price.

I can't tell the dif between the 16-35 1 and 2, at least the diff must be minor. They all focus fast.

The mark I has some CA noticeable wide open and center sharpness is not awesome. Get the mark II!

Mark II definitely. AF speed might not have changed much to justify the cost alone, but the AF accuracy coupled with way better flare resistance is super important for event / PJ work.

Gabe63 wrote in post #11506754
I have owned all three and currently own the 16-35mk2 due to FF. On a crop the 17-55 2.8 IS is the best lens. No matter what you want to believe or tell yourself it is the best lens. Best IQ, has IS, better FL, and lower price.

This may be true and I accept that, however the lack of weather sealing is the deal killer.

I'm renting a 16-35 II right now to give the focal length a shot. My first impressions are impressed. Sharp and wide I think my two week rental will give me time to collect the funds to make a purchase.

KY707 wrote in post #11506779
The mark I has some CA noticeable wide open and center sharpness is not awesome. Get the mark II!

Everything I've read says the Mk I and II are both great performers in the center. CA reduction would be fantastic though.

Headshotzx wrote in post #11506807
Mark II definitely. AF speed might not have changed much to justify the cost alone, but the AF accuracy coupled with way better flare resistance is super important for event / PJ work.

This is true. Thanks for the input.

Save the money and pick up a mkI. You'll be printed in newspapers, so the minimal difference in IQ will never show up.

Newspaper work ? Get the 17-40 and save some cash.

twoshadows wrote in post #11509940
Save the money and pick up a mkI. You'll be printed in newspapers, so the minimal difference in IQ will never show up.

So true...when I worked for a newspaper (a big one, too!) in a pinch we'd print stuff we took with our Blackberrys...better than nothing!

bohdank wrote in post #11510081
Newspaper work ? Get the 17-40 and save some cash.

That's what I did and haven't regretted it yet

bohdank wrote in post #11510081
Newspaper work ? Get the 17-40 and save some cash.

Aren't you selling your 17-40?

Probably. Waiting for my replacement 16-28, first.

For a print less than 8R the difference between those lenses will not be noticeable.

Maybe you'll find the lens useful beyond photojournalism, so getting a lens specified to fulfill other needs might be helpful.

It's true that a lot of the work published is small print, but there is web use and the occasional large prints. I've had a couple recent items printed at 16x24.

The price of the MK I is very tempting. $900 vs $1200 used.

Gabe63 wrote in post #11506754
I have owned all three and currently own the 16-35mk2 due to FF. On a crop the 17-55 2.8 IS is the best lens. No matter what you want to believe or tell yourself it is the best lens. Best IQ, has IS, better FL, and lower price.

I can't tell the dif between the 16-35 1 and 2, at least the diff must be minor. They all focus fast.

you mean on 1.6 crop. if you have more than one sensor size you may not want ef-s lenses.

ed rader