Need Feedback on 16-35L II

[Michael Pancier]

I'm heading out to Arches in 44 days and have debated whether to say WTH and pick up this lens. I've been using the 17-40L and have been most pleased with it especially in the South West.

I'm going to be shooting at f/16 - f/22 so the faster aperture is not a big deal to me (2.8-4.0).

Is it worth getting this lens, i.e., am I going to notice a big difference in sharpness?

I will be using on full frame 5d mark II.

thanks.

[Paul Marcellini]

Darwin Wigget wrote this....http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../dw0508-1.html

[Michael Pancier]

thanks for the link Paul. I was planning on taking my T/S lens, but now I'm thinking to have it permanently on my camera ....

[David Kennedy]

Michael,
I really like my 16-35 II, but that might be largely due to the fact that the 17-40 that I had before it was an absolute dog. I'm assuming that you've done some testing with the 17-40 and the 5D II; if you're pleased with the results, there's no need to go with the added expense and weight of the 16-35. I used my 17-40's cruddy performance, and the fact that I am also pursuing a masters degree in photojournalism, as the principle excuses for shelling out for the f/2.8.

[David Kennedy]

Oh, and I forgot to mention: another reason to stick with your 17-40 is that you can then (possibly) justify a purchase of the new Zeiss 21mm Distagon in Canon EF mount (manual focus but with focus confirmation) that is coming out later this year with an MSRP of $1800!!!

[Larry Handal]

I love mine! Stopped down a couple of stops its SHARP as anything I own.

[arash_hazeghi]

No, at equal aperture this lens has little advantage over 17-40L, there is no point in paying more if you don't want f/2.8