if you had the old 16-35 to compare, or the 17-35, did you see much improvement, or was it just corners - especially on the 1.3x body?

Any improvement in contrast?

Also, is the hood significantly larger than in the old version? meaning, does the new lens take more space with the hood mounted than the old version did?

Thanks!

I had the 16-35 II for about a year. I tested two copies and the first one was softer on the left side and the second one on the right side. I took the first one and had it adjusted by Canon. It got better but still not perfect. I've heard this was pretty common with the first batches of the lens. Don't know if the new ones are better in this respect.

I have mixed feelings about the lens. It was very sharp in the center (and almost all the way toward the edges) but even with a 1.6x crop and small apertures I couldn't get satisfactory corner sharpness at 16-18mm. Color and contrast was very good. I may be too picky but it really bothered me that I had to crop most of my images to get good corners at the wide end.

Wide angle lenses typically suffer from corner softness, but I was still expecting a bit more from this lens. Had it been sharp at the edges, I would have kept it but I'm sure it would have been pretty bad on the 1Ds, so I sold it.

I almost want to buy it again for landscape work but probably won't.

I guess the question is, how important corner sharpness is to you. If it's not that big a deal, then this lens is very good. But if you are very picky, then you should at least test before you buy. I'm pretty sure there are better copies than the one I had. Having said that, I did take many great images with that lens. It was my number one lens in Peru and Nepal last year.

Know you're looking at the other lenses, but it seems alright on my MrkIIN but of course there's a bit of barrel distortion near the corners, not sure if that's the same on the 16-35.

otherwise the 17-40 would probably work just fine. I hear image quality is as good as (and, by some accounts, better than) the 16-35 at f/4.

Barrel distortion is the property of all ultra-wide zooms, I'm afraid - my old 17-35 f/2.8L had it, I'm sure the 16-35 II is no exception

I'm beginning to regret selling my old 17-35 2.8L. It was silly sharp in the center wide open, and VERY decent at the corners (1.3x camera).

It really seems that Canon had better quality control before the digital craze started. All my lenses that were made before 2000 were very good and never required any adjustment...

To be honest, after my disappointment with the mark I compared to the 17-40 (which is excellent), I never did a back to back comparison with the mark II and the 17-40. The mark II is better than the mark I, but I need/want f2.8, so that's the end of it! I usually stop down, in which case sharpness and contrast return, but when I'm fighting for light, I'll take a shot vs. a blurry shot because I didn't get enough shutter speed.

Not a raving review on a $1400 lens, I know. But that's what it boils down to imho. If you need f2.8, get it.

And the 82mm filters irritate me. I've got 77mm clear and CP's which I use for all the other lenses, and this one needs it's own damn filter (which I haven't bothered to purchase).

It seems I've deleted all my worst shots. I couldn't look at them :) After that I started shooting at f/8 or even smaller.

Here's two horrible holiday snapshots. They were taken at f/8 and f/11 but I still see corner softness. At f/5.6 or larger corners get really soft. But I have seen quite sharp images on the net, so it might be that my copy was a bad one. Or I may be just too picky. The reason I was a bit disappointed was that Canon was raving about the corner sharpness of this newer version.

<img src="http://personal.inet.fi/private/petri/test1.jpg">

<img src="http://personal.inet.fi/private/petri/test2.jpg">

my old 17-35 was no worse than this though... shouldn't have gotten rid of it...

Anyway, I think I'll try the 16-35 II and keep my fingers crossed...

the question is how much better the version II is, given the $500 premium over a clean used version 1

Yeah, those pics are not that bad and apart from corners I was very happy with the lens. It could be better but it's not bad. Some people absolutely love that lens and say it's tack sharp from corner to corner. Don't know if it can be that sharp but there are obviously very good copies to be found.

And besides, at 16mm it's diffcult to get sharp corners anyway because of the large field of view and distances between the center of the image and corners. But Nikon managed to do a better job with the 14-24/2.8...

It's probably somewhat better but it's not as much better as Canon claims, I think.

what bothers me with some 16-35 shots is the kind of directional "smudging" of corners, indicating flaw in either optical alignment or just poor design. My old 17-35 had almost none of that.

Your shots don't show it either, so I think I'll be happy

The 16-35 II is not totally smudge-free. I've noticed it in the corners but it's not very bad. It certainly hasn't bothered me very much.

My friend has Nikon gear and his old 17-35 is pretty much flawless. He doesn't have FF though.

Supposed to have L-quality optics, adds 20mm more reach over the 16-35 and adds IS.

At the moment my primary wide angle is the Tokina 12-24/4 which I like a lot but wish was better in low light.

Smaller, lighter, less expensive.

much better than my old 17-35 and seems well-centered, no right/left issues

I have a feeling Canon had (once again) some misaligment issues with the first batches of this lens. I guess one should always wait at least a couple of months before buying anything new from Canon...