Upload & Sell: On
I'm a bit puzzled with this review, because I liked (and still like) a lot some full size pictures posted and I somewhat envised this lens as a potential landscape all-in-one. And it seems it is not (except for extreme wide angle): the 24-70 II and the 24-70 F4 theoretically beat it in the 24-35 range by a fair extent. In fact, the old 17-40 is equal or slightly better at the end of the zoom range.
Well, it seems a good lens, likely overall the best Canon wide angle zoom to date; but for ultimate perfectionists, I think that there...Show more →
I see your point, but it may depend on some other issues concerning what other lenses you use and how you shoot.
For many of us, the 24mm+ range duplicates focal lengths that we can (and often prefer to) cover with other lenses lenses such as a 24-105 or 24-70. Our main goal with an ultra wide zoom is to cover focal lengths that we cannot cover using the lenses we more typically have on the camera. Looked at this way, it is the performance at the shorter focal lengths that is of most concern, and even if we presume that that the 16-35mm f/4 isn't quite as good as a 24-70 II (and that is a pretty tough standard!) or 24-70 f/4 at 24mm and longer we would welcome significant improvement at the shorter focal lengths where there aren't any other Canon options that are better.
The 17-40 is pretty good at the long end of its range, especially if you close down the aperture for "typical" landscape use, so being "as good as" that lens isn't a bad evaluation at all.
In any case, I think we'll all get a better idea of the performance of this lens as more copies get out into the field.