Whether you will be satisfied with that lens or not I think it depends on what type of photography you do.
If your copy of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II is not decentered and is otherwise in good working order, it would be fine for reportage, candids, scenics and travel, etc. I used one like this for years with good results. Its main weakness is softer corners and some chromatic aberration.
If you are into landscape photography or commercial work or just want the sharpest possible corners in a zoom, you would be better off with the Mark III version of that lens, or perhaps even better, the EF 16-35 f/4.0L IS, which I think most consider to be Canon's best EF ultrawide zoom.
In my opinion, the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 STM is a remarkable lens, sharp across the frame and with little CA. Though it does rely on software corrections for distortion and vignetting, which may be off-putting to some. But partly because of that, it is also considerably lighter and more portable than the EF or RF L-series lenses, even without considering an adapter. If portability is a consideration, it could be worth the added cost.
You can compare all of these lenses at the TDP site if you like:
Whether you will be satisfied with that lens or not I think it depends on what type of photography you do.
If your copy of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II is not decentered and is otherwise in good working order, it would be fine for reportage, candids, scenics and travel, etc. I used one like this for years with good results. Its main weakness is softer corners and some chromatic aberration.
If you are into landscape photography or commercial work or just want the sharpest possible corners in a zoom, you would be better off with the Mark III version of that lens, or perhaps even better, the EF 16-35 f/4.0L IS, which I think most consider to be Canon's best EF ultrawide zoom.
In my opinion, the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 STM is a remarkable lens, sharp across the frame and with little CA. Though it does rely on software corrections for distortion and vignetting, which may be off-putting to some. But partly because of that, it is also considerably lighter and more portable than the EF or RF L-series lenses, even without considering an adapter. If that is a consideration, it might make the added cost worthwhile.
You can compare all of these lenses at the TDP site if you like:
Whether you will be satisfied with that lens or not I think it depends on what type of photography you do.
If your copy of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II is not decentered and is otherwise in good working order, it would be fine for reportage, candids, scenics and travel, etc. I used one like this for years with good results. Its main weakness is softer corners and some chromatic aberration.
If you are into landscape photography or commercial work or just want the sharpest possible corners in a zoom, you would be better off with the Mark III version of that lens, or perhaps even better, the EF 16-35 f/4.0L IS.
In my opinion, the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 STM is a remarkable lens, sharp across the frame and with little CA. Though it does rely on software corrections for distortion and vignetting, which may be off-putting to some. But partly because of that, it is also considerably lighter and more portable than the EF or RF L-series lenses, even without considering an adapter. If that is a consideration, it might make the added cost worthwhile.
You can compare all of these lenses at the TDP site if you like:
