Yeah, the 16-35 F2.8 is the same DNA as the 17-40, so it's no sharper.16-35 2.8 isn't as sharp as the f4 IS though is it?
Do what I'm doing and sell the 17-40 and get the 14mm 2.8![]()
I used a 14mm a few years ago and the edges were very soft. Perhaps the MKII is better but it costs too much.
Still can't beat the Sigma 12-24 (FF) 8-16 (APS-C) for around £450. It's wider, as sharp and one third the price of the Canon 14L
Last edited: