This is my second wide angle zoom from Canon. My first one was a 17-40mm f4L, and I loved it. It was sharp and had great colours and contrast. I got many memorable pictures from it. Since my favourite lenses are prime lenses, I traded it in for a 35mm f1.4L. Although I did not regret the move, as the 35L is a stellar lens as well, I did miss the wide angle. I wanted to buy the 17-40 back, but at times, I found the relatively slow aperture of f4 wanting, and decided that I would wait for the 16-35mm f2.8L. Tried the 17-35mm f2.8L and was not satisfied with its image quality.

I also briefly tested a Canon 20mm f2.8 USM and I was appalled on its soft, creamy quality wide open. This, of course, could be just copy variance, but judging from reviews of many users, it seems like a common problem. The 16-35mm at 20mm is much better than the 20mm f2.8 at the same aperture. It goes to show that not all primes outperform a zoom.

Since the introduction of the 16-35mm f2.8L Mark II, the price of the used Mark I version has come down to the fair level, so when a used one came up at a reasonable price, I went for it.

I was initially unhappy with the test results I got, but then again I was shooting in the evening with high ISO and low shutter speeds, it really was not a fair test. Consequent testing has turned up much better results. I guess we sometimes forget that we may be expecting too much from ultrawide angle lenses, as they are never as sharp as a standard or telephotos. Also found this lens to be sharper at infinity than is at close range.

In any case, I am quite happy with the lens, although the edge sharpness leaves a lot to be desired, even stopped down, no lens is perfect.