very first impressions

rebel99 wrote:

while you haven't mentioned what camera you tested your lens on, i have gotten great result using my 17-40 f4 lens on my aps-c camera. i never bought this good copy/bad copy analogy bs. i have never had a bad copy of 16 "L" lenses right out of the box

It is better in those respects mentioned than the 17-40 but the 17-40 actually felt sturdier despite being lighter and I didnt have a problem changing filters - is that worth twice the cost? It's a lot to pay for sharp corners alone but that is pretty much what I hankered after and yes i dished out the dosh, but would I recommend others do the same?

Unless corners and IS really matter to you, then I'd say no, hang on to your cash, I don't think it's THAT much better than the 17-40, IF you get a good copy...I had four over time and only one competes with this new f4 WA lens ( two went straight back and I damaged one, the last was the best)

please view this album and point out to me which corner is corner is not clear in any of those photos. all of the shots were handheld, tripod never used!

http://azbaha.zenfolio.com/p572883877

If you took those shots on APS-C, of course the corners are sharp, the fuzzy parts are chopped off. They only show up on FF< with the 17-40 and the 16-35 F2.8LII.

The pictures do look good though.

The 16-35 F4 I received appears to be equally sharp on all corners, though it's hard to get the F4 on a flat plane to see it, with the middle being about the same as I saw on the 16-35 F2.8 I had.

To the OP- the build appears identical in quality to the 24-105, it looks fine to me.

Haven't tried to thread a filter yet, but I have always had to be careful with that.