very first impressions

Since I own a Nikkor 14-24/2.8 and don't have shooting needs that require IS, I have many other cameras and lenses ahead of the 16-35/4 IS on my short list.

It is unfortunate though that the reaction to your review took such a turn toward personal attack. This discourages others from using the feature and DPR should consider moving the feature off the forum. I guess the flip-side being that allowing comments to reviews helps in the sense of a self-cleaning oven when a reviewer abuses the feature with "hate-speech" or with ridiculous levels of hyperbole.

I understood the context of your review. Not everyone needs sharp corners nor IS. The 17-40 (& 16-35 I & II) were all good in the center and I have seen no advantage there in the 16-35/4 IS. You made it quite clear what conditions you would find IS helpful. Perhaps the fanbois should re-read your review.

The star rating is contextual and should reflect the value of the lens to the reviewer not to the reader. I am a certified 24-70 II fanboy but when I see comments about this lens that do not match my own experience, I first remind myself that this person may not or will not be using the lens exactly as I use mine. Instead of discussing what that person isn't doing right to bring out the best in the lens, I try to stick with talking about what I do that makes that lens so valuable to me.

paul simon king wrote:

Picked it up today and first thing I noticed is that the BW protector filter I got for it ( yes Im one of those , get over it) is helluva site harder to thread onto the lens. Not usre if its cos the front is plastic not metal - dunno - feels plasticky.

the whole lens feels nicely made but not as reassuringly solid as some, I think Il feel a little more timid about scratching this one than other Ive had (virtually all of the Canon lenses under 200m)
the 17-40 was an extrenmely good copy that I had (sold) and I'l be interested to see whether theres any diffience in the centre, but as far as the corners are concerned, from a few preliminary shots it's no contest, the new lens does what we wanted, has sharp corners.

the IS I suspect is one of those things I didnt particularily want but will probably turn out to be useful in the 30th 15th sec range- it might work well lower than that - I just got a HandHeld 2 second shot where I could read the text on a lone filter perfectly, and right in the very corner of the shot - but for any serious shooting I will still get the tripod out. 15th sec is often something I try to HH for fleeting shots though, and always not worth the trouble pressing the shutter for the amount of times is is not critically sharp so there it will be a boon.

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)

So far I rate this the same stars as the 17-40 because while it is better in some respects it is not in others (IMO)

I'll take some proper shots later in the week- so far Im a bit concerned about the build quality and it's just odd that the filter takes so much fiddling to get on, can't imagine how I'd change to the polariser with coldhands - but at least I know the edges are there now and that has to be worth it alone, well for me anyway, that sort of thing always bothered me