16-35 4L IS vs 16-35 2.8L II?

arty H wrote:

I use the 17-40L, so my comments should be taken with a grain of salt. If I didn't like my lens so much, I would be looking at the 16-35F4IS. All reviews have it as an excellent lens. The only reason to get the F2.8 lens would be for shooting events using an ultrawide. The larger aperture would help keep shutter speeds high, and you need that for people photos. For anything else, the 16-35 F4 IS would be my choice. It has IS, and that can be handy in very low light, like the interiors of museums, cathedrals, and a variety of travel locations.

If I used the ultrawide more, I would be in the market for an upgrade to the 16-35F4 IS. As it is, I use the 17-40L for travel, or occasionally on a crop body.

Sorry Arty.

You may or may not want to hear this.

Your summation of the f/4 L IS is the exact reason I upgraded from the 17-40 f/4 L to the 16-35 f/4 L IS. A trip to Rome last summer was the exact reason I bought it.

"It has IS, can be handy in low light, like the interiors of museums, cathedrals, and a variety of travel locations"

Walking all day I'm the heat and not having enough water in your system leads to dehydration, which for me leads to the "Yips". Is not only assists in the reasons for IS, but delivers sharp images at 1/10" hand held as tripods are not permitted.

Needless to say I use the 16-35 f/4 L IS so much more than the 17-40 f/4 L. Since selling as used, the prices are low for the 17-40 f/4 L, I am keeping it as a great backup, which is more valuable to me than the cash currently.