[Brightcolours]

The old (II):



The new (III):



Light green is aspherical lenses, dark green is UD glass.

 

What does the total redesign bring? Apparently a lot.

MTF of the old (II):



MTF of the new (III):



 

 

 

 

 

[JJ_SO]

Sample pictures? Here we go: http://www.lens-rumors.com/canon-ef-16-3...le-images/

 

Impressive although no full size or at least bigger images are available.

[Klaus]

So about as good as the f/4 L IS according to Canon.

[toni-a]

I am thinking about those who upgraded to 16-35 II and now they find themselves with an outdated lens.

Couldn't canon engineers get this formula from the beginning?

I know plenty of photographers who did the update and who will be updating now

[Brightcolours]

The 16-35 f2.8 L USM II is from 2007, that is almost a decade ago. Lens design is constantly evolving.

So the answer to your question? "No".

[Rover]

The design does not look radically different though. It's an interesting fact that the 16-35/2.8 is the first L lens to go into the third iteration - kind of an admission by Canon that they didn't quite get the first redesign right somehow.

BTW, I'm a happy camper with the f/4 IS. I know many people feel the same. A 16-35/2.8 was the default choice, but... Not anymore. Instead, it has become a niche lens (and the situation isn't helped by the very high price of this new unit).

[borisbg]

I wish Nikon redesign their 16-35 f4.

[Rover]

I wish Nikon redesign their 16-35 f4.

Haha... Ken Rockwell was gushing about it but both PZ and Lenstip found it lacking. Ironically enough it was the originator of the stabilized 16-35/4 lens class but has been since outdone by Sony and especially Canon. Unfortunately, for now it looks a little too new to be updated so it may take them a while.

[AN2]

http://www.canon.com.cn have full size sample photos.

[JJ_SO]

"rush out and buy it", says Roger Cicala: Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L Mark III Optical Bench Tests  ^_^