Hi Niklas,
The size and weight are similar, the price (in Sweden) of the 16-35/2.8L is approximately double of the 17-40/4L. The published MTF cures at http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses looks better for the 16-35/2.8L compared to the 17-40/4L. I have a 50/1.4, 70-200/4L and 300/4L IS. I choosed the 70-200/4L instead of the 70-200/2.8L because of the weight, and the 300/4L IS instead of the 300/2.8L IS due to the price. I love to travel, and my travel kit is the lenses above (except the 300/4L IS). My camera is an Eos 3.
I stand for the same question and will definitly go for the 4.0. Why?
MTF charts are not the only criteria for optical perfomance and if i compare the construction image of both lenses, i think the optical performace will be nearly the same. BTW, the MTF chart of the japanese website is better than the chart at the us website;-). In may i will sell my wideangel primes (28 and 20 mm) and buy the zoom.
Hope that helps
Klaus
PS: This is only my opinion
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
