Tom Mitchell
EF1
I have used both the 10-22 on an XT and 40D and the newer 16-35II on a 5Dand 1DsmkII. I have to say that 99% of the folks who look at an image wouldn't be able to tell which lens or which camera it came from when viewing all of them on 11x14 prints. Maybe the 1D would elicit some "I don't know why, but this one looks better..." comments, but for $7000 it should.
That being said, to the 1% esoterics out there, the 16-35II is much better. For tangible qualities like build (which is important to me, as my lenses get banged around sometimes), and less tangible qualities like micro contrast and color rendition. To me the 10-22 loses out to the 16-35, in ways that I have difficulty explaining. I guess I would say that in delicate light, the 16-35 performs better in capturing the subtle graduations, particularly in shadow transitions. The 16-35 is a wonderful landscape lens, but the premium cost is truly a case of diminishing returns. For landscapes on full frame I would take a peak at the 17-40 as well, but to be honest I have never used it.
I do not think a FF camera is really necessary for good landscape work, and it most certainly won't magically improve your images. The most important component of an image is in front of the camera and behind it.
Added:
As for corner softness, the 16-35II at f8 has only the tiniest hint of softness in the extreme corners when at 16mm. It is better than my 10-22 in that regard.
That being said, to the 1% esoterics out there, the 16-35II is much better. For tangible qualities like build (which is important to me, as my lenses get banged around sometimes), and less tangible qualities like micro contrast and color rendition. To me the 10-22 loses out to the 16-35, in ways that I have difficulty explaining. I guess I would say that in delicate light, the 16-35 performs better in capturing the subtle graduations, particularly in shadow transitions. The 16-35 is a wonderful landscape lens, but the premium cost is truly a case of diminishing returns. For landscapes on full frame I would take a peak at the 17-40 as well, but to be honest I have never used it.
I do not think a FF camera is really necessary for good landscape work, and it most certainly won't magically improve your images. The most important component of an image is in front of the camera and behind it.
Added:
As for corner softness, the 16-35II at f8 has only the tiniest hint of softness in the extreme corners when at 16mm. It is better than my 10-22 in that regard.
