A quick update and then my current questions. I am absolutely enjoying the 70-200 II. I am using it all the time. The weight really doesn't bother me. I have heard a comment or two about the size. It definitely stands out, but, more important, it does not seem to cause people to act unnaturally. At least, not any more so than with another lens on my 5DIII.

So, for those of you that have followed my upgrade path. I had no luck with the 24-70 II. I continue to read about issues so I am going to hold off on that lens for awhile longer. I flirted with a sale on the 500 mm f/4. But that flirtation ended after adding up everything I would want to go along with it and checking that amount against my budget

So, I've turned my attention to enhancing my kit with a dedicated "landscape" lens. I thought that would be easy. First complication I ran into: the 24-105, which I own, is already Bryan's #1 rated landscape lens. And looking at different charts, I can see why. It isn't the "best" but it is consistently good from f/5.6 to f/11 over a wide focal range. So I started thinking about types of shots that I currently can not make and came up with three categories that, of course, would result in 2-3 different lenses: 1) Tilt Shift (TSE 24 f/3.5 II). In addition to being perhaps the sharpest wide angle lens corner to corner, I've been very interested in correcting for perspective distortion in a variety of my shots, and experimenting with different focal plans. 2) A fast prime a little for a little thinner DoF and low light shooting but primarily for nightscapes/milky way shots (Canon 24 f/1.4, Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 or 25 mm f/2); and 3) a UWA lens (Canon 16-35 or 17-40). While 24 mm is typically wide enough for me, it occasionally isn't and I have recently booked a trip that includes half a day touring slot canyons in Arizona, where it will be needed (or course, I could rent for this one trip).

To complete my kit, I have started leaning toward the EF 16-35 II. Potentially, it could be used for both UWA and nightscape shots. But, I have rarely seen such divergent analysis results from review sites for any lens and you don't have to search too far to find a number of people spending a lot of time complaining about it's soft edges, coma, and general lack of sharpness. It is almost as disparaged as the 24-105....

So, my question to those of you that have the EF 16-35 II....is it really that bad? Or is it actually a really good UWA zoom and at least a pretty good lens for nightscapes/milky way shots?

Thanks in advance.....