I received the camera from B&H yesterday, everything is as advertised. I tested my 17-35, 55 micro, 105 f/2.5, and my 200 mm Q C. I photographed my living room as it is too cold and wet to go outside. The 200 is sharp at f/5.6, f/8, f/11 and f/16. I strained at 100% to see if maybe diffraction was setting in at f/16, it doesn't look like it, but I will have to test this a bit more. I didn't test the 300mm f/4, I'm not expecting any issues with it. The 55mm and the 105mm were as expected sharp at f/5.6, but then I would have been flabbergasted if they were not. The 17-35 was my main concern. I tested it at f/5.6 at 17mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm. I didn't re-focus and the plane of focus seemed to remain the same. What surprised me was the plane of focus really, really matters. (Duh, and I call myself a professional.) It always seemed that close enough at f/5.6 was fine with the ultra wide, and now it seems that it matters more. Though it could be too many things that I was testing for and too short of a test. The extreme, extreme corners are a bit soft as they always have been. But I tried focusing just in the corners using live view, and the results were surprising, it isn't tack sharp but it is much better. Of course when the corners are in focus nothing much else is. But it leads me to one conclusion about the 17-35. I realize that a curved field lend acts differently than a flat field, in the old days we used to have rules of thumb about what lenses were best for what subject. But as a practical matter, I tend to not place any importance on the extreme, extreme corners, and the darn lenslooks good so far. I am hoping in the very near future when it is a bit dryer to take it outside and give it a better test than in my living room. But the more that I have used this lens with the d700 I am rather impressed with it. I am looking forward to seeing what it will do with the new camera. Have a happy and safe new year. Joe