Canon 16-35 II vs. EF 17-40 f/4

My Canon 16-35 f/2.8 II met a sudden & violent death when it hit the hard ice yesterday as I came down with it. I'm needing to replace it & was wondering about it vs. the Canon 17-40 f/4 - in reading the reviews they both seem to have about the same sharpness, but I wanted to hear from any of you in the field that have experienced both. I like the price and weight of the 17-40 better but will not sacrifice sharpness for the other two considerations.

If it makes a diffference, I'm shooting on a full-frame 5D Mark II camera.

You might read the following review in the process of making a decision.

Canon’s 16-35mm f2.8L II - Is it worth the money? http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0508/dw0508-1.html

My 17-40mm was a joy on my 5D. Then I got the 5D2 and was quite disappointed in the 17-40mm... The image quality just seemed "out of breath" on the 21mp sensor. I tried to work with it but it just couldn't keep up, image quality continued to disappoint. I had Canon service and tweak it and it got even sharper, but tone was lacking. With sadness I posted my wide angle friend on Amazon and it sold in hours for nearly $700. Theni had to wait for a month for Amazon to get the16-35mm instock, and it finally arrived last May. I mounted this thing on my 5D2 and started capturing sunrises and my cat whoikes to walk up and taste the lens. ANYWAY, the brighter viewfinder was a joy, but when I got my images up in CS4, I was truly stunned a the image quality... Contrast and tone abounded! And I could wail on that 21mp image with edits and sharpness and it woud laugh at me. The difference is huge, worth the purchase price to me ( now that it's finally paid for, lol!