17-40L, 16-35L, or 24IIL

Need a wide angle for full frame! Mostly for landscapes, cars, and interiors! What's the all around best option in your opinion?

If money is a non-issue. Zeiss 21

I think MF is fine for your intended use.

The 17-40 and 16-35 are very similar optically, so unless you really need the extra stop for interior shots, if you are able to use a tripod for most of your work, I'd go for the 17-40.

The 24L II is great, but it may not be wide enough for your application, and it is significantly more expensive compared to the 17-40.

I'd go with the 17-40 or 16-35, as the 24 might not be wide enough. I've also heard great things about the samyang/rokinon 14mm which can be had for under 400 if you're looking for less expensive options with similar image quality

Secret option 4.... 24tse2 )

If you get the 17-40 instead of the 16-35, you'll have $900 left over to put toward a good tripod, flashes, or a tilt shift lens.

the 17-40 may challenge you with the barreling you get from it in close up shots, like interiors, even in cityscapes can suffer from this. The 24-105L is no where near as bad, but not as wide either. If you are considering 24L save some cash and try the 24-105, it's cheaper than a prime and a great walk around lens on FF. Also there are a lot of 24-105 available used since it's a common kit lens. Save the balance for the 14mmL, not tried it but everything I've read and heard says it's a good choice for interiors

To be honest I am not too happy with my 16-35L. So I would vote for the 24IIL since the Zeiss is not included.

The 17-40 at minimum focus distance will have more distortion than the 24-105 at minimum focus distance, however, the 17-40 has much less distortion than the 24-105 at 24mm.

Ever since I got my 24mm f/1.4L II I haven't really use the 17-40L at all. I keep debating if I want to keep it or sell it. I don't feel that I really have a use for it any more.

I used to have the 17-40, and the main use for it was real estate...
For no real reasons, I switched to a 16-35...

Recently shot a Caribbean villa with it, and for the most part, I don't see any real differences (I had shot the same location 18 months ago, and new renovations/additions prompted a refresh of the shots)

If I could go back a year, I would have stayed with the 17-40... But it's not bugging me enough to want to sell and re-buy...

I had the same question a week ago. Got 16-35ii. Am happy with it indoors mostly but would need also a faster prime.

I personally don't think 24mm will be wide enough for some of what you described. If it was, then my suggestion would be the TS-E 24mm. If you have the money there is the TS-E 17mm.

If you need the speed get the 16-35L if not the 17-40L. At the moment I do not need a f/2.8 for that range, so I went for the 17-40L.

The 24LII is no doubts a great lens...
But for landscapes (where your f-stops will most likely be f/8, f/11 ??) get one of the zooms. I've tried 16-35II and 17-40, I found them to be very similar. Given the price difference, I kept the 17-40 which I really like.
For night-city, street photo, or creative photo, it would probably be the 24LII.
If budget is playing role & wanting to cover all styles, I would go (and I currently go) with a combination CANON 17-40 f/4 L + new Sigma 35 f/1.4.

For what you described as what you want to shoot, I think the 17-40L is easily the best choice out of the 3.

However, anybody that is trying to shoot landscape seriously and optical quality is of utmost importance, I strongly recommend taking a look at this guy:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …lt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx