Help an indecisive lens buyer - wide angle cityscape

Short version: (camera is 5d2)

Should I upgrade to the 16-35 f/2.8?

Long version. My photography isn't developing the way I want but not in a bad direction either. I just don't have time to arrange people shoots (payed or not) but at least I get to travel more. I think I'll have to re-trait my lens lineup to allow for better cityscaping and other walk around photography. I also like transportation, especially trains.

So here's my lineup that I pick from for travels:

• 17-40L or 28-70 f/2.8 zoom
  
• 28 + 50mm + 85mm light/cheap Canon primes (hate the 50 and the 28 is too wide)
  
• 70-200mm f/2.8 IS2 (newly acquired, no idea how it works out) or 200mm prime, or I can take the 135L with both 1.4 and 2.x extenders
  
• 45mm TS-E
  

• wider TS-E, obviously getting a 24mm Mk1 would be nice.
  
• upgrade the wide angle to the 16-35mm f/2.8. I used to love the 17-40 but that was on crop. It's not that hot on FF.
  
• get a better 50mm, probably one of the Zeiss (not in the mood to take prisoners, wtf is it with all the 50mm klurk lenses?).
  

• On the 50mm side I might want to be patient and wait for a better Canon or Sigma f/1.4 to show up. I don't think that manual focus is that great for what I do.
  
• TS-E 24mm is awesome but there's a bit of a question whether it is worth the bag space given that it contributes nothing to low light capabilities but still is a prime. Also, the 45mm TS-E has been useful for individual buildings. Obviously I wouldn't take both so what do I do if 24mm is too wide?
  
• I will have to admit that my desire for a 16-35mm has been greatly fueled by recent news articles about what reporters are using - the 16-35 is very prominent there. Plus it is available in the refurb store which I like.
  
• I never wanted any of the heavy f/2.8 zooms but as you can see I already broken down on medium and long range.
  
• I'd buy one of the 50mm Zeiss in a heartbeat if they would offer me a silver one. Yes I'm weird that way. Maybe I should get an old one with an adapter.
  

uOpt wrote in post #15749423

upgrade the wide angle to the 16-35mm f/2.8. I used to love the 17-40 but that was on crop. It's not that hot on FF.

If you're not that happy with he 17-40 I don't think the 16-35 going to offer much more..

They are almost the same FOV, and IQ between them is super close. The 17-40 looses out at not being f2.8 but wins being much lighter. And generally, if you want landscapes f2.8 is not going to be that helpfull in the long run, especially if you use a tripod.

That said - I appreciate exactly what your saying about the 17-40 - I really feel its one of canons weaker L lenses as far as IQ goes, I with canon would upgrade it.

The thing about the 17-40 is that I am unsure whether the heavy perspective distortions at the wide end are all natural or whether the lens plays a role.

But weight is a serious issue. I will take the 70-200 IS2 and one TS-E lens, plus the regular stuff. Maybe I should kiss up with the 17-40 and see what is available for perspective correction in rawtherapee.

The 16-35l II is a better lens and with today's sensors you seldom need more speed for a walk around. When you read opinions about the 16-35L II make sure the person has experience with the lens. For some reason this lens has a lot of critics who have never used it.

ed rader wrote in post #15749827
The 16-35l II is a better lens and with today's sensors you seldom need more speed for a walk around. When you read opinions about the 16-35L II make sure the person has experience with the lens. For some reason this lens has a lot of critics who have never used it.

I couldn't agree more! My 16-35L has been amazing so far. And I noticed the same thing: folks that have never used it criticize it. I suspect that's because they are having a hard time justifying the cost when it sounds like the 17-40L is "almost" as good, or at least, they perceive it to be almost as good since all they see on paper is a one stop difference.

Sure, most landscape photographers don't (usually) need the extra stop of light, but that extra stop of light makes a huge difference when shooting stars at night and it makes a huge difference if you're a wedding or event photographer.

Just like all of the other zooms, there is a huge increase in price when you go from f4 to f2.8. It's no different here. The problem (and resulting criticism) lies in the fact that there's a larger percentage of photographers that do not need f2.8 in a wide-angle lens then those that do. Therefore, you will see more negative opinions on this lens since the masses can't seem to justify the price since it doesn't fit their needs.

Bryan

bps wrote in post #15749859
I couldn't agree more! My 16-35L has been amazing so far. And I noticed the same thing: folks that have never used it criticize it. I suspect that's because they are having a hard time justifying the cost when it sounds like the 17-40L is "almost" as good, or at least, they perceive it to be almost as good since all they see on paper is a one stop difference.

Sure, most landscape photographers don't (usually) need the extra stop of light, but that extra stop of light makes a huge difference when shooting stars at night and it makes a huge difference if you're a wedding or event photographer.

Just like all of the other zooms, there is a huge increase in price when you go from f4 to f2.8. It's no different here. The problem (and resulting criticism) lies in the fact that there's a larger percentage of photographers that do not need f2.8 in a wide-angle lens then those that do. Therefore, you will see more negative opinions on this lens since the masses can't seem to justify the price since it doesn't fit their needs.

Bryan

Agree with all of this.

I love the 16-35 and have used it for landscape and wedding shots.

For travel I took the 5D2 , 7D, 16-35, 70-200 2.8 (took also the 24-105 but found I hardly used it)

the next time , lens wise , I just took: 16-35 and 28-300 , swapping between cameras when necessary.

May try and get by without one camera next time -

The best cityscape lens I own. I really like this lens, it s my "go to" lens!!

I agree. I sold mine in order to fund the 24-70II. Well, I could not live without it any longer. Just pulled the trigger on the 16-35II. It will be here Wednesday.