16-25 f/2.8 ii for Street Photography?

Stopped-down on the UW side, I imagine this lens isn't considerably better than the 17-40 f/4. But for street photography, specifically at 35mm and/or wide-open at f/2.8, is it a decent performer? Does it have that creamy-bokehlicious blurred background I would expect from a lens with a constant f/2.8? Is it sharp wide-open? For me and my style, this would make a great "walk around the city" and "take to dinner" lens given the focal length & f/2.8, but is it any good for this type of photography? If not, I'll save the $dough$ and go with the 17-40 f/4.

Please anyone who has this lens give me a little insight. I've of course read all the reviews online, and seen the boring lab charts. I've seen lots of UW sample images, how about some street photog examples...

I've owned the 17-40 and the 16-35. I upgraded from the 17-40 to the 16-35II based on style...needed a lens with a POV greater than 90 degrees, with sharper edges and a wider aperture. I liked the 17-40mm for what it can do.

I have to say for street, I used my primes more: 24mm @ 2.8, 35mm f2 @ 2, or 50mm @ 1.4.

I'd suggest this $50 experiment: buy a used 17-40mm and a 35mm f2 here on POTN. Use them both for six weeks or so, depending on how often you shoot. Then decide what you want.

Buy your desired kit and sell the 17-40 and 35mm for what you paid (minus $50 in fees and shipping).

I do this all the time and have gained extensive personal experience with a range of lenses as a result and can describe why I selected or didn't selected lenses for my kit (at the cost of a few hundred buck).

I had the 16-35LII for my first UWA after seeing shots of scenery and landscape from a motorcycle buddy of mine I had to have it. I brought it on a trip to Asia and had many great shots with it. Then I came back to NYC and thought I could use it as my walk around lens. I was wrong. I rarely used the wider end simply because it distorted buildings, sculptures, and I had to get up close real close to people. On the 35mm end (one of my favorite FL) the 2.8 was sharp in the center but it does get a bit softer towards the edge. The bokeh isnt the best out there and when it came to night time I had to bump the ISO up to about 600-1000 to get good shutter walking around.

Now for street I use the Sigma 35, and the Canon 1.4

35mm @ f2.8 doesn't give you creamy bokeh that's for sure. And if you are planning to use it at night or low light, f2.8 is simply too slow.

Get a 35L or Sigma 35 instead.

Anything will work for street - it depends on your style - so try it and see if it suits you...

Having re-read your post, I would opt for the 28f/1.8 (assuming you're on FF). It's small, fast to focus and good in low light.