David Arbogast wrote in post #16289455
This is a valid point. It used to be that filters were a no go with the 17mm, but the Fotodiox WonderPana system remedies that. Now we can use CPLs, NDs, and GNDs with the 17mm. But, that system is an added expense compared to the expense of equipping a 24 with filters. That said, for architecture I only like using CPLs (reflection/glare reduction). GNDs, which are often great for landscapes, have limited usability for architecture.
Anyway, good point on the filters Powerslave.
I thought I recalled some new way to hook up the 17mm with filters but knew it wouldn't be cheap. I know because I went through that same path myself.
OP, if you're obsessing over the FOV offered by the 17mm over the 24, let me assure you, it's a non issue in a majority of the cases, unless you know you'll be needing it. I shift stitch all the time and it gives, if I recall correctly 14.8mm and 18mm FOV in portrait and landscape mode respectively.
You can also rotate and stitch along multiple axes for the same shot and get a really mega pixel heavy shot as well.
I thought 24 wouldn't be good enough, but with the stitching, it's a non issue. This stitching, by the way, is VERY good due to the nature of shifting. (Pedants stay away with your parallax math )
I must also mention that even though I do not have any experience with the 24 mark I, I have heard that the tilt and shift cannot be used independent of each other. I absolutely love the combinations the mark II allows. That's a major functional benefit.
Combined with the superior image quality, and all these other points is why I personally chose mark II over mark I. Don't forget, it's not a sunken cost, you will get it back when you sell it. The only thing that pinches is if you can afford to have that much money sitting in a lens.
Either way, I tried to get rid of mine once due to money, but couldn't part with it as soon as offers came in.