Would upgrade from 10-22 to 16-35 worth it?

For landscapes, the Canon EF-S 10-22 is my Go-To.

I'm starting to shoot FF more and more but 24-105 is my widest EF. I'm thinking the 16-35, 16-35ii, or 17-40 might be a nice alternative.

Since I use 10mm (16mm EF equiv) almost exclusively, 17-40 might be a step down.

Is the 16-35ii really that amazing?

You are correct. The 16-35mm is the exact same FOV as your 10-22mm. It is actually better at a fixed focal rate of 2.8 when needed.
It will auto focus accurately in marginally lower light than your current 3.5-5.6 lens.
I recently got a 6D but my 24L is wide enough for now. ( I keep telling myself )
Hope you enjoy it!

I've no been that impressed with the 16-35, not usable at 2.8 for landscapes, good flare and sunstars though.

RobDickinson wrote in post #16620214
I've no been that impressed with the 16-35, not usable at 2.8 for landscapes, good flare and sunstars though.

I have not used it, but since getting my 6D I am tempted. I have heard that distortion is controllable with Lightroom.
I always post process all my photos. I agree, I would not use 2.8 for landscape. I would use it at 24-35mm just fine.
Having a 24-35mm 2.8 zoom sounds like a selling point in itself for a full frame camera. And the widest angle of 16-23mm is a huge bonus.

NBEast wrote in post #16619929
For landscapes, the Canon EF-S 10-22 is my Go-To.

I'm starting to shoot FF more and more but 24-105 is my widest EF. I'm thinking the 16-35, 16-35ii, or 17-40 might be a nice alternative.

Since I use 10mm (16mm EF equiv) almost exclusively, 17-40 might be a step down.

Is the 16-35ii really that amazing?

Since you shoot landscapes, you will be stopping down the lens most of the time, so the image quality between the 17-40L and 16-35L will be about the same. All you are getting for over twice the price is a 1mm wider lens, which is not huge. Also, the 17-40L shares the same filter size with your 24-105L, which can be useful. Finally, I see you mentioned that having a 24-36mm f/2.8 may be useful for things other than ultra-wide angle. You could buy the very inexpensive 40mm f/2.8 pancake along with the 17-40L, and still have a lot of extra money left over versus buying the 16-35L.

I went from a EFS 10-22 on a 7D to a 17-40L on a 5D3, and the slightly narrower field of view has not been an issue for me. I get better results with the 17-40L + 5D3 combo, which I mostly attribute to the better sensor of the camera, and not the lens.

Scott M wrote in post #16620752
Since you shoot landscapes, you will be stopping down the lens most of the time, so the image quality between the 17-40L and 16-35L will be about the same. All you are getting for over twice the price is a 1mm wider lens, which is not huge. Also, the 17-40L shares the same filter size with your 24-105L, which can be useful. Finally, I see you mentioned that having a 24-36mm f/2.8 may be useful for things other than ultra-wide angle. You could buy the very inexpensive 40mm f/2.8 pancake along with the 17-40L, and still have a lot of extra money left over versus buying the 16-35L.

I went from a EFS 10-22 on a 7D to a 17-40L on a 5D3, and the slightly narrower field of view has not been an issue for me. I get better results with the 17-40L + 5D3 combo, which I mostly attribute to the better sensor of the camera, and not the lens.

This, if landscapes are what you are mainly going to use it for.

If you want to also use it for night sky and events (or the similar), you would find the extra stop very useful. Oh, I forgot and have the money and justification for the 16-35L II. That also means more money for filters (if you use them) as it takes 82mm, which is bigger than your other lenses.

Is the 16-35L II that amazing? IMO it is a better in the corners than 17-40L wide open. Stop them down and I think they equal out to real close (possibly the 17-40 a little better). What is amazing is the 16-35L is an f/2.8. Yet that is not really all a big plus for daytime scape photography.

That said - I'd rather have the 16-35L II, but I currently can't justify it.

Since adding a 5D Mark III, I too was looking to add a Wide Angle lens that was void on my full frame body. Using the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 was a treat on the 7D. While I did not use this a ton, it was a necessity in my tool kit. Images were sharp and clean.
On the full frame 5D Mark III I had two serious choices, both Canon L's. The 16-35 f/2.8 L or the 17-40 f/4 L ?
My local Camera Shop had both in stock so we could do a compare and contrast. Looking at images of the same on both options made the decision really tough. 99% of the time I would go for the 2.8 option. However the additional stop at twice price, and not the twice as nice image quality, I decided to buy right then and there the 17-40 f/4 L. That really says a lot about both lenses as I tend to be a "2.8 Snob" like Syl Arena has coined. The substantial 800 buck difference was a huge consideration as this large chunk can be applied elsewhere ( 24-70 f/4 L IS or the 24-70 f/2.8 L NO IS.....) .
Down the road, if I find the need to upgrade or add the f/2.8 I can. In the meantime I know this lens is going to be comparable to range in focal distance and aperture to what I had previously, which was pretty damn good if you ask me.

jimewall wrote in post #16620863
This, if landscapes are what you are mainly going to use it for.

If you want to also use it for night sky and events (or the similar), you would find the extra stop very useful. Oh, I forgot and have the money and justification for the 16-35L II. That also means more money for filters (if you use them) as it takes 82mm, which is bigger than your other lenses.

Is the 16-35L II that amazing? IMO it is a better in the corners than 17-40L wide open. Stop them down and I think they equal out to real close (possibly the 17-40 a little better). What is amazing is the 16-35L is an f/2.8. Yet that is not really all a big plus for daytime scape photography.

That said - I'd rather have the 16-35L II, but I currently can't justify it.

Since lenses hold resale value so well, I don't view the entire price as expense. More of an investment plus a cheap rental expense. If I spend $1050 for a used 16-35ii, I don't think it'll be worth less than $800 for many years. If I spend $550 for a 17-40 then spend that extra on consumables or small items easy to loose then it's actually more expensive over the long haul.

That said; it's still money from my pocket now. If I skip on the extra expenses, then the "cheap rental" depreciation over several years will be less on the 17-40.

Yes, mostly landscape. Even at night I'd stop it down a bit - I'd never consider doing nighttime landscape without a tripod. That UWA look has a "wow factor" for me, but maybe 17mm will be close enough.

I've used my 35mm for people photography a lot but I'd hesitate to go any wider except when space forces it or for a perspective bending UWA look. Maybe a high quality f2.8 UWA would spur me to go after that look more often.

NBEast wrote in post #16621007
Since lenses hold resale value so well, I don't view the entire price as expense. More of an investment plus a cheap rental expense. If I spend $1050 for a used 16-35ii, I don't think it'll be worth less than $800 for many years. If I spend $550 for a 17-40 then spend that extra on consumables or small items easy to loose then it's actually more expensive over the long haul.

That said; it's still money from my pocket now. If I skip on the extra expenses, then the "cheap rental" depreciation over several years will be less on the 17-40.

I'm not sure how it makes it more expensive over the long hall? But I compare lens to lens - not lens to lens plus ancillaries.

The "cheap rental" could be more or could be less. It actually depends on how much you buy the lens for and then sell it for.

NBEast wrote in post #16621007
Yes, mostly landscape. Even at night I'd stop it down a bit - I'd never consider doing nighttime landscape without a tripod. That UWA look has a "wow factor" for me, but maybe 17mm will be close enough.

That is my point about landscapes, you will almost always likely stop down. That is why I said that f/2.8 is not all that of a plus over the f/4. The one benefit though if/when shooting in lower light is the viewfinder is brighter on the f/2.8 than the f/4.0, and that can help.

NBEast wrote in post #16621007
I've used my 35mm for people photography a lot but I'd hesitate to go any wider except when space forces it or for a perspective bending UWA look. Maybe a high quality f2.8 UWA would spur me to go after that look more often.

I only shoot UWA sometimes, and when I do it is typically for the scapes. Your statement here is why I would have liked to have gone with the f/2.8. Since I don't shoot it often enough (plus got a fantastic deal on the 17-40L) is why I can't justify the 16-35L.

I have been considering selling the 17-40L and my 28mm f/1.8 and then ponying up the extra cash for the 16-35L II. It is just hard to justify since my UWA lenses are by a good margin my least used range.

In my previous post, I was just giving thoughts of the 16-35L II to the 17-40L. If you are sure the extra stop is not going to make a difference to you get the 17-40L. If you think at times the f/2.8 will come in handy, then the 16-35L.

Again I'd like to have the 16-35, I'm just not sure I need to spend the cash for the few times I'd need f/2.8 on a range I currently use the least. As you said though, I might use it more if I had the f/2.8.

Thanks for the great advice all. I may have averted an unsuccessful switch.

jimewall: I'm saying it's more expensive if you treat "the money you save you can buy ..." then it's not the same as investing the entire amount into a lens you can sell for marginal depreciation years later. Unless I put that money towards a different lens I'm not getting due to budget, but for now I'm just looking to move to FF for landscape.

Nick5: When I've brought the 10-22 (16-35 equiv) to a people event I've never been happy about it, and it wasn't because it didn't have f2.8. It's just not long enough for the shots I like getting. Ergo; it would strictly be for landscape. It sounds like the 17-40 would do as well.

If the 16-35ii were significantly superior to the 17-40 for landscape (ie: less distortion, better color, more contrasty, etc), then the choice would be clear.

Scott M: Another vote for 17-40. Thanks. I doubt I'd use a 40mm pancake. I have a lot of lenses that are largely unused, and I have 40mm covered a few different ways. Although; I'll probably sell my 35L to cover part of this - it's seen daylight about 3 times in the last 3 years.