Building my unholy tinity... Which one next?

You answered your own question by discussing your passion for UWA lenses. Get the wide first. It looks like a great lens.

if you have your passion - then follow it. 16-35 f4IS for sure.
the kids can still fit in the "wide angle"
and the expanses can fit into the 135
but if you have a passion - even if your time for it is limited...you'll find some time somewhere to "steal"

Charlie wrote in post #17034144
??? Is there a rule that since kids dont sit still that the photographer should sit still and zoom in zoom out?

There's no general rule that says an ultrawide is better at capturing kids, especially at the park. If anything, you'll be chasing your kids around more often because of 35mm being the widest. If you're kids are small, then a 16-35 will work better since you HAVE to be close to them, but toddler age and up, they roam on their own. You just sit back and snap from a distance.

A normal zoom is easiest to capture kids, but not everyone is interested in the look of a normal zoom. A super zoom would be even easier to capture at the park, like a 28-200/300mm...

I find using wide lens is harder for my kids outside. They don't sit still and if I chase them around with a wide angle lens,they freeze up. They are never themselves with a camera in their face. If I sit back from a distance with a longer lens, I get better pictures of them being them.

Hike. Several months ago I was looking to create my Greek Trilogy.
Having both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS (yes still have both) along with the 24-105 f/4 L IS, I was looking to add a Wide Angle for my recently delivered 5D Mark III. The choices then were the 17-40 F/4 L and the 16-35 f/2.8 L. I chose the 17-40, completing my Greek Trilogy...f/4.
Having just tried the new 16-35 f/4 L IS at a local shop, I know my decision would have been different.

Do the 16-35 and then a 70-200. I think life will then be good.

Based on what I shoot and own I would get the Rokinon 14 and the Canon 100f2.

The 14 will satisfy your wide angle needs and the 100 does a great job for head and shoulders headshots, decent bokeh also.

There would be a hole for a 24 or 28 at this point.

If UWA is your passion, then the 16-35.
You mention the 135 for things like kids in the park. For snapshot type pics, where you're not going to make huge enlargements, you can always crop the 50.
On the other hand, there's no way after the fact to add the bits that a 16 could capture that a 50mm won't.

CaliWalkabout wrote in post #17034629
You answered your own question by discussing your passion for UWA lenses. Get the wide first. It looks like a great lens.

+ 1

As the originator of the unholy trinity signature, and also a wide angle lover, I will propose another inexpensive option.

My unholy trinity is a 24Lii, Sigma 50art, and of course the 135.

I just added to this. I was going to get the new 16-35, but was really only looking to use it at 16 or so, I didn't want the rokibowyang 14 because of the distortion and I shoot interiors, and 2 grand for the canon 14 is a kick in the sack. I wound up getting a like new sigma 14 2.8 on ebay for $400, and so far I think I am super happy, but have not used it hard yet. Now you mentioned filters and that would make this a dealbreaker, but man, I don't know why this lens is not brought up more as an awesome used option. I did alot of research before getting it. It could be sharper wide open, and it has that old sigma EX yellowish color cast, but those minor issues aside, it is like a 14L on the cheap. Handles distortion like a champ, colors are nice, sharp enough etc.

I'm pretty sure I've made up my mind about getting the 16-35/4. It fills the bigger gap for me and my needs.

The 50 is definitely my general purpose lens. While I'd like the 135/2, and I will probably acquire it in the future, the 50 serves my needs well currently.

I know I need the UWA. So it's a no brainer after thinking out loud here about it. Plus it'll give me time to ponder telephoto options in the future.

My biggest aversion to the 70-200 zooms is the size and weight. The f/4 varieties aren't bad in that dept. but I have trouble getting excited over f/4 glass. Of course it's a moot point with the UWA as I'll be shooting f/8 and smaller almost exclusively.

Thanks all for the thoughts.

@Nick3434, kudos on coining on the phrase!

Charlie wrote in post #17034144
??? Is there a rule that since kids dont sit still that the photographer should sit still and zoom in zoom out?

Ahem, "at the park" you might want to sit still to avoid running into other people's kids while you're concentrating on what's in your viewfinder. Depending on how many kids are running around and how young they are this might just qualify as a "rule".

melauer wrote in post #17036620
Ahem, "at the park" you might want to sit still to avoid running into other people's kids while you're concentrating on what's in your viewfinder. Depending on how many kids are running around and how young they are this might just qualify as a "rule".

I shot my friend's kids playing on a playground as part of a portrait session I did for her using my Rokinon 85mm... pretty sure if I could handle it with an MF 85mm it can be done with the 135L too

I would get the UWA as that is what I am currently lacking.

For consideration, the 100L makes and excellent portrait lens, although it is not as fast as the 135L
The bokeh and blur of the 50L at f1.2 and the 100L at f2.8 are almost identical.

Personally I love my 50L wide open and would NOT trade my 100L for the 135L
even after comparing both gallery threads. The 135L adds weight and a narrower view.
I much prefer the added option of macro and IS.
I have posted many none 1:1 macro examples of the bokeh in the 100L thread.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #17036837
I would get the UWA as that is what I am currently lacking.

For consideration, the 100L makes and excellent portrait lens, although it is not as fast as the 135L
The bokeh and blur of the 50L at f1.2 and the 100L at f2.8 are almost identical.

Personally I love my 50L wide open and would NOT trade my 100L for the 135L
even after comparing both gallery threads. The 135L adds weight and a narrower view.
I much prefer the added option of macro and IS.
I have posted many none 1:1 macro examples of the bokeh in the 100L thread.

So you're living proof that the 100L is the gateway drug to the 135L is only conjecture?

If anything, I am very glad I started this thread. It's talked some sense into me. Beyond 50mm, I don't know what the heck I need. I thought I knew what I wanted...

I am definitely going to go for the 16-35/4, and I'm super stoked about it. Now the question is to wait or not wait for a sale/rebate...

^ My unholy trinity is perfection for my needs.
I have wide, standard and portrait / macro covered in just three fast primes.
While I lack both UWA and a lens longer than 100mm, I have no gear lust or envy.

I think 35mm, 85mm and 135mm complement each other very well
As do my 24mm, 50mm and 100mm lenses
While both sets could benefit from an UWA lens.