Which lens upgrade first?

I figured I would throw this out here to get some real world feedback.
For sometime now I have been looking to upgrade my 17-40 f/4 L to the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Improved sharpness and Image Stabilization, what's not to like...
Also looking to upgrade my old trusty 24-105 f/4 L IS to the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II as I have a wedding late gig late in September. For most weddings as off late, I have been renting the Mark II.
Even the 24-70 f/4 L IS is an option with addition of IS and improved wide angle distortion compared to the 24-105
However an impromptu trip to Rome is in the cards in the next few weeks.
So the real question is which to buy before Rome.
16-35 f/4 L IS with supposed increase in sharpness and color as well as slightly wider on the shorter end compared to the 17-40 or the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II.
Or for about the price of the 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II, I could add the 24-70 f/4 L IS to the 16-35 f/4 L IS
As I travel heavy photographically speaking, these two lens options will accompany my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II as well.
When in Rome?.......

Nick5 wrote in post #17669386
I figured I would throw this out here to get some real world feedback.
For sometime now I have been looking to upgrade my 17-40 f/4 L to the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Improved sharpness and Image Stabilization, what's not to like...
Also looking to upgrade my old trusty 24-105 f/4 L IS to the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II as I have a wedding late gig late in September. For most weddings as off late, I have been renting the Mark II.
Even the 24-70 f/4 L IS is an option with addition of IS and improved wide angle distortion compared to the 24-105
However an impromptu trip to Rome is in the cards in the next few weeks.
So the real question is which to buy before Rome.
16-35 f/4 L IS with supposed increase in sharpness and color as well as slightly wider on the shorter end compared to the 17-40 or the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II.
Or for about the price of the 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II, I could add the 24-70 f/4 L IS to the 16-35 f/4 L IS
As I travel heavy photographically speaking, these two lens options will accompany my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II as well.
When in Rome?.......

What to say...

Rome has been photographed before.

Are you going on a photographic mission? If so, buy the 16-35 and take the 5D3. If not, take a point and shoot. It will be hot there, and there are pickpockets around every corner. Travel light, take time to absorb the history. Rome can be hard to enjoy, but give it the chance it deserves.

Traveling heavy for me would mean taking a 270EX II along with my G15. Oh, and spare batteries/chargers for both.

Personally, I'd probably get the 24-70mm 2.8L II first. I use it more then the 16-35mm for dim indoor shots. I need the 2.8 aperture if there are people in my shots. However, the 16-35mm 4L is a great landscape and architectural lens. It does compliment the 24-70 really well (like the fact that with those lenses, I can chose whether to have IS or 2.8 aperture up to 35mm). Come to think of it...if you are going big with the travel gear....why not buy both now on credit (it's easy to spend other people's money) CPW's street prices have gone down with most lenses: the 16-35 is quite cheaper then the 24-70, so there's that factor too.

To Rome I'd take a Fuji X-T1 or X-T10 kit, no question about it. Small, light, awesome glass and image files, fairly inexpensive.

As far as IS on the 16-35, I wouldn't consider it needed unless you're shooting video. 24-70 f2.8 mk II is the cat's meow.

I like the 17-40, but I would get the 16-35F4IS for Rome. The IS will help when you are in very dark places indoors, e.g. The Vatican Museum. The wide view is what you want for the sights in Rome. Wide is more versatile than long in Italy.
I would take at least two lenses on a trip to Rome, since you can never tell when a lens can die on you. I tripped and killed my lens on the next to the last day in Rome, and a friend had the AF die on his zoom in Ireland.
I wouldn't bring a long zoom, but might lug along the 24-105L.

artyH wrote in post #17669690
I like the 17-40, but I would get the 16-35F4IS for Rome. The IS will help when you are in very dark places indoors, e.g. The Vatican Museum. The wide view is what you want for the sights in Rome. Wide is more versatile than long in Italy.
I would take at least two lenses on a trip to Rome, since you can never tell when a lens can die on you. I tripped and killed my lens on the next to the last day in Rome, and a friend had the AF die on his zoom in Ireland.
I wouldn't bring a long zoom, but might lug along the 24-105L.

This. I too had the 17-40, and while it is a strong contender, I picked up the 16-35 f/4, and never looked back. If you're doing Rome, you're going to want something wide enough and sharp enough to appreciate the landscape. You have the 24-105L f/4 which has the IS which may come in handy in the darker places you enter and give you some extra reach as well.

The 17-40 will work in good light, so long as you can keep your shutter speed up, other wise the other option is the 16-35 f4 Lis
Also it will depend on how good of a copy of the 17-40 you have.

24-105 Lis is a great walk around lens, an upgrade to the 24-70 L 2.8 will be adventagous for weddings over the 24-70 f4 Lis imho

A fast single prime in the range from 14- 35 will be your friend in low light area's and narrow streets you encounter in Europe.

Safe and enjoyable travels !!

Hrm,

Hard situation. It really comes down to how wide you want to go. The 24-70 F4L IS is probably one of the better under-rated "travel" and "landscape" lenses since it's wide, sharp, has modern IS, etc, with a great focal range for a good price (I definitely would rather have it over a 24-105 for sure, just for the more modern IS and better optics alone, the difference in focal range to me is insignificant). The 16-35 F4L IS is of course awesome, if you like ultrawide options with wide options.

If I were going to Rome and had the time to shoot it, and not just walk from place to place very fast trying to see as much as possible, I'd probably want the 24-70 F4L IS with some heavy ND filters (10 stoppers for sure) so I could take photos of things without the people. Wide for when you're close. Telephoto to help with things you can't walk closer to. Obviously I'd be wanting a small tripod and intervalometer. But I've never been to Rome, so not sure if this is even possible.

Very best,