14L VS 16-35L on 1d markIII

help me decide for a wide angle for my 1d mark III.

i'll use it especially for landscape and for skiing photography in the mountain in the snow.... and for any situaztionwhere i need a wide angle lens

i already have a 35L that i found superb aspecially for low light shots

help me decide between 14L and 16-35L!

Take a look at the lens comparison http://www.the-digital-picture.com …3&SampleComp=0&​Camera=453.

From what I can tell, the 16-35 f/2.8L II looks about as sharp at f/2.8 and 16mm as the 14L. I'd be tempted just to go with the 16-35 II, unless you really want that extra 2mm of width on the 1.3x crop.

Down at the bottom end every mm does count for width. It doesn't seem like much but when your back is against the wall (literally, doing interiors) there are times when 14mm isn't enough (time for the fisheye lens ).

seems like the 17-40 rivals the 16-35 and its cheaper, I'm going with the 17-40 otherwise I'd rather get a TSE.

14 mm is speciality lens, but rather a expensive one.
It's up to you if you want to pay the extra $$$.

i'd be inclined to go for the 16-35mm personally just for the fact it's a zoom. the old i zoom with my feet argument doesn't really add up when your up a mountain and you can't physically walk forward a a few feet to adjust your framing.

The 14L is the better UWA lens. It's very sharp, better in the corners, and has considerably less distortion. However, since the 1D is a crop sensor, it will chop off the outermost corners anyway, and if you'd find a zoom more convenient, then it might be the better choice.