I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...
It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is. I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness. The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better. The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either.
Whilst an ultra-wide angle lens such as a 14-24 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/) may solve some problems, below about 17 or 19 is just too wide. And then there are the issues with filters because of the curvature of the front lens element (i.e. I wouldn't buy the Nikon 14-24 either.)QuoteI agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon. In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything. Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm.
At least the Sigma 50/1.4 offers some salvation in terms of IQ.
For Canon wide angle (less than 24mm), there is nothing.
17mm f4L TS, 14mm 2.8L II and the 8-15 f4L.
And which of those can you easily mount filters on the front of?