Why 16-35 II? why not 17-40mm if you plan to do landscape from f8 - f11. I'm not happy with my 16-35 II - this is not a WOW lens from Canon.
I initially wanted to go for the 17-40, but the vignetting seemed quite a lot on a FF camera compared to the 16-35 II. Curious, how come you are not happy with your 16-35 II ? Also, I was looking at my catalog in LR, and most of my wide shots are shot at the widest focal length I had in my bag (Tokina 11-16mm). I seem to like that extra FOV =/ The sunstars are better in 16-35 II but the flare is better controlled in 17-40. Grr.
Better question, what about the 50f1.8 do you not like? It's not ideal, but if it's the build/sharpness/?? you may want to trade it in on a 40/2.8 "shorty 40".
The build quality is one, but I mainly dont like it's focus hunting problem. It hesitates to lock on instantly like the other lens in the same setting.
Hmmm, wish my wife was into photog so I could justify buying more gear. Second thought, maybe not, then she would know how much I'm spending.
Hehe, I hear ya.
Thanks folks. I will be keeping the 5D3. You are right, I may end up regretting plus may end up loosing more cash in the process if I had tried to sell it off. So the general consensus is the 17-40 it seems. Think its a good idea to rent both of these and see which one I like better? The only thing confusing me is how much field of view am I losing with the 17mm over the 16mm. Is it significant?