Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?
Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:
1. 12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L
2. 16-35 f/4L IS (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3. 16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)
I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS. But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love). The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.
I think the 17-40L will stay, and so will the 16-35 II. The 12/4-24 and 16-35 will be additions.
with the 17-40 and the 24-105 sticking around, canon doesn't have to create any cheap consumer lenses for full frame for now.
They won't disappear immediately, but I can't see either the 17-40 or the 24-105 sticking around too much longer. I have a 24-105, but if I was buying today, I'd get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the 24-105. The new lenses are much better, why not pay a few extra $
Think 70-200 non-IS vs IS. Many might not NEED the improved IQ or IS, and the price point is important. I do see the 17-40L getting a bit cheaper, btw.