16-35mm f/4L IS vs. TS-E 17mm f/4L

[ahab1372]

Not that I have used any of these lenses, but I'll try
TS-E is heavier
Using filters is more difficult (and slower to set up?)
16-35 is better for walk around and opportunistic shots while the lens is already on the camera (even if that is only 15% of your shots - that's still some shots)
You already have a TS-E - would the 17mm open up that many more opportunities?

[neuroanatomist]

Using filters is more difficult (and slower to set up?)

Great point, and the filter issue was a big negative in the past since there was really no way to put one on the TS-E 17, and I frequently use a 10-stop ND on my TS-E 24 as a 'people eraser'. But now there's the Wonderpana system, which mounts directly to the bayonet for the TS-E 17's lens cap. At $500 for the mount and 145mm 10-stop ND, it's not cheap...but it's at least possible, and seems not too difficult.

16-35 is better for walk around and opportunistic shots while the lens is already on the camera (even if that is only 15% of your shots - that's still some shots)

To clarify, 15% of my shots with the 16-35/2.8 were at apertures wider than f/4. Actually only a small percent of my overall shooting (maybe ~2%) has been with the 16-35/2.8. Definitely a niche lens for me, but sometimes you really need a UWA.

You already have a TS-E - would the 17mm open up that many more opportunities?

Perhaps. The 24mm lens is wonderful, but I find it's often not wide enough for urban architecture, where there's often no room to back up.

Thanks!