16-35 or 17-40 for 5D Mark II?

I guess at $8000 the D3x should best most.


I expect the 1Ds4 is going to be barn busters.

I think that after the PR disaster that was the 1D3 early on they're really gonna have to do something pretty incredible this time around.... I kinda feel like Canon is getting complacent or something, Nikon seems to be innovating left right and center with an awful lot of things (though obviously the 5DMKII is a piece of art itself) and it kinda feels like Canon is losing their edge a bit. Having said that, I doubt that Nikon will be able to release a new flagship before the 2010 olympics (here in Van, yay! Sort of :P) whereas Canon shouldn't have a problem (they just might have a problem making the camera actually work ;) )

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm pretty sure I will get the 16-35 because of the fact that this lens will be only lens (16-35 or 17-40) under 50mm I need and I'm going to buy and I really don't want that F4 is the best I can shoot under 50mm. And like I said, I would never buy prime that is F4 and if I want to buy 3 primes in that same range, those would cost almost the same as 16-35 and wouldn't be any faster and wouldnt have L lens quality.