Why are you not using the 17-85? If it's because of image quality issues, then I can understand, but otherwise, what would you gain by buying the 16-35/2.8L II?


Second, if you are planning on going to 35mm, then why are you contemplating buying an EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 lens for $700?


Honestly, I've never understood how some people don't know what lenses they want to get next. Every lens I've bought I knew exactly which one I needed. I go out and shoot, find out "hey I'm not long enough or wide enough" or I might think "I can't shoot shallower DOF" or "I can't focus close enough" or "I need sharper glass." I study how I take pictures. I look at my EXIF data and evaluate how the image turned out relative to how I wanted it to look. Given all this the decision becomes self-evident. This is why I am perplexed that you want to buy a lens in a focal length range that you already have, yet you do not use, and yet are unable to evaluate your needs. You practically have all the data in front of you. I didn't need a 200mm lens to play with to know I needed the 70-200/2.8L IS. But if you shoot with the 17-85 you should be able to extrapolate your experience with that lens to determine whether you should buy an EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 or an EF 16-35/2.8L, or a 24-70/2.8L. They are all very, very different lenses, though each is quite sharp and a good overall performer in its class. But for all you know, you may want a prime lens--after all, the 24/1.4L II is sharper than any of the above--but who knows? I can't tell you that, only doing your own shooting and evaluation can you make that decision.


It strikes me, then, that you want to buy the L glass just because you want the red ring...you are infatuated with getting the best possible quality but you're not quite sure how you'd use it. That's entirely human, and I'm really not trying to scold you. But do yourself a favor and do your homework before splashing out on expensive optics that you might not even use.