I think the 16-35/2.8L II is the way to go too.I own both the 16-35/2.8L II and 24-70/2.8L, but now I think one of my not exactly necessary investments so far is the 24-70/2.8L - especially if you have the 50/1.4 lens. Between where the 16-35 leaves off and where the 70-200 picks up, all you need really is just a 50/1.4. That sometime may mean more frequent lens changes but considering what it does, it's all the same. Once you upgraded to full frame, a 16mm lens will be a lot more staggering than 24mm at the wide side. Daniel is corrent, on a 1.6x body the 24mm may not be wide enough.


But altimately, I think it will depend on what you shoot the most. If what I do is just portrait with one lens, I'll pick up the 24-70 with my 50D and be happy, but for everything else, I'll use my 16-35.