16-35mm or 17-35mm 2.8 for travel?

[Janmc]

I'm having a tough time deciding on which of these two to obtain for a full frame body for travel. Both for outdoors, but also interiors.
Can anyone speak to why they would/did choose one over the other and any advantages/disadvantages I should think about?

 

[Patrice]

By all accounts both are pretty decent lenses. How often will you be using the shallow depth of field available with /2.8? What could you do with an extra $500?

 

[Derrel]

I am strongly considering the brand-new 18-35mm f/3.5~4.5 AF-S, which is now available at walk-in retail in my area for $729. Allegedly sharper than the old 17-35/2.8 (an most assuredly MUCH newer!), and apparently, about on par with the 16-35 f/4 VR. For me, the range of 24,28,35 "is" the wide-angle range I wish to work in on FX. Adding 20mm and 18mm is just a bonus.

 

[KmH]

When I traveled, I usually carried 4 lenses:
AF-S 12/24 mm f/4G
AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4D
AF 50 mm f/1.8D
AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D

 

[Janmc]

KmH a 12-24mm? This isn't for FX is it?

I will most likely rent the lens (whichever I choose). Probably not ready to buy yet. So was wondering if the 17-35 will be better for indoors. Other than that, of course will not use the shallow field for this.
Is the 16-35 supposed to be sharper?

Should I just rent a wide prime?