Canon wide angle options- Which would you pick?

   First I'll share the somewhat interesting needs I hope to fill with just one lens. I am a wildlife and landscape painter, and my current photography setup is a 7D MarkII and the Canon 100-400 L II- obviously this is great for shooting animals, but the next need I have is a good landscape lens to take reference shots for paintings. I don't need ultra wide angle necessarily, just a good performer overall.
   The second need I have is a lens to photograph my paintings. I create fine art prints from these photos, so this is where I need a lens that will be sharp from edge to edge, and have minimal distortion and vignetting. I can fix some issues during editing, but the better the lens' performance the more time it will save me. 
   I am hoping to find a lens that can fill both of these needs. I definitely appreciate weather sealing, but that isn't a deal breaker. I also occasionally shoot video or low light, so IS would also be useful but not a deal breaker. I've researched and come up with the following. Which would you pick?
Are there others I haven't listed that you would recommend more?

Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM- looks to have pretty good optics, but some say it's overpriced
Canon EF-s 24mm f/2.8 STM- inexpensive and made for APS-C. Optics okay but lacks some features
Canon 17-40mm f/4 L- Good price for L lens- Uses same filter size as my other. I've read some 
                                      mediocre reviews on sharpness which is what I need for art photography
Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM- Not an L lens but supposedly very sharp and good                                                                                     performance for the money
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS- Probably more than I want to spend on this lens, even used, but I read                                                     it's a great lens and would probably fill both needs well
Thank you for your help!

  
    

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS-  or
Canon 17-40mm f/4 L

Your needs could be different.

Thank you for the suggestion Effron

Just so others realize that the 7D MarkII is a crop sensor camera. Knowing this the lens selection my need to be altered because of the crop sensor. At the on set I would have said either the 24mm USM or the 24mm STM but calculating in the crop sensor, the numbers would be incorrect. 

Here's the link I use to calculate these numbers:

mmcalc.com

Either 24mm lens would net 38.88mm at f/4.5 This end total is not ideal for the desired shot. Thou I Like the 24mm because of the crop sensor adjustments, I feel your best lens or lenses would the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM which would actually net you 16mm - 29mm f/5.6

BrokenCanon wrote: Here's the link I use to calculate these numbers:

mmcalc.com

Either 24mm lens would net 38.88mm at f/4.5 This end total is not ideal for the desired shot. Thou I Like the 24mm because of the crop sensor adjustments, I feel your best lens or lenses would the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM which would actually net you 16mm - 29mm f/5.6

No, no, no. Absolutely nothing can affect the focal length of a lens, period. Can't happen, not possible. And certainly the aperture is what it is because it's a geometry thing due to the size of the lens, which, again, cannot be changed by anything. mmcalc is flat out wrong on that.

What does change is the view angle.  Yes, you get a smaller area of the rendered image, but everything else is the same.  Here's a diagram (which I've posted before because this issue continues to confuse):



And ultimately, that whole 35mm reference thing was for film shooters. Must of us never have and never will. People really need to stop that. It's irrelevant to most of us.

The only question is, what focal length is suitable for the task at hand? Your suggestion of the 10-18 is a good one for landscapes, assuming the lens is rectilinear.

Thank you all for the advice and suggestions. I am still researching, but for the moment I'm leaning towards the 17-40mm f4. Price is a consideration, but the #1 need is photographing the artwork, and secondary would be shooting landscapes and video. I've read the 17-40 can suffer at the edges when wide open, but I can stop down and avoid the very edges when shooting paintings. The rest of the time it would be a tough, pretty good general purpose/ landscape lens. Lack of IS is a bit of a bummer for video, but for now I wouldn't need it very often. 
I've also been looking at the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM that seems to check a lot of boxes. Does anyone have experience with this one?

Thank you everyone for taking the time to offer your suggestions. As my #1 need will be shooting paintings, I am looking at the canon 35mm f2.8 IS macro, as I've heard good things about its performance in that role. While I have no plans to move on from my 7D mkII, I know everyone cautions against stockpiling lenses that will be obsolete if I go full frame. With that in mind, i'm at least considering the canon 35mm f2 IS USM as well. Does anyone have experience to compare these two? Do you think the f2 would do as good a job at copy work as the macro?

I'd go with the macro, you aren't going to shoot the paintings wide open with either lens, no?

effron wrote: I'd go with the macro, you aren't going to shoot the paintings wide open with either lens, no?

No, I shouldn't ever need to go wide open with the lighting that I use.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is a great lens, probably the best Canon EF-S lens  (build and IQ wise) and is the only lens I miss since going full frame. Owning the Canon 17-40mm now I would definitely pick the 17-55mm over that if I ever went back to an APS-C Canon body. Someone commented about full frame lenses on an APS-C body, while the focal length doesn't change there is a crop factor of 1.6 to take in to consideration which will alter the field of view e.g 17mm will give a field of view of 17x1.6 which equates to what you would see using a 27mm lens. 
The 35 mm field of view for the 17-55mm would be 27-88

I own the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM and use it on a APS-C Canon (SL1 Rebel). I have been very happy with it. It is image stabilized and I appreciate that. However, I think for my purposes a wide angle zoom would be better; there are times I see an animal and I wish I had that extra range of, say, the 17-55 or 24-70.
Since I am usually hiking, I am not going to bring extra lens.
So I would say that is a consideration, at least for me and I am not a painter,
but would a zoom be helpful for capturing some detail for your paintings?

Can you rent? There are sites where you can rent for a week; some even have rent-to-own. I am considering that myself as I am considering an upgrade.

Enjoy!

I wouldn't shoot a landscape with the ultrawide (8-10mm) if you have those other choices but that's just my opinion! I swear by the Canon 24mm 1.4 and the overwhelming majority of all my shots over a 10-year period were with my Canon 24. No experience with the 2.8 version but I'd still recommend it because of the general field of view and versatility. If you shoot and stitch panoramas the 24 (turning your camera vertical) gives an impressive perspective up and down and the edges of the shots stitch seamlessly because of the low distortion on the edges.