What I'm trying to suss out though is, if I sell my 400D and go full frame where would I be wise spending money. I would use the siggy 24-70 to save more expense to start with, but would miss my 10-20. Obviously 10-20 is 16-32, so there 'appears' two options to me... 16-35L or 17-40L. Since the 16-35 is so expensive and I wouldn't need the wider aperture for landscapes, I was thinking the 17-40 would be a good choice. Not too pricey either, so I should be able to manage that and a body all at once in the new year. And then I reckon I could probably get away with using the 17-40 for pretty much all landscape work.
I have just discovered through other threads etc that the 16-35 suffers less from distortion, but it's one of those cases where I need to start somewhere and there's only so much money in the pot.
I dont want to miss any lenses that might be a better option, but do want to plan ahead and get something that i'll hopefully keep forever(ish) and not want to upgrade again in 6 months.
Looks like i'm here for the long haul now