Would you bother with the 12mm F2, 17mm f1.8 or 45mm f1.8 if you had the 12-40 f2.8 Pro?

EyeMac wrote:

.... for my NZ based photography......

I have a weekend pass from the wife to do the Tongariro crossing with a few friends in a couple of weeks so hopefully it will enthuse me again. It is one of the worlds greatest day walks according to some (in New Zealand).

.....

...just happened to hit Kiwiland, in the process of going through negatives and slides to digitize.  Box after box taken on our Dec 2001 drive around (well almost - 6,350 km in 20+ days with little sleep!) of your incredible country.   Didn't dare go any further up 90mile Beach, didn't quite get to Dunedin, and the Queenstown flight to Milford Sound was scrubbed as we were taxiing to take-off because of a second stormfront (what Kiw pilot would be stopped by just one!)

Even with many goofs and gaps in my photo skills and a rather boring Nikon F80 and 24-120 zoom and a little Olympus stylus, the beauty of so much of your country is such that rather than ending up with one to five "keepers" worth digitizing out of 24 or 36 frame film, the ratio ofetn becomes the reverse.

By all means do for the 7-14 f2.8 if you can afford it.  The speed and close focus make it very worthwhile.  If cost is a big problem, and its mainly nature landscape shooting that you are perhaps also consider the older about one-third larger FT 7-14 f4 and the adapter.  They sometimes go for half the price, and having both I have the impression that in terms of absolute IQ (resolution, micro-contrast, flare suppression) have the impression that my example of the FT 7-14