Torn between three nikon lenses, which one should i purchase?

I shoot a lot of weddings and am always renting the 24mm 1.4 for low light (no flash allowed) church photos and indoor wide shots as well as outdoor night-time landscape shots. I love this lens and have always liked using it. It is VERY expensive though! On the other hand I'm interested in getting into real estate/ architecture photography and i know 24 isn't wide enough so i'm also looking into the famous 14-24 2.8 also VERY expensive. I have been comparing that lens with the 16-35mm (which i like because i could also use that one with filters for landscape photography, and its cheaper) I wish i could just buy them all, but obviously i have to pick ONE. Which would be more bang for my buck? Any opinions would help thanks.

Added (1). Thanks Matt, do you think it will be a big deal that i can't use filters on that lens? For landscape shots.

Well i think you should go with the 24 2.8 if you are getting into real estate very soon i mean you can keep renting the other if it does not cost much, and i'm sure you can take good landscape photos with what you have, you should get some filters they don't cost much. Also you can try to find another photographer like you maybe you could borrow equipment from each other, i sometimes do with my best friend(she has a lot more money).

Get the 14-24 to try and expand your business. You can always continue to rent the 24, since you use it on a per event basis. The 14-24 is also going to be a good landscape lens for you, going a bit wider than the 16-35 and being almost as long.

My colleagues who shoot weddings use the 24-70 mm lens for most of their wedding photography.

If you do enough weddings, soon you will be able to afford all the lenses and filters you want. Of course this means you have to bill for not just your time shooting the event, but for the prints the people want as well.