Choice of canon wide angle zoom

[StrifeYun]

which would u get ?

if you do not compare cost $$ and Full Frame FF

Which Lens ?
17-55 2.8 IS USM ?
or
16-35 2.8L USM ?

[StrifeYun]

just wanted to noe, cause i'm reallie cannot decide

Thanks guys.

*for me , i like the L build and look. But prefer the additional IS and further reach 55mm

[Hein]

Originally Posted by StrifeYun which would u get ? if you do not compare cost $$ and Full Frame FF Which Lens ? 17-55 2.8 IS USM ? or 16-35 2.8L USM ?

What do u mean by do not compare cost and Full Frame??

For me:
Full frame : 16-35
1.6x : 10-22

[Frijj]

Originally Posted by Hein What do u mean by do not compare cost and Full Frame?? For me: Full frame : 16-35 1.6x : 10-22

Agreed.
One was meant to be an ultrawide angle zoom for FFand the other is a std zoom for 1/6x crop.
So It depends on what you want.

If you ONLY have a 1.6x crop camera, and you're looking for a good std zoom, get the 17-55 f/2.8.
If you have both a cropped and FF body (an EOS film body or a FF DSLR), get the 16-35 f/2.8.
If you're looking for an ultrawide zoom for your 1.6x DSLR, get the 10-22.

[miniUltraman]

Originally Posted by Hein What do u mean by do not compare cost and Full Frame?? For me: Full frame : 16-35 1.6x : 10-22

I interpret he meant (Don't take "16-35" allows you to use it even when you upgrade to FF next time as the reason for the consideration). Correct me if I understand that wrongly

[miniUltraman]

I also think he doesn't mean "Wide angle" per se... but in the range of 16-55 (wide and yet walkaround lens for a 1.6x)... which to choose So 10-22 is not in the picture of his choice... I will choose 16-35 (and I have already chosen)... The RED (lord of the) ring is just too tempting
By the way, you should put in your option to take into account that you are using 1.6x body... FF owners don't even use EF-S so no need to choose lah...

[Stoned]

Personally I think the 16-35L is a very ho hum range on a 1.6x body. The thing I love best about it is it's FOV on a FF, so you may want to look to the 17-55 for better optical performance for the same range on a 1.6x body.

In short, what you're paying for on the 16-35 is the 16mm fov. If you don't get that, it's not really worth getting IMHO.

[Frijj]

Originally Posted by miniUltraman I also think he doesn't mean "Wide angle" per se... but in the range of 16-55 (wide and yet walkaround lens for a 1.6x)... which to choose So 10-22 is not in the picture of his choice... I will choose 16-35 (and I have already chosen)... The RED (lord of the) ring is just too tempting By the way, you should put in your option to take into account that you are using 1.6x body... FF owners don't even use EF-S so no need to choose lah...

Your miniUltra powers very good at deciphering what he means huh!

[miniUltraman]

Originally Posted by Frijj Your miniUltra powers very good at deciphering what he means huh!

miniUltra only.. Not even small

[StrifeYun]

Originally Posted by Frijj Your miniUltra powers very good at deciphering what he means huh!

WAh say , Ultraman ! u are right about what i'm thinking hee. i up size u 2 BIG Ultraman liao in my eyes

Think untraman understands cause he has been in the canon 17-55 thread & B&S hehe



I keep thinking of the L built vs the 17-55mm cause i always take my cam with me 90% where ever i go & like to go tracking & maybe mountain climbing in Malaysia also.

the only think for me is that 17-55mm built is not as gd as the 16-35mm. hmmm ...

*okay regarding the ppl using FF cams who will not use a 17-55mm. pai sei
I should have thought of it


Thanks for the comments guys.

which 1 .. hmmm

Ultraman u r reallie gd

[miniUltraman]

I think you go for 17-55.. since you go climbing and such.. u only bring 1 lens.. then 16-35 not enough lah.. With IS u can climb as you shoot

[zhikang]

10-22!!!!!

[Redsun]

Originally Posted by zhikang 10-22!!!!!

ahh u juz said what was in my mind haha

[divadyhl]

16-35

For me, it's the build, colour rendition and image quality.
Build largely. Colour rendition and image quality are more difficult to discern unless you've got a seasoned eye.

I used to use the kit lens. IQ, colour was quite ok. I liked it coz it was light then.
But the moment I started using a lens of metal built like the tokina 28-70 f2.8, i completely fell in love with the feel. It felt so much more weighted and solid in my hands. The camera felt more steady and somehow firmer.
When I took out the tokina to try other plastic body lenses, I was like "urgh"... it really felt toy-like to some extent, lacking in the "feel".
so since then, I only swore by metal body lenses.

For the want of an "L" lens for me at least, I would say it is really equipment lust.
When I saw the colours out of the L lens and the IQ, I just got that little bit more lusty.

IS for me works only in low light static subjects.
It's not that useful for moving subjects, especially in events.
I'd rather still have a 2.8 with higher iso to freeze motion.
But I must admit IS is really useful for lenses above 1 kg in weight.

just me

[miniUltraman]

10-22 and 16-35MII for me

[fz30_user]

Correct me if I'm wrong but IQ of 17-55 is better than 16-35 based on photozone MTF?

[calebk]

Originally Posted by fz30_user Correct me if I'm wrong but IQ of 17-55 is better than 16-35 based on photozone MTF?

MTFs are one thing, real life experiences, another. I know users of the first variant of the 16-35 who use it at f/2.8 and do not complain about the "infamous" soft corners.

So, out in the field, sometimes MTFs just don't count (psst. sometimes only.).

[holeinone]

The choice is clear for 1.6x bodies. The 17-55 is

The IS and f2.8 are worth the $$. Build quality is good... the lens has a hefty feel to it.