Which Lens? 17-55mm or 16-35mm L?

[amosfoo]

putting side by side and comparing all; which would you choose? the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II or the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM?

read quite afew good reviews for the latter and also some for the former, but of course some not-so-nice ones as well. would really love to hear from you nice (experienced) people about the pros and cons of both lens and how they stack up against each other.

Thanks people! =)

[sexalicious]

of course it's would be the 16-35 mk2.

[Headshotzx]

I've had quite a lot of experience with my friend's 16-35mm, not so with the 17-55 though.

Here's my take:

They're both f/2.8 apertures and have USM.
16-35L has better built, EF mount and is 1mm wider. 17-55 has more focal length, not built as good as the 16-35L, but has IS.
16-35L comes with a hood meant for fullframe cameras and has a huge 82mm filter thread. 17-55mm doesn't come with a hood (costs S$60+ outside) and has a 77mm filter thread measurement that's shared with many current L lenses.

If you're on a fullframe camera, definitely the 16-35mm if you like wide shots. Fullframe cameras take advantage of the 16mm which is what you want. However, the sharpness degrades quite a fair bit at the borders.

If you're on a crop camera, many people would suggest the 17-55, and so would I. Reason is that 16mm on a crop camera isn't exactly very wide-- you have the Canon efs 10-22mm or equivalent lenses to do that job. the 17-55mm turns into a 27-88mm equiv of viewing, and so IS will start to help out.

Hope this helps!

[cancan7]

I've seen a photog at my friend's wedding use the 16-35 on a 30D. Wonder if there will be distortion at the wide end, even on a crop camera?

Anyway I think 1mm on the wide end is not worth it, as you'd lose so much focal length. If u want fast and wide, why not buy both the Canon 17-55 and Tokina 11-16?

[kebeye]

more like get the canon 10-22mm better though its f3.5

[frametology]

the L is my recomendation for the various reasons:

1) think far, don't you ever think FF? haha
2) should you one day decide to shoot film and get a EOS film body ie EOS 3 1N 1V, your efs lens would be useless! (yes, this relates to FF)
3) a L is always a L. i agree that almost all third party lenses can do somewhat as good as a L, but after shooting an event on sat, i realized that from now on i only want Ls in my set up. the feeling is so different. to sum it up in a word, comfortable.
4) the extra 1mm is good
5) what the other people are saying about the 16-35.

oh. by the way, i own a tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4, budget lens that gets you useable pics if you ask me! haha.

lastly, i would say that the biggest factor would be the pocket. if you need to starve for a month to get the L, don't. just make do with something else. alternatively, you could always save! haha.

cheers!

[amosfoo]

Hi guys, thanks for all your replies, especially Headshotzx with your pretty detailed explanation.
im actually just enquiring now and with all these high prices, i can only slowly save up for one lens. Eventually and hopefully, be an owner of the other lens.

Right now, im using a 450D(x1.6 crop) and I will most likely get the 10-22mm first, even before the 2 mentioned above. But that aside and back to the 2 above, im really a sucker for big f/stop and i love that they're a constant 2.8. But taking into account of the price and the comments thus far, the 17-55mm seems like a better choice between the two.

[Headshotzx]

Originally Posted by amosfoo Hi guys, thanks for all your replies, especially Headshotzx with your pretty detailed explanation. im actually just enquiring now and with all these high prices, i can only slowly save up for one lens. Eventually and hopefully, be an owner of the other lens. Right now, im using a 450D(x1.6 crop) and I will most likely get the 10-22mm first, even before the 2 mentioned above. But that aside and back to the 2 above, im really a sucker for big f/stop and i love that they're a constant 2.8. But taking into account of the price and the comments thus far, the 17-55mm seems like a better choice between the two.

Sure, np.

So you're getting the 10-22mm first? Sweet, now listen:

You could get the EFS 10-22 and get a 24-70mm f/2.8L (S$2100 same as 16-35L) for the better built and image quality and EF-mount.

10-22 + 17-55 will mean an overlap. No problem with overlaps, but there are times when you wish you had something longer. But there is IS on the 17-55; not sure if that will help you a lot.

If I were in your position, I would definitely get the 10-22 and 24-70 because of my shooting preferences. (Following that, a 70-200 to complete the 10-200mm range with only 2mm gap).

[frametology]

hmmm. 24-70 is heavy...! hahaha. 24-105?

yes, this has been mentioned before. go search the forum for the other threads.

[amosfoo]

Originally Posted by frametology the L is my recomendation for the various reasons: 1) think far, don't you ever think FF? haha 2) should you one day decide to shoot film and get a EOS film body ie EOS 3 1N 1V, your efs lens would be useless! (yes, this relates to FF) 3) a L is always a L. i agree that almost all third party lenses can do somewhat as good as a L, but after shooting an event on sat, i realized that from now on i only want Ls in my set up. the feeling is so different. to sum it up in a word, comfortable. 4) the extra 1mm is good 5) what the other people are saying about the 16-35. oh. by the way, i own a tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4, budget lens that gets you useable pics if you ask me! haha. lastly, i would say that the biggest factor would be the pocket. if you need to starve for a month to get the L, don't. just make do with something else. alternatively, you could always save! haha. cheers!

Thanks, mate. 2 replies before i could finish my own, while getting distracted by other tabs. ha. anyway, about what you said on the buying just L-series lens. i think the L is not only Luxury, but will definitely mean Liong(broke) to me! shall really have to lose sleep over making my decisions. ha

[contaxable]

Both are excellent lenses. Dont worry about film or FF. Maximize the potential of your gears and resale value should not really be part of the reason for buying.

If you get the APS-C lens (17-55), sell it when you think you are done with APS-C gears, sell them and go FF or work exclusively with primes.

Whether at 16mm or 24mm, distortion will exist on FF or Crop Frame sensors. Distortion can be somewhat controlled if used correctly.

The 16-35mm lens is not just 1mm wider. Its a purpose built lens for FF (and also Crop frame sensors). I think its a great lens to own.

[Dithiolium]

I chose the 16-35L II over the 17-55 IS.
1) 16-35L II FF capable.
2) better build quality
3) zoom ring closer to cam body, my preference.
4) non-extending zoom lens.
5) weather sealing.
6) know of cases where the 17-55's IS module failed after intensive use
7) I din like the corner light fall-off of the 17-55 IS
8) 82mm is large, but i use reasonably priced kenko pro1D protector.
9) 82mm slim C-PL is rather expensive. I bought a 77-82mm step up ring to use the 82mm C-PL on my other lenses.
10) 16-35L II is touted by Canon to have the latest AF algorithms. Both focus fast enough for me though.
11) bragging rights
12) ignore (11)

[issic]

Originally Posted by contaxable Both are excellent lenses. Dont worry about film or FF. Maximize the potential of your gears and resale value should not really be part of the reason for buying. If you get the APS-C lens (17-55), sell it when you think you are done with APS-C gears, sell them and go FF or work exclusively with primes.

Totally agree with that. That is the reason I got the 17-55f2.8IS instead of 24-105Lf4IS (24-70Lf2.8 is a bit too much for my pocket ) as I prefer the constant f2.8 and also the wider end. As I all along intend to get the 70-200f4IS (finally got it. ), I am not concern about the maximum range of 55mm. For me, losing the gap between 55mm and 70mm is fine.

[thinkvision]

there is no 24-70L IS, so must choose 17-55 IS, it is not L, but can beat L without any problem...

[lennyl]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx 10-22 + 17-55 will mean an overlap. No problem with overlaps, but there are times when you wish you had something longer. But there is IS on the 17-55; not sure if that will help you a lot.

There are also times when you will wish you have the overlap, as you'll be moving between 17-22 and 24-55 range. Swapping lenses during a busy moment means lots of lost shots and / or impatient subjects. It all depends on what you shoot.

I have a 10-22 and 24-105 and wish I have a 17-55 for those times. Or another camera body

I wouldn't get a 16-35mm unless I have a FF camera.

[changster]

here's my take. if you are using a 1.6x body just go with the 17-55 2.8 for these simple reasons:

- the 16-35 is almost $1k more expensive
- the 17-55 got more range. i dunno what you shoot but think you will appreciate the extra 20 mm
- the image quality produced by the 17-55 matches that of the L lenses (i can vouch for this) and it is only not L because no weather-sealing and is EF-S
- the resale value of the 17-55 will remain strong should you decide to go FF
- don't worry about the IS failing. just turn it off when you don't need it. all lenses are subjected to wear and tear.

[mrchua]

if i had a FF body, i think i'd go for the 17-40mm f/4L considering you rarely need the f/2.8 for wide angles and the huge price difference. could easily get two other good primes (50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8) or another flash without going for the 16-35mm.

since you're on a 450D, i think the 17-55mm would be good for you. i had one myself and it rocked my socks off. i only sold it because i wanted something of greater focal length on the telephoto end, better built, and something that i can use if and when i get a 5D.

[amosfoo]

Thanks people! would be even better if i could see some images taken by either of the 2 lens, but that would be asking too much. ha!

anyway, decisions, decisions. can i conclude with the 17-55mm? hmmm.. kaa-ching!

[mummum]

EF-S 17-55mm.

16-35 is wide for FF, and thats where your extra dough goes. You put a 16-35 on a crop body is like buying GT-R (sports car) and drive to workplace within 70km/h speed limit on expressway everyday.

Don't think so much bout FF upgrade, who knows by then, a better option has opened... 16-35 MkIII :P

Bottomline, get what is good for you now, go out there and maximize it.

IS+f/2.8+high ISO is good!

[Headshotzx]

Originally Posted by amosfoo Thanks people! would be even better if i could see some images taken by either of the 2 lens, but that would be asking too much. ha! anyway, decisions, decisions. can i conclude with the 17-55mm? hmmm.. kaa-ching!

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/canon/