EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or EF 16-35 f/2.8L

  • Thread starter Thread starter intown
  • Start date Start date
Sort by date Sort by votes
I

intown

Guest
#1
First thanks to everyone for their posts and information.

I just purchased my first real DSLR body a 60D today. My neighbor will let me borrow some lenses to get me started.

I was thinking of going with the EF-S 17-55 but I started looking at the 16-35L

Which do you think would be a better lens if you can only have one?

The primary use of the lens interview videos in a studio setting
Family pictures, I have two little girls.
Pictures around the house and places we go.
Other fun hobby photos.

I am leaning to the 17-55 but I like the fact that the 16-35 is an EF mount and could work with a full frame camera.

Which do you think will work better on a crop body?

I will probably try to rent each lens to try it out but interested in peoples experiences / opinions.

Thanks so much. Cant wait to start with my new camera! -- Steven
 
#2
advantages of 17-55 over 16-35L:
-extra 20mm of reach
-Has IS
-$450 cheaper
-Optimized for your crop body

I can't think of a single advantage of going with the 16-35, they are both just as fast, and the 17-55 is widely considered the best walk around lens for a crop, and if it weren't for a lack of weather sealing, and EF-S mount it would be an "L" the glass is that good. Resale on the 17-55 is great, so you won't have that cash tied up for long when/if you do decide to go FF.

There are a lot of topics on 17-40L vs 17-55, and this might even make less sense considering that the 16-35L costs 33% more, where at least the 17-40L was saving people a few bucks.

Worry about FF when you have the body. Right now you just bought a 60D, I would get the 17-55 and use the extra $450 to get yourself a nice prime, maybe the 50 1.4
 
Upvote 0
#3
intown said:
First thanks to everyone for their posts and information.

I just purchased my first real DSLR body a 60D today. My neighbor will let me borrow some lenses to get me started.

I was thinking of going with the EF-S 17-55 but I started looking at the 16-35L

Which do you think would be a better lens if you can only have one?

The primary use of the lens interview videos in a studio setting
Family pictures, I have two little girls.
Pictures around the house and places we go.
Other fun hobby photos.

I am leaning to the 17-55 but I like the fact that the 16-35 is an EF mount and could work with a full frame camera.

Which do you think will work better on a crop body?

I will probably try to rent each lens to try it out but interested in peoples experiences / opinions.

Thanks so much. Cant wait to start with my new camera! -- Steven
Click to expand...

Hi mate,

basically you've given yourself the best answer: rent and try them.
But, to be more helpful, I'll give you my thoughts and experience.
I always had cropped sensor cameras and I'll be switching to FF soon.
I have the 16-35 II, I bought it recently because of the near jump to the FF world.
I must say that it's a brilliant lens although on crop it just doesn't give its best, I've tried it (same lens) on a friend's 5D and it really was like night and day.
I think it just gives its best on FF...still great on crop don't get me wrong.
So, based on this my advice would be: will you jump shortly into the FF world?considering you just purchased the 60D I would say no (but you'll never know...photography equipment becomes too soon, waaay to soon exactly like a drug, gives you dependence LOL and becomes a risk issue....loads of cash and loads without noticing it ahah) and so stick with the still superb 17-55 2.8 which I know that it behaves on a crop sensor like an L lens would do on an FF!

Again as personal experience I find my 16-35 to be a fantastic lens but consider that I cover FL's from 16 all the way up to 200mm...analizing your situation, being your first lens I would give me more range to play with and would opt for the EF-S lens.

Hope this helps.
I know it's a tough decision. It always is LOL...

PS: post above is great also...consider that with money you spare you can buy yourself a fast prime for low light, veeery low light situation and well, have a prime which is always great!
 
Upvote 0
#4
Agree with the previous posters. One additional consideration: You said you want to do interview videos. A 35mm lens gives the same view as a 56mm lens on an APS-C body. I really don't think that's long enough for framing an individual for an interview. The extra reach of the 17-55 will give a much more flattering look to the interviewee (presuming you want them to look good). And, allow you a little extra distance between the subject and the camera, making them less uncomfortable.

If you are going for "gotcha" interviews and want to make the subject uncomfortable and unflattering the wider lens can do that, but I assume that's not your goal here.

If you just bought your first DSLR and you are borrowing lenses from a neighbor (which makes me wonder about the sanity of your neighbor), I can't understand why you would be considering jumping to full frame so soon.
 
Upvote 0
#5
Get the lenses best-suited to the body you have. In this case, that's the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. When that and the 16-35mm II are used on the same crop body, the 17-55 outresolves the 16-35 II, it offers a more useful focal range (wide to short tele vs. wide to normal), has the same f/2.8, and has IS. Plus, it's cheaper! The only thing the 16-35 has in its favor is weather sealing (useful on a 7D which also has decent sealing). High end EF-S lenses hold value well, so if/when you go FF, you can sell at minimal loss (or even gain, if 2-3 years pass).
 
Upvote 0
#6
+1 for 17-55 f/2.8

Unless u plan to shoot outdoors in bad weather, i think 17-55 is the way to go for your purposes. The extra reaching will be very useful for shooting your family , and resale value of 17-55 2.8 is high
 
Upvote 0
#7
Intown, thanks for starting this thread. I also have the same question, 17-55 or 16-35 but with a different twist on it. I’m looking for some advice based on my needs.

I'm thinking about selling my EF-S 15-85 and getting the 17-55 or the 16-35. I too plan to rent both. I want a faster lens with a constant aperture. I am not happy with the distortion at 15mm and most of my shooting with this lens (according to LR) is 60mm or wider. I do realize for a walk-around lens, the 15-85 on an APS camera is ideal. I’m willing to sacrifice the telephoto end and 2mm on the wide end for a faster constant lens—I still think the 17-55 is a good walk-around lens (27-88mm FF, my brain still thinks FF after all the years of film).

I have been leaning towards the 17-55 but have been reading (on Canon’s site) of dust problems where dust is working its way inside the lens. I have a 7D and I like to take advantage of shooting in light rain and somewhat dusty conditions so the non-sealed 17-55 is a concern for me.

The 16-35 seems like an excellent lens and I am willing to fork out the big bucks if I find this to be the best option. I’m not buying lens today for a someday upgrade to FF but I am hoping to add (not upgrade) a 5D3 in a year or two. If I go with the 16-35 I’ll probably add a 50 f/1.4 hopefully the Mk II will be available and have a ring USM.

Any advice or comments on which lens based on my needs and any experience with dust in the 17-55 would be appreciated. :-\
 
Upvote 0
#8
RC said:
I have been leaning towards the 17-55 but have been reading (on Canon’s site) of dust problems where dust is working its way inside the lengths. I have a 7D and I like to take advantage of shooting in light rain and somewhat dusty conditions so the non-sealed 17-55 is a concern for me.

The 16-35 seems like an excellent lens and I am willing to fork out the big bucks if I find this to be the best option. I’m not buying lens today for a someday upgrade to FF but I am hoping to add (not upgrade) a 5D3 in a year or two. If I go with the 16-35 I’ll probably add a 50 f/1.4 hopefully the Mk II will be available and have a ring USM.

Any advice or comments on which lens based on my needs and any experience with dust in the 17-55 would be appreciated. :-\
Click to expand...

You can ignore the forum-verse complaints about dust for three reasons. First, while there are a few (vocal) reporters of problems, most won't speak up when everything's fine. Second, most reports indicate the problems are with older lenses. Third and most important, dust inside a lens is actually quite common (with any lens), and it has no effect whatsoever on the resulting images.

OTOH, water is a different story. If you actually plan to use the lens in the rain with your 7D, get the 16-35L II. Do budget a little extra for a quality UV/clear filter - that's required to complete the sealing on the 16-35 II. I'd recommend a B+W MRC or Nano coat (and the 82mm versions aren't cheap).
 
Upvote 0
#10
When you move from crop to FF, the 16-35mmL will suddenly become a very wide lens and you will want a new standard focal length lens, like the 24-105mm L or 24-70mm L.

I eventually bought a 17-55mm L for my 40D after buying a couple of other lenses first, so it cost me a bit to resell them, but it was worth it. When I upgraded to FF, I kept my 40D as a product photography body for a year or more, so the 17-55mm lens still got lots of use. Now, I have a 7D and use a 15-85mm lens on it, but have plenty of fast primes if I actually wanted to use a 7D in low light. The 5D MK II is the portrait and low light camera, the 7D is my product photography camera and wildlife / sporting event camera.
 
Upvote 0
#14
+1 17-55mm/f2.8

You'll always want this lens - it's L is almost every way, but without the price tag. It's my walk around on my 7d. You'll want the wider angle since you need to factor in the 1.6x on the 16-35. Also the IS will help with slower shutter speeds indoors - spend the cost difference between the two lenses for a Di622 or 430ex flash.
 
Upvote 0
#15
Thanks to everyone for this very helpful thread. Very happy with my 17-55 purchase. Having lots of fun learning the 60D and the 17 - 55 lens.

I was able to find an excellent used copy for $820 (lens hood included), had it checked by a local camera shop and it had no problems. The owner was switching to primes. There was a little bit of dust but it does not show up in images.

I found a great book of photo exercises which walks your through the basics. My plan is to practice and learn everything on the photo side and then move to video. I have been working on light balance as well as using an incident light meter.

Glad I made the purchases and really looking forward to taking lots of photos during the holidays. We have 2 little girls.

Thanks again to everyone's input and advice! -- Steven
 
Upvote 0
#16
I went to a camera store and picked up the 17-55 and was astonished how cheap the build quality felt. The focus ring was not smooth, no dust/weather sealing, and the body had the cheap plastic feel. If I were to pay $1100 for a lens, I would expect much better quality. I would go with the 16-35 all the way.
 
Upvote 0
#17
I don't know the other lens, but I use the 16-35 LII on a 7D often. I really like that combo. I got it because it can be used on both crop and FF for different effects and it's a great lens. I have noticed no quality issues that concern me with this lens on a crop, for me, it produces very high quality pictures. A lot of the shots in this gallery I put together are taken with that lens. You can see which ones from the comments.

My shots are viewed better using the (lights option set to dark) from the top right most menu: http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Canon’s disdain for APS-C users.
Replies
34
Views
3K
EricN
EricN
M
Canon EF 600mm f$ Mkii playing up
Replies
4
Views
873
Mikehit
M
D
RF 15-35 f/2.8 L IS USM
Replies
0
Views
483
David the street guy
D
kapalabhati
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 Sports + Canon R7 = Complete Failure (works fine on R6/RP)
Replies
9
Views
1K
Michael Clark
Michael Clark
mangobutter
Canon, it's time for a Mark II of the RF 35 1.8 IS
Replies
9
Views
2K
P-visie
P-visie
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu