16-35 2.8 mark II or 17-55 2.8

[tdigi]

Has anyone used the 16-35 mark 2? and how does it compare to the 17-55?

 

thanks

[tdigi]

Has anyone used the 16-35 mark II? How does it compare to the 17-55?

[KenPapai]

YES. A lot more favorable.

[focuslightstudio]

I'm wondering the same thing myself

[tdigi]

I have an opportunity to get one UV with the filter for $900. I get to test it out and the current owner says its mint. I assume

I should take it or at least look at it?

[tdigi]

UV meaning the date plus a UV filter.

[mendel_leisk]

Tommy, I'm lost. What are you going to look at?

[m._scott_clay1]

Ken,

 

Why do you say "A lot more favorable". I tested the 16-35mII in a store and didn't see any improvement over my 17-55. My copy of the 17-55 was great on my 40D, so what's more favorable in a 16-35mII?

[tdigi]

"Tommy, I'm lost. What are you going to look at?"

 

I am going to test out the 16-35 mark II and possibly purchase it if its the shape he claims its in.

[freelance]

I would not buy a 16-35 for a 40D having a 17-55 (I have the 16-35 for 5D), but I don't have the EF-S lens. But Tommy, you know all this. You are an resercher. Anyway, if it is a bargain, you always can sell one of the two lenses.

 

I read in a thread that you had a 5D. This can change the things.

[tdigi]

Sorry I am not being very clean in my question. I have a 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 and I am considering either a 17-55 or a 16-

35. I found a guy selling his like new ( date code UV ) 16-35 MII for $900. I was hoping to get some opinions about what

lens to get either: The 16-35 lists for $1450 new so it seems like a good deal?

 

A. New 17-55 2.8 $1000

 

B Used 16-35 M2 $900

[tdigi]

Camera is a 40D. Again sorry for the poor wording.

[focuslightstudio]

If you could get a Mint/Like New copy of the mark II for $900 then snatch it up.

 

A. New 17-55 2.8 $1000

 

B Used 16-35 M2 $900- It's an L and a better deal.

[bob_osullivan]

Tommy;

 

16 or 17 isn't all that wide on a 40D do to the crop factor. And 24 isn't wide at all. Given the lenses you have, I would suggest a 10-22.

 

Whatever lens you are looking at you have to multiply the number by 1.6 to get the 35mm equivalent focal length. So your 24-105 is really 39 at the wide end. And 17 is only 28. So the 10-22 would be like 16 at the wide end, that's pretty wide.

 

I think either the lenses you are considering would be a bit redundant. Now if you had a 5D full frame sensor (no 1.6cx crop factor) then you'd want the 16-35 for your wide.

 

Also, these two lenses are in meant to be in different ranges. The 16-35 is a UWA for FF. The 17-55 is meant to be a standard zoom (comprable to the 24-105 FF).

 

Hope that made sense.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I have NOT used either, so I guess you could say that I'm completely unbiased. :-)

 

<p>There are a lot of good reasons to consider the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS if you shoot a crop sensor body.

 

<p>The image quality actually looks to be quite good based on reviews and tests that I've seen. One great source is <a

href="http://www.slrgear.com/">slrgear.com</a> where test results are accompanied by some very useful and informative

interactive "blur index charts." In two separate windows or tabs, open the test results for the <a

href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/353/cat/11">EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS</a> and the <a

href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/142/cat/11">EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II</a>. Next open the "blur

index charts" for the two lenses by clicking the little 3-D charts shown on the right side of each page. Position the two small

blur index windows so that you can see the two of them at once and compare performance at the same apertures and the same/similar

focal lengths. (Both sets of tests were done on a cropped sensor 20D.)

 

<p>The differences are actually quite astonishing. Compare, especially, the large aperture performance at the 35mm focal

length. It is hard to argue - at least based on these tests - that the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is anything but a great optical

performer.

 

<p>In addition, it provides a larger focal length range <i>and</i> image stabilization. (Those of us shooting full frame can

only wish that would Canon produce an equivalent full frame lens - it would perform as well, got to f/2.8, include IS, and

cover a focal length range from about 27mm to about 90mm.)

 

<p>My purpose is not to put down the very fine 16-35mm f/2.8 II lens, but to perhaps point out that things are a bit more

"interesting" here than you might expect.

 

<p>Dan

 

<p>Who, if he shot a cropped sensor camera these days, would run right out and pick up the EFS 17-55.

[KenPapai]

"My copy of the 17-55 was great on my 40D, so what's more favorable in a 16-35 Mark II?"

 

Everything? It's better at everything. Versatile. Fast. Sealed, pro, not EF-S. The OP didn't mention I.S. version of the EF-S lens. IS in a wide is pretty much wasted.

[ben_quinn1]

Stick with the L series, the 16-35 is a lovely lens. I'd love to have one for $900, much sexier than the 17-55. I concur with

Ken.

[g dan mitchell]

<P>Ken, I know the 16-35 is indeed a fine lens, but in objective terms I fail to see how it is "better at everything." My

analysis goes something like this:

 

<p>EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is better by these measures:

 

<ul>

<li>significantly better f/2.8 performance

<li>image stabilization

<li>wider focal length range

<li>slightly better maximum sharpness at smaller apertures

</ul>

 

<p>16-35mm f/2.8 II is better by these measures:

 

<ul>

<li>L build quality is as good as it gets

<li>sealed

<li>goes 1mm wider

<li>Can work on a FF body, too.

</ul>

 

<p>"Fast" is not an advantage since both are f/2.8. Does it _really_ <i>focus</i> faster, if that is what you mean?

 

<p>"Pro" is a pretty meaningless concept without something more objective behind it.

 

<p>"Not EFS" is an advantage if you intend to use it on a FF body, I suppose.

 

<p>IS is certainly not wasted at 55mm on a crop sensor body, nor is it wasted on a cropped sensor 17-55mm zoom.

Few would regard IS as a useless feature on, say, the 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens and in angle-of-view terms, the 17-55 is

equivalent to putting a 27mm-88mm lens on a full frame body.

 

<p>An executive summary might go something like this:

 

<p><i>The EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens outperforms the 16-35mm f/2.8 L lens in optical terms at all apertures and focal lengths,

adds image stabilization, and provides a slightly wider focal length range. On the other hand, the L lens is sealed and built

somewhat more solidly, will work on both 1.6x cropped sensor and full frame Canon DSLRs, and has the Canon "L" designation and red

ring.</i>

 

<p>I can understand why some people would prefer the 16-35 and I can understand equally well why the EFS 17-55

would attract certain photographers looking for the best lens for general use on a crop sensor body. The automatic "L

bias" is not helpful and, I think, ignores that fact that an L lens is not always the best choice for the job in every case.

 

<p>Take care,

 

<p>Dan

[cip]

I have the 16-35mm MII on a 30D and use as a moderately wide to normal lens. Excellent color, build and sharp. It's UWA design means corner softness especially at large aperture, but stopped down to 5.6-8, plenty sharp throughout. A major factor for my decision to purchase this over the 17-55mm is my intention to go FF a some point in the future...

[tdigi]

Thanks, Even thought it was a great price I ended up passing simply because I have purchased a lot of good gear this year

and I am going to start shooting more and lens researching less.

[Landrum Kelly]

I have been following this conversation from the outside, since I shoot mostly full-frame cameras, although I just bought the XSi, which is very much like the XTi that I had this time last year.

 

I would offer one possible suggestion, for what it's worth: if someone is even considering the purchase of a camera with a full-frame sensor, then there is no contest. The 16-35 would indeed be the way to go. On the other hand, if one wanted to shoot really wide on a cropped sensor camera, then one would have to go to something like the 10-22, as someone said above.

 

I mention all of this because I personally would generally encourage persons to use lenses that could be used on cropped sensor as well as full-frame sensor camera, unless they know that they will stay with the cropped-snsor models, which well they might.

 

--Lannie

[ralph_jensen]

As someone who shoots both FF and crop frame,

 

I agree completely with both of G Dan Mitchell's posts and think they are worth reading at least twice.

[ralph_jensen]

P.S. Ken said, "Image Stabilization in a wide-angle lens is pretty much wasted."

 

I couldn't disagree more. I routinely face travel/night-photography situations in which I want to shoot in the

18-21mm range and I need to shoot at 1/4 or 1/6 of a second at f/2.8.

 

Be honest: If like the OP you were shooting a 1.6 crop camera, which wide-angle 2.8-zoom would you reach for in that

situation, one with I.S. or one without?

[bjscharp]

> Be honest: If like the OP you were shooting a 1.6 crop camera, which wide-angle 2.8-zoom would you reach for in that situation, one with I.S. or one without?

 

I wouldn't be carrying both. Carrying two lenses that similar is a waste of bag-space.

 

As for the question, depends on the intended use:

 

For a standard zoom on a crop body, go with the 17-55.

 

For a good tripod-mounted landscape wideangle in that range, get the 16-35 or even better the 17-40. For real wide-angle get the 10-22.

 

Or be a man and get a bag of primes. :-)

 

the 16-35 is a FF lens, and is of only limited use on a crop body. The only pro is L-grade build quality, which isn't made in EF-S mount...

[chrisjb]

Tommy, correct me if wrong, but you already cover this focal range and out to 12mm. Have you shot enough to work out qheather you need another lens yet? :)