Versatile L-series wide-angle zoom

[philip_wilson]

<p>Milan my point was that the 17-40 16-35 or 24=104 will feel better balanced on the rebel body.</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>I think the 16-35 on crop is an extremely expensive semi-standard zoom for crop. Do you really want a 2.8 super wide when you go full frame? Remember it only goes to 35mm, not ideal for portraits and not super wide either on crop. The 17-55 is much better for crop, longer (goes to 55) and IS. You could buy the 17-55 used and sell it later for not much less. If you are planning on going full frame soon, might as well just buy the lens that you feel is ideal for full frame. It's up to you which one really is. The 16-35, 24-70 and 24-105 are all rated very good. It's more of the type of use you plan on.</p>

[plewenthal]

<p>Hi Milan,<br>

I did what you propose to do and am very happy with the result. That is, I started with a crop camera [the 300d] and the kit lens. Over several years rather than upgrade the camera body I purchased the 24-105, 16-35, 70-200 2.8 IS and 50 1.4, and then got the 5dII when it came out. Overall I find this combination very satisfactory. To your question, I would not want to be without the 16-35 as it provides a unique vantage point compared to the others. As to the 16-35 vs. 17-40 I don't have an opinion as I've only used the 16-35. I do like taking advantage of the background blur and lower light shooting that the 2.8 aperture permits, but that may not be a priority for you. However, as was pointed out above, shooting with such a wide lens is challenging, but I was especially keen to learn how to use such a lens - and someday I may figure it out. As I shoot mostly landscapes and not a lot of sports or BIF the 5dII is perfect for me and this group of lenses is provides a very flexible setup that is easy to take on trips. Indeed I myself am by a large margin the weak link in the system.<br>

Cheers and good luck with your decision.<br>

Phil</p>