Wide to medium zoom for crop body - sharp lens wanted!

[jesper_hansen3]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I need a reasonably wide zoom which needs to be sharp and with minimal CA. It needs to be good in low light and indoor situations. I am using a 50D.<br>

I have had the EF-S 17-85 IS for a few years, and it disappointed me from day one - not fast and not sharp, so most of the time I use my primes anyway (Canon 100 2.8 macro, Sigma 50 1.4 EX DG HSM). A few days ago, I convinced myself that I should buy the 16-35 2.8L II lens, despite the high price tag. Checking reviews online, I was surprised to find the many recommendations of the EF-S 17-55 IS 2.8 lens - some of them stating that image quality is on par with the 16-35, due to L class glass being used.<br>

I know that the L series has much better build quality. I also know that the EF-S will not fit a full frame. Both of these facts are totally acceptable to me. But I don't want a mainstream zoom with mediocre quality again. Is it "safe" to buy 17-55 IS 2.8 or will I still get better image quality from the L lens?<br>

I already read various reviews (the-digital-picture.com has great details on both lenses), so mostly I just need thumbs up or warnings regarding each of the lenses if you own them, or have good or bad experiences with one of them.<br>

Thanks a lot,<br>

Jesper.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I've never used one, but I've heard the same things about the 17-55mm; L quality images, and a great lens. Although I'm sure IQ is great, I know I'd have a hard time spending that amount of money on a lens with the build quality of the 17-55mm. Not that the build is bad, but I'd expect L build out of a $1000 lens. I think if you want fast and sharp, a set of primes would be you best bet. I'd be skeptical to recommend a zoom to meet your high expectations. Zooms are nice and convenient, but any zoom will have some amount of compromise over a prime in its range.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I'd buy and rebuy and buy <strong>again in a heartbeat</strong> two of my fave lenses:</p>

<p><strong>16-35 2.8L and the 24-70 2.8L.</strong></p>

<p>All good for film, crop, full frame -- both winners and unbeatable. High performance too. Never ever regretted these lenses -- nothing has ever compelled me to "dump them" with anything newer (except of course the II edition of the 16-35). Maybe not directly answering your question but I know you are contemplating ...</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I'm with Ken on this point. The 17-55 is an excellent lens and nearly as good as my 16-35 f/2.8L II. Nearly. In a zoom in this range, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the choices mentioned. The 24-70 is not quite wide enough on my crop bodies at times, but the 16-35 or the 10-22 if you really want wide can do a great job.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Check out the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS lens. It's supposed to be one of the sharpest lenses out there at the moment:<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os?start=1</a></p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I agree with Ken - money no object the 16-35 F2.8 II and the 24-70 F2.8. I have both and the 16-35 makes a great standard lens for APS-C and allows you to move to full frame. If I wanted a crop lens I have heard the 17-55 F2.8 is good and i used to have the 17-40 F4L which I would also reccomend. The 17-40 is not as good as the 16-35 II (but probably has IQ to equal the 16-35 F2.8 I) and it is the L series bargain. I find I do not use the 24-70 much on my 7D but I use it a lot on full frame (and APS-H). The 16-35 II has an 82mm filter diameter and vignettes very easily so if you use filters it gets expensive unless you already have big ones for Medium Format. Cokin P series vignette at about 20mm focal length so you need the much more expensive X or Z series. If you use screw on filters (e.g protection, circ pol) you need to buy the very expensive narrow ones to prevent vignetting.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>If you are not planning on buying a full frame body any time soon, the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM IS is probably the best option out there. It's one issue optically is some flare in contra light. Build quality is reasonably good, but not up to L standards. On the other hand, it's not nearly as heavy as the 24-70L.</p>

<p>In addition to being f/2.8 it has image stabilization. People who use the f/2.8 L lenses keep saying that it's unneeded in this focal length, all the while secretly wishing Canon would put t on the 24-70L. But the majority people who use the 17-55 rely on the IS system all the time. I know I'm not giving it up. It's far too useful.</p>

<p>Also 17-55mm is a far range than 16-35mm or 17-40mm on a crop camera.</p>

[jesper_hansen3]

<p>Thank you all for your responses. Still find it is kind of a hard decision :)<br>

I've been looking at the ISO chart image comparison over at <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398</a><br>

In those pictures, the 16-35L (or 24-70L for that matter) seems by far superior in image quality compared to the 17-55, but I think that the "comparison" is in effect more a comparison between crop factor and full-frame, since the L lenses are all shot with the 1Ds IV and the EF-S lens is shot with the 50D. I think the 50D would never reach the pixel level sharpness of a full frame body, so the lens-to-lens comparison in this case is not really valid?<br>

Do you agree with that assumption?</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>"so the lens-to-lens comparison in this case is not really valid?"<br>

yes, it's not a valid comparison. If you want an f2.8 zoom on a crop model such as your 50D look at the Canon 17-55IS, Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the new Sigma 18-50 see www.photozone.de for resolution/sharpness comparisons and reviews</p>

<p> </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>One always has to take internet image comparisons with a grain of salt, not to mention the ratings statistics gathered from consumers. I have seen enough focus errors in internet comparisons to be careful, and of course people love the lens that they just bought since they don't likely own the alternatives to test it against. Then there are people who do not know how to test and evaluate images, like I just witnessed this week here on a post this week to photo.net.</p>

<p>I can't offer an opinion on these specific lenses since I have never used any of them. I have owned and used more than 30 lenses over the years. I have observed that Canon charges a huge premium on IS lenses in the upper range of their lenses. Taking this into consideration I can only conclude that compromises in image quality had to made in order to provide both IS and an f2.8 maximum aperture in the 17-55 at its price point.</p>

<p>As you have discovered yourself providing excellent image quality in a zoom is still more difficult than in a prime despite advancements in zoom design over the past 30 years. While some of the most expensive zooms are better than some of the cheapest primes it can also be said that some of the most expensive primes are better than the most expensive zooms.</p>

<p>While I suspect that the 16-35/2.8 L II fits your needs the best, do not discount the 17-40/4 L. I also always recommend used lenses as well since the best of the newest lenses come at a significant premium. The previous 16-35/2.8 L and 17-35/2.8 L can be had at considerable savings with likely insignificant changes in IQ. </p>

 

[jimstrutz]

<p>You're not comparing lens quality if you're using two different camera bodies, especially if one uses a crop sensor and the other doesn't.</p>

<p>I owned the earlier Canon 28-70 f/2.8L and the full frame 5D for a while. It was a remarkably good combination, but the L lens was certainly NOT better than the 17-55 f/2.8 when both were mounted on a crop sensor 50D. The L lens showed a little less flare, and very slightly more contrast, but the 17-55 was a little sharper, and with IS, the 17-55 was far more usable in low to moderately low light.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The 16-35 f/2.8 can be a wonderful lens on full frame for those who need to do low light hand held photography. Its primary virtues make it great for large aperture shooting on FF, but not necessary worth the price premium for those whose needs are a bit different.</p>

<p>The most expensive, biggest and baddest looking lens with a red ring and a letter "L" is not necessarily the best lens in all cases.</p>

<p>If you look at reviews and performance tests, the excellent 16-35 gains you nothing over the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 in terms of image quality. Both lenses are great performers in this regard. However, the EFS lens gets you a larger focal length range (something you mentioned in your post) and image stabilization, which is very useful in a range of low light situations. And the price is lower.</p>

<p>As to the "build quality" issue, I think we can let ourselves get distracted by this. One mistake that people often make is to assume that there are two classes of build quality: "the best" and "not good enough." In reality, just because a lens is not a L lens it doesn't necessarily follow that the build quality is insufficient. As you may know, build quality varies quite a bit among EFS lenses. Lenses like the kit 18-55, while fine for some people, do not have the same build as the EFS 17-55. </p>

<p>I shoot full frame and I use a range of L and non-L zooms and primes. If I were to get a Canon cropped sensor body, my first zoom would undoubtedly be the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Two more things:</p>

<ul>

<li>If you think you might eventually end up with a full-frame body, that does not mean that you should limit yourself to lenses on your crop sensor body that can work on full frame. When and if you switch to FF, the crop lenses do not lose their value. You can a) keep the crop body/lens as a backup camera, b) sell the crop body and lens for a good percentage of their original value.</li>

<li>About "sharpness" - I often read posts from people who think they have sharpness problems that are due to their lenses, and who consequently think that if they get a "better lens" that the sharpness problem will be resolved. Quite often getting a better lens is not the issue - the softness is due to improperly adjusted equipment, technique problems that affect the sharpness of the capture, failure to understand workflow that optimizes image sharpness, or even false notions of what "sharp" looks like at 100%. Be sure you have addressed these issues before throwing money at lenses for the sake of sharpness.</li>

</ul>

<p>Dan</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>As Dan says don't get too hung up about resolution unless you are planning to print really large. Full frame bodies have a clear advantage over APS-C bodies when it comes to resolution as they do not put the same performance requirements on a lens. My 5DII has 70 lpm whereas my 7D has 116 lpm so although they produce similar mexapixel size images the 5DII images are sharper and more robust. My 16-35 F2.8 II produces much better images on the 5DII than my 7D but the image quality from the 7D is more than enough for most uses. I would suggest that you should answer the following questions<br>

Do you plan to go to a full frame body in the next 2-3 years ? - if so I would suggest you buy either the 17-40 F4 L or the 16-35 F2.8 II<br>

Do you need image stabilization or F2.8 ? - if so the obvious lens is the 17-55<br>

I genuinely find that I do not need image stabilization on wider angle lenses but I have fairly steady hands - 25 years of shooting ISO 50 -100 film with manual focus lenses does that. If you find that you are shooting at slow speeds or need to push the ISO above 800 then I would definately suggest that you get an IS lens. It is always good to know what speed you can handhold - I find that I am almost 100% at 1 stop below the 1/focal length and over 80% at 2 stops under.</p>

[jesper_hansen3]

<p>Lots of great advice and good points made. For the future readers of the thread, let me just add what I actually ended up with:<br>

I brought my 50D to a retailer, and tried both the EF-S 17-55 IS 2.8 and the 16-35L 2.8. I know that taking a handfull of shots on the street is not exactly scientifically correct testing, but I already read all of the correctly performed tests on the net anyway.<br>

So I took a few shots of a quite busy store front on the other side of the road, and of a close by street sign with good contrast and clear text. I used each lens at 2.8, 4.0 and 5.6. Using the center AF point, a fast shutter speed, and both the short and the long end of the range.<br>

Stating the obvious, the L lens was more pleasant to handle, especially the zoom ring. I compared the best frames from each lens for each motive, and at each aparture etc., using 1:1 size on the camera display (again, not scientifical, I know). Not much visible difference, but the EF-S lens appeared sharper at 2.8 at the widest zoom setting with sharper edges on the text of the street sign. Background blur was nicer and softer on the L lens. At 4.0 and 5.6 apartures, the images seemed very identical, EF-S lens generally appearing very slightly darker, despite identical camera settings.<br>

I bought the EF-S lens, saving $450 dollar for the next lens, and quite convinced that on my 50D the EF-S lens will serve the original purpose well: Being wide, fast and sharp (for a zoom, at least). IS, to me, is an added bonus. The extra money for the 16-35L would have bought me full-frame compatibility, which I don't need, better build and handling which is not a requirement for me, and a red stribe which I admittedly really wanted, but I'll get over it :)<br>

Jesper.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"My 5DII has 70 lpm whereas my 7D has 116 lpm..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't forget that the full frame body has "more millimeters" to hold those lines. (I didn't check your lp/mm numbers...)</p>

<p>Regarding the "future plans" issue, if you are <em>certain that you will buy a full frame body in the next couple of months</em> or so, it makes sense to sacrifice the better functionality of the current camera perhaps. On the other hand, if you think you'll <em>perhaps move to full frame in a couple of years</em>, it does not make sense to handicap your shooting for two years (or longer) when you could get the lens that is best for your current camera and sell it or keep camera/body as a backup when and if you switch.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Another vote for the 16-35II. When I had my 20D it was on it 90% of the time. It's a great focal range on a crop and an excellent lens.</p>

<p>I do find myself using my 24 and 50's more on my 5D2. I was all zooms and I've now mutated into mostly primes with zooms now and then.</p>

<p>That, said, I recently visited an Canadian warship docked in Hamilton, Ontario and I took a lot of shots at dusk and later with the 16-35 that came out much better than I expected. It's a good low-light WA zoom.</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>Guys! Guys! he already bought the 17-55 :-)<br>

Let me be the first to say congrats on your purchase I know you wont be disappointed (I have a 50D and a 17-55, love it). Opinions are irrelevant now so go forth and shoot and above all have fun.</p>