Canon EF 16-35mm 2.8 vs EF-S 17-55mm 2.8

[j_hickton]

<p>I have a 7D and am thinking of selling my EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and buying a EF 16-35mm 2.8 in anticipation of eventually going full-frame (when the 5D mk iii comes out). Does anyone have experience of both lenses, and is there much difference in IQ?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>The 17-55/2.8 is better WO (and near) at the wide end, but the difference isn't to bad. Essentially though, I suspect you'll have a lot of trouble justifying the extra cost while you are working on the crop. There simply isn't any improvement in IQ in the 16-35/2.8 over the 17-55/2.8 in most circumstances.</p>

<p> </p>

[max_brunell]

<p>I have both the 7d and 5d mkii. I also have the 17-55mm and in the same boat about wanting either the 16-35 or 24-70.. though neither have IS. I usually shoot with the 17-55 on my 7d and 85 1.8 or 70-200 2.8 IS on the 5d.</p>

<p>So Im in for the advice as well.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Not having used the 16-35, I can't help you with the specific IQ issue. But I'd ask what sort of shooting you do and what other lenses you have.</p>

 

<p>I used to use the 17-40/4 as my main lens on a 1.6-crop body. I found I always had to take at least two lenses with me, even when trying to carry as little camera gear as possible, because the 17-40 just didn't go long enough to be a one-lens solution. The 17-55 doesn't sound like it goes that much longer, but it does enable me to pack just one lens sometimes. It also reduces the annoying frequency with which I'd have to swap back and forth between the 17-40 and my next-longer lens. The 16-35 would be a bit worse than the 17-40 in both of those areas; are you comfortable with that?</p>

 

<p>As well, do you shoot in situations in which IS is useful? Having previously used the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM as my main lens in the film days, I was accustomed to having IS available, and the 17-40 frustrated me a bit in that area. So would you be comfortable forgoing IS for this?</p>

 

<p>If I were in your situation, I'd probably stick with the 17-55 until it's time to go full-frame, and only swap the 17-55 for the 16-35 at that time.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have never used the 17-55 F2.8 so I cannot compare IQ. I have owned the 17-40 and do own the 16-35 F2.8 II. The DSLRs I shoot are a 5DII, 1DIIN and a 7D. <br>

The digital picture test chart shots show the 16-35 II to be significantly sharper wide open but the 17-55 shows less distortion at the edge at wide angles. Unfortunately the 16-35 test shots are on the 1DsIII and the 17-55 on the 50D so it is not clear how much is due to the camera. Here is the link<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0<br>

Similarly Photozone has only tested the 16-35 II on full frame (the old 16-35 Mk I they tested on a 350D was not a great performer) so you cannot compare.<br>

I like my 16-35 II but it is not the best performing lens out there (for example the 17 F4 TS significantly out performs it). It also needs 82mm filters and large size Cokin (or Lee etc...) filter holders to avoid vignetting on full frame. However, it perform well and is well built and weather sealed. A quick check on B&H shows that it costs $444 more than the 17-55 but since the 17-55 does not include the hood and case then the real price difference is about $370. If you plan to move to full frame or APS-H then it may well be worth the extra.<br>

In answer to the IS question I really only value it on long lenses. I have the 16-35 II and 24-70 (I used to have the 24-105) and rarely miss IS. In practice you buy fast lenses to shoot a wide apertures and with a good body (such as the 7D) then you can get very good images at ISO 800. So with a wide lens at F2.8 in ISO 800 you need to be in light levels of less than 6EV (LV) to start to have an issue (at 6EV you are shooting 1/60th). This equates to a fair or amusement park at night. If you do lots of indoor or night shooting especially with available light then you may find a much greater need for IS than I do. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I use the 17-40 and shoot full frame, so I have no horse in this race. :-)</p>

<p>However, it sure seems to me that the EFS 17-55 would be as good or better for a cropped sensor camera. From all indications, both have excellent image quality, so there is no downside to the EFS lens on that count. Both have f/2.8. The EFS lens has a larger focal length range, and it also has image stabilization. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dan_south]

I don't see what you'd be gaining with the switch, and you're losing 20 mm on the long end.

 

Wait until you actually get a full frame camera before you start buying lenses for it. Newer lenses might be available by

that time. It's possible that you won't even like a particular lens on a FF body. How could you even make that

determination if you bought the lens before you had the body?

 

In short: save your money. ;-)

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Wait until you get the full frame camera before switching. If you switch now, you gain nothing in image quality (well you might actually lose a bit), lose IS, and lose 20mm of focal length. This is honestly a no-brainer. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>If your willing to spend the bread for the 16-35mm L-series, then why not sell the whole 7D kit and buy a 5D MkII with the 24-105mm f/4L IS "kit" lens? If you're really going to go full frame, then now's the time to do it. If you're worried about the MkIII, then buy a reconditioned MkII now and trade up later.</p>

<p>On a FF body, the 24-105mm is an incredible, walk-around lens that can take some very serious scenics, portraits and night street photography.</p>

<p>I own both the 5D2 and the 7D, but the 5D2 is what I grab for everything except nature and sports shooting. My lenses are the 24-105mm, the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 500mm f/4L IS and I seldom even think about anything wider than the 24-105mm and do stiched panoramas instead. (I WILL likely buy an ultra-wide some day, or the 8-15mm, but I'm going to borrow a couple from Canon for a week or two to see if I really use it, before buying).</p>

[ejder]

<p>17-55 is sharper and has IS. 16-35 fits on FF cameras. That's about all....except build quality, which IMO is of little importance since you can drop either one and 90% chance either one will break or malfunction after the drop. I dropped my 16-35L II onto CARPET from about 2 feet and it had to be sent in for repairs. Just because it weighs a ton doesn't mean it can withstand any more abuse.</p>