16-35 f2.8 L vs 17-55 IS f2.8

eichert12

I've heard a ton of people recommend the 17-55 f2.8 on this forum, as well as elsewhere, and a few people say good things about the 16-35 L. Obviously the 17-55 is only a crop body lens, but otherwise how do the two lenses compare? I have the 24-105 f4 L so the thing that's appealing about both the lenses is the < 24mm range, as well as the 2.8. I have a 40D.

Cheers,
Steve

Manfr3d

eichert12 wrote:

I've heard a ton of people recommend the 17-55 f2.8 on this forum, as well as elsewhere, and a few people say good things about the 16-35 L. Obviously the 17-55 is only a crop body lens, but otherwise how do the two lenses compare? I have the 24-105 f4 L so the thing that's appealing about both the lenses is the < 24mm range, as well as the 2.8. I have a 40D.

Cheers,
Steve

The image quality should be nearly identical.

You should ask yourself the question if you
want IS or upgrade to a Fullframe body later.

Checkout http://www.the-digital-picture.com
there are not-too-technical reviews of both lenses.

eichert12

There doesn't seem to be much opinion on this. For those that got a 17-55mm did you consider the 16-35 as well, and if so what led you to the 17-55?

ChuckM

I went back and forth between the 17-55 and 24-105 for a "vacation" lens. Basically, I was wanting something for landscapes and architectural pics. I chose the 17-55 for a couple of reasons...
#1 - 2.8 would be new to me. I figure that opens some new creative avenues for me.
#2 - wider was more important to me than the extra reach of the 24-105. I currently have the 18-55 kit and find I use it for most shots.

I didn't consider the 16-35 as I figured it was too wide for me.

I know that's not the same situation you're in. But that was my thinking when I decided FWIW.

Now I just have to wait for B&H to get one in stock. :

colourbox

eichert12 wrote:

There doesn't seem to be much opinion on this. For those that got a 17-55mm did you consider the 16-35 as well, and if so what led you to the 17-55?

My two lenses are the 24-105L f/4 for daylight shooting and where telephoto range is needed, and the 17-55 f/2.8 for wide angle/low light/indoor shooting. I may not have known about the 16-35L because I don't remember researching it, but now that I see it on the B&H site, I don't think I would have changed my mind. For my needs, the zoom to 55mm makes the 17-55 more useful to me than the L designation and extra 1mm wide of the 16-35L, but even more compelling, the 17-55 costs about $500 less while some still call it L image quality (though certainly not L build quality).

gluwater

Don't let the fact that the 17-55 is not an L lens put you off. Canon will not release an L EF-S lens. The L designation is strictly for the EF mount.

I have used the 16-35 Mrk I and it is a great lens but I am seriously thinking about getting the 17-55 instead because of the IS and longer reach. To me the 17-55 is an extremely versatile lens. You can use it for a walk around lens, landscapes, and low light. To me the versatility and lower cost trumps the extra build and image quality of the 16-35L Mrk II.