Which...and Why?

cdonovan

Ok, sales over on wednesday....I'm seriously shopping and can't decide between these two lenses. For Wedding and portrait work.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens $1099





Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens $1569





Already in my bag is the 70-200IS USM 2.8f and the 50 f1.4
I'm looking for something to compliment them. I'm in love with the second, but don't know if it's based purely on the look....is it worth the extra $600 for me and why?

thanks guys!

Lovesong

Given the EF-S lens, I'm going to take a shot in the dark, and guess you're shooting a crop body. In that case both of these lenses will be your "normal-wide" lenses. In your shoes, and unless you really, really need the 1 stop, I would skip both the 2.8's for a 17-40 f/4 L. My reasoning for this is the fact that the 17-40 can be had for $650, and with that extra $1000 that you can save off the 16-35, you can get a 35mm L or a 24mm L.

Another thing you might want to check to see is how good of a deal you're getting. B&H has the 16-35 for $1450. Here.

Cuong

My pick would be the 17-55, which gives you 20mm more in reach and $450 less in cost.

Cuong

Rhuarc

Cuong wrote:

My pick would be the 17-55, which gives you 20mm more in reach and $450 less in cost.

Cuong

ziggy53

I highly recommend the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM for use with one of the dRebel or 20D/30D/40D cameras.

The f2.8 aperture plus IS makes for very stable shooting and the range is extremely desirable and a much better compliment to the 70-200mm you have.

cdonovan

I was all set to go with the 16-35 mm until I realized that it didn't have IS I was hopeing to come back here and read that you folks suggest the 17-55mm more so than the 16-35. Many Thanks...I've polled and shopped and questioned and asked here many times about this purchase...I just had it narrowed down and then was questioning my judgement! Thanks all for your help!!!!:D

Oh and I'm canadian, so the B&H price is better, but by the time I'd pay duty and shipping it would be much higher than the price that I'm getting from www.vistek.ca but thanks for the heads up!

Nikolai

Looks like I'm too late for the game but given a crop body I vote for 17-55. I have it, use it a lot and I love it. It's an extremely versatile lens for what you have in mind. 16-35 (which is a great glass, don't get me wrong) is simply not wide enough.
HTH

cdonovan

never to late to join in....I'm very happy to hear testimonials until I have it in hand.

the problem with where I live is the only place I can shop is online. We have a local camera store/print shop with questionable ethics. Unrelated matter, but they were so impressed with a friends photo that they printed their own copy and hung it on their wall without asking permission...then when someone came into the store that loved it too they gave her a copy of it!

anyway, they don't stock any L lenses or it seems anything that has a retail of $800 and up. I have to put a deposit down for them to bring anything in to see/touch/feel (which can take up to 3 weeks) and then am obliged to buy at full retail price. Their sale price was much higher than the vistek price, free shipping and it's here in 2 days! Kind of a no brainer...not to mention their customer service...or lack thereof

It's really too bad, I'd much prefer to support a local business, and actually hold something in my hands before droppng that much dough!

Nikolai

cdonovan wrote:

the problem with where I live is the only place I can shop is online.

FWIW, I gave up on our local stores for photography purposes a LONG time ago.
Shipping from the East Coast to LA is easier and cheaper (no hassle, no tax and often free shipping). Plus you can't beat B&H/Adorama selection of *everything*:-)

Tee Why

17-55.
Cheaper, longer, maybe better optics, and IS.

KED

cdonovan wrote:

the problem with where I live is the only place I can shop is online. We have a local camera store/print shop with questionable ethics. Unrelated matter, but they were so impressed with a friends photo that they printed their own copy and hung it on their wall without asking permission...then when someone came into the store that loved it too they gave her a copy of it!

It's really too bad, I'd much prefer to support a local business, and actually hold something in my hands before droppng that much dough!

That particular "local business" doesn't sound worthy of anyone's support. B&H baby! :ivar

Scott_Quier

Another "vote" for the 17-55. It is quite usable at f/2.8 and stunningly sharp stopped down just a 1/2 stop from there. I've had mine for 1.5 years and have had nothing but wonderful things to say about it. And, in terms of focal length, it's a much better match to you 70-200 than the other options. And, it's less expensive!

claudermilk

Nikolai wrote:

FWIW, I gave up on our local stores for photography purposes a LONG time ago.
Shipping from the East Coast to LA is easier and cheaper (no hassle, no tax and often free shipping). Plus you can't beat B&H/Adorama selection of *everything*:-)

Awww.. Samy's isn't THAT bad. Neither is Pro Photo. I at least give them a look before going to B&H.

Back on topic. There's four lenses all with great reputations in the desired range: Canon's 16-35/2.8L, 17-40/4L, and 17-55/2.8IS, and then Tamron's 17-50/2.8. If you're really stuck for which way to jump, there's always the rental places--it will cost a bit in the end, but then you only buy once.

Nikolai

claudermilk wrote:

Awww.. Samy's isn't THAT bad. Neither is Pro Photo. I at least give them a look before going to B&H.

Well, I've been at Samy's once (thanks DavidTO!). It sure looks like a nice place, and if it were closer I might have visited it more just to hang out in a cool place if nothing else. But driving 40-50 (at least) miles one way through LA traffic is definitely not my idea of fun (and it's about $20 in gas in today's prices). Also, most of the prices I checked were ~10%..20% higher than online ones, let alone they all come with tax.

cdonovan

Thank you for the suggestions for checking out Henry's.ca

I'm the proud new owner of a 40D It hasn't sunk in yet...I doubt it will until I have it in my hands

While searching...I know here comes another question....Shooting with 2 cameras now one will have the 70-200mm f2.8 IS and the second must have something wide...I'm still in the air with the 17-55 f2.8 for some reason...and now have stumbled upon something different again...the 17-40mm f4 USM L

Anyone with that lens and some feedback for me!?

Are you folks tired of me yet!!!!

ziggy53

cdonovan wrote:

...I'm still in the air with the 17-55 f2.8 for some reason...and now have stumbled upon something different again...the 17-40mm f4 USM L

Anyone with that lens and some feedback for me!?

Are you folks tired of me yet!!!!

I have both the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM and the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM and they both have that "it" factor of high resolution and sharpness as well as fast and accurate focus.

On a crop 1.6x camera there is no doubt which one to use, the 17-55 IS USM is significantly more useful and worth the money IMO.

joshhuntnm

It seems the real issue is if you ever plan to step up to a full frame camera.

cdonovan

ziggy53 wrote:

I have both the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM and the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM and they both have that "it" factor of high resolution and sharpness as well as fast and accurate focus.

On a crop 1.6x camera there is no doubt which one to use, the 17-55 IS USM is significantly more useful and worth the money IMO.

Many thanks!:D

cdonovan

joshhuntnm wrote:

It seems the real issue is if you ever plan to step up to a full frame camera.

Unfortunately, they still lie outside my budget for this year. Who knows what the next couple of years may bring. It's definitly something that I'm working towards, but, just haven't been able to justify the cost...yet:D

Manfr3d

If you have no intentions to go fullframe in the future get
the 17-55 IS or if you can live without is the much cheaper
but equally sharp Tamron 17-50mm/2.8.

I would personaly not spend 1000$ on an APS-C lens since
the build quality is not very comparable to the weather sealed
16-35mm/2.8 L II.

Since they are both great just pick what you prefer.

ziggy53

cdonovan wrote:

Unfortunately, they still lie outside my budget for this year. Who knows what the next couple of years may bring. It's definitly something that I'm working towards, but, just haven't been able to justify the cost...yet:D

I always recommend the purchase of the appropriate product for what you own, not what you "might" own (and I live by that rule too).

If your purchase of a crop 1.3x or full-frame camera is imminent, then the strategy of only purchasing full-frame lenses might make sense. Otherwise, use EF-S and digital crop only lenses and sell them if you feel the need. In the mean time, you will be using the most appropriate tool to produce great images.