topic Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D in EF & RF Lenses

Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

jeffreydear — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:33:27 GMT

I'm looking for some feedback on which is the better lens choice. I have ready a lot of reviews and forums. The general consensus is that the 17-55 might be a better option, but many of those reviews are based on price.

I have a unique scenario. I have the option to purchase the 17-55 new at $1059 (plus the cost of the hood, bag, and filter). I have the option to purchase the 16-35L from a local photographer. I think I can purchase it for about $1150 with a slim line filter included (as well as the lens hood and bag).

I am currently using a 7D. I'd like to eventually upgrade to a 5D, but that likely will not be anywhere in the near future.

I currently own the 50MM 1.8, 70-200MM f4, 100M 2.8 Macro, 18-55 kit lens, and the 28-135MM lens. I'm looking for something to replace the 18-55. I find myself needing this lens more than any of the others, so it makes sense to upgrade to a higher quality lens.

My brains says the 17-55 is a better option, but my heart really wants that L series lens.

I really don't take a lot of landscape shots. Mostly I do indoor sporting events, portrait work, and macro nature photography.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

Skirball — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:45:17 GMT

If you know you're going to upgrade to a full frame then you have to weight that in and how much you're willing to put into EF-S lenses.

That said, I think the 17-55 is a much better purchase for a crop sensor camera. Cheaper, lighter, longer range. The major difference (beside price and the lack of the red ring) is that the 17-55 isn't weather sealed. So if you're frequently shooting in adverse environments you may want to keep that in mind. Otherwise, the 17-55 is highly regarded as one of the best EF-S lenses that Canon makes.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

ebiggs1 — Mon, 20 May 2013 20:13:10 GMT

This is a no brainer, get the "L".

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

hsbn — Mon, 20 May 2013 21:01:06 GMT

+1 for the L since they're very close in pricing or pretty much the same in your case. It's better in the long run especially you plan to upgrade to full frame in the future.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

7D5D — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:05:07 GMT

My take is get the best lens for the body you have and not for a body you might buy. For most crop shooters I would recommend the 17-55 or 15-85 as the best option for a general purpose zoom lens.

However, when I was a crop only shooter (7D), I was in the exact same position as you and was trying to decided between the 16-35 II or 17-55. I knew I would get a FF body someday but I tried to not let that influence my decision. My real issue was I had a weather resistant 7D and I wanted to shoot in the rain so I ended up choosing the 16-35 II over the 17-55.

Do keep in mine the 16-35 II does require a filter to complete the weather sealing. Make sure the seller's filter is a HQ filter such as a B&W. Also, a slim filter is not necessary especially on a crop body. I use a non slim UV on a FF without any vignetting but my CPL (circular polarizer) is a slim.

For the price, its hard to turn down the 16-35 II. If you choose the 17-55, you should have an excellent resell value when/if you go FF. Really, either way you will win and have an significant upgrade to your 18-55.

Good luck and enjoy your new lens.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

Skirball — Tue, 21 May 2013 14:29:53 GMT

I wouldn't make light of the EF mount if you're going FF, that would seal the deal for me too. But I'm with 7D5D, if it's several years off, buy for the camera you have now. You also state that the 17-55 is you most used lens, so you'd be replacing it with something with half the range and leave a gap between 35 and 70 to fill with a ultrazoom.

The way I see it:

17 - 55

Cheaper

Lighter

Image Stabilization

More range

Standard filter size (77 vs 82)

16-35

EF mount

Weather Sealing/Better Build

I added in cost, because the 55 is cheaper. To be fair, you're comparing a brand new lens to a third party used. I'm assuming you're basing the price off the Canon's refurbished price, which is $1150 for the 16-35 II. If it's a good friend and you trust his care of the the lens, then go for it. But the Canon one, which is in stock, is 100% inspected to spec and comes with a 90 day warranty. They also have the 17-55 in stock, for $800.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

hsbn — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:40:18 GMT

I thought exactly the same as Skirball and 7D5D until I purchased the 6D. Now my EF-S lens is not useable for the 6D. I don't have money to spend on new lens. Thus I'm stuck with EF-S lens (wide angle wise). I have to borrow the 16-35L from a friend (he doesn't use it at all) in the mean time to fill the gap. Upgrade may come sooner than you think. And with the price of FF camera getting lower every year, even new commer now purchases FF from the beginning. So about 3-4 years from now, most people will use FF camera for sure. By that time, I don't think the EF-S lens still have good resale value anymore. And if you like me, I don't like to deal with all the hassle of reselling gears. You go through a reputable seller light Adorama, BHphoto then you'll not get a good price. And dealing with Ebay, Craiglist can be a pain sometimes.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

diverhank — Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:19 GMT

I don't know much about the 17-55 but let's assume the two lenses are the same in performance, I'd still get the 16-35mm for the reason that it will work for any Canon camera...especially at this price point. You never know when you are going to upgrade to full frame...if you plan to do it within 5 years I'd get the EF.

BTW, you should check out some of the photographs Explorer of Light Jennifer Wu took with the 16-35mm...they are unbelievable beautiful.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

jeffreydear — Tue, 21 May 2013 19:14:09 GMT

Thanks for all the responses. Great feedback.

With that said, I decided to throw in another variable. I am considering selling my 7D and buying the 6D with the 24-105L lense.

Thoughts?

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

diverhank — Tue, 21 May 2013 19:27:00 GMT

The 6D + 24-105 is a great upgrade unless you plan to shoot a lot of action (like sports and wildlife in motion) because you would have to give up on the better AF and 1.6x reach of the 7D.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention that with a full frame, you may not need a 16-35mm. I'm happy using my 5D3 with the 24-105 and 24-70 and call me weird but I think even @ 24mm it's too wide with a full frame.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

ebiggs1 — Tue, 21 May 2013 19:44:43 GMT

"... it's too wide with a full frame."

No such thing as "too wide"!

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

jeffreydear — Tue, 21 May 2013 19:46:00 GMT

I don't shoot a lot of action, although that one dance recital that I have to do every year might be a little challenging. The auto focus system is my one real concern. The flip side is the higher ISO would be helpful.

I generally like to do portrait photos as well as a lot of nature photography (basically hitting the park and taking pictures of flowers, bugs, or anything I can find). I rarely need a true wide angle lense like the 16-35. The 18mm (28.8) on the 7D is usually sufficient.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

7D5D — Tue, 21 May 2013 23:30:50 GMT

Well that certainly changes things. Yes you are probably better off saving your money on the two lens options and going for a new kit. Not knowing what your budget is, here is a sugestion:

6D with 24-105 kits lens

- sell 18-55

- sell 28-135 (I have no idea what this lens is worth)

- sell 50 1.8 (personally I'd sell this lens just because of the crappy build quality, I hope someday Canon offers a 50 worth buying)

- keep 70-200 f/4 (I'm assuming this is the non IS version)

100 macro (keep if you use or sell to help fund new kit if you don't use)

Before you jump on the 6D, make sure you put one in your hands. If you really love the ergonomics and button layout of the 7D, you might not be happy with the 6D. Also, if sports and action is big part of what you shoot, consider keeping the 7D as a second body. Maybe the resale of a used 7D is not worth giving it up. Lots of folks say once you go FF you will never use your crop body again. Probably true for most people but in my case, I love my 7D and I use it.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

7D5D — Tue, 21 May 2013 23:37:30 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"... it's too wide with a full frame."

No such thing as "too wide"!

I too love wide! When I got my 5D, the very first thing I did was throw on my 16-35 II to check out the ultra wide FOV. Prior, the widest I had was 28mm back in the film days. I briefly had the EF-S 15-85 (24mm FF equivalent). But no doubt, 24mm is plenty wide for lots of people.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

ebiggs1 — Wed, 22 May 2013 12:22:29 GMT

Right on!

My current lens inventory is from 8mm up to 600mm.

There just isn't any too wide or too long either.

On never using the 7D after using a FF is simply nonsense. I have all three Canon sensor sizes 7D, 5D, and 1D3 and use all three constantly.

People that get caught up in this crop sensor thing are ridiculous. Every camera is full frame. You get exactly what you see in the view finder or full frame. The only thing that doesn't match up is the number on the lens. It doesn't even matter.

Stop reading the thoughts of the pixel pickers and data miners.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

Skirball — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:33:34 GMT

@jeffreydear wrote:
I don't shoot a lot of action, although that one dance recital that I have to do every year might be a little challenging. The auto focus system is my one real concern. The flip side is the higher ISO would be helpful.

I generally like to do portrait photos as well as a lot of nature photography (basically hitting the park and taking pictures of flowers, bugs, or anything I can find). I rarely need a true wide angle lense like the 16-35. The 18mm (28.8) on the 7D is usually sufficient.

I wouldn't worry about it, the 6D AF isn't as bad as the internet makes it out to be. Most the people that complain about it have never even used it. It can capture a dance recital. If you shoot a lot of sports the 7D is unquestionably a better choice, but it doesn’t mean you can’t use a 6D to capture action. It sounds like for your uses FF might fit you well.

Full frame is nice, but there’s a misperception in photography that it is ‘the next level’ from crop sensors. There are things about FF that are nice (e.g. low light performance and thin depth of field), but there are things about crop sensors that are nice as well (e.g. the crop “magnification” factor, more optimal use of lenses sweet spot,and a thicker depth of field – which can be nice for macro). They’re just different. Move into FF because it has features that you want, not because “it’s better”.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

Skirball — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:46:22 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
People that get caught up in this crop sensor thing are ridiculous. Every camera is full frame. You get exactly what you see in the view finder or full frame. The only thing that doesn't match up is the number on the lens. It doesn't even matter.
Stop reading the thoughts of the pixel pickers and data miners.

“Full frame” is a photography term, and has a specific meaning. It’s a 35mm sensor. “Crop sensors” are a term as well, generally meaning APS-C sized sensors, roughly 25mm. That’s it. You’re reading these literally… nobody is implying that the image is cropped compared to what you see in the view finder, or that you don’t get the full image. They’re just terms, and they serve a purpose to aid communication. There is a difference in how these two cameras interact with any given lens. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but they will give you different FOV and DOF. But it’s a difference, hence we have terms so that we easily discuss the two different systems.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

jeffreydear — Wed, 22 May 2013 16:16:35 GMT

Thanks for the advice.

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

diverhank — Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:17 GMT

What can I say...for a BIF guy, sometimes 200mm is too wide 😄

Re: Canon 17-55 EFS vs Canon 16-35 EF L II on a 7D

ebiggs1 — Thu, 23 May 2013 13:07:44 GMT

"Full frame” is a photography term, and has a specific meaning"

You know as well as me if you have been in photography as long as I have the term "full frame" instantly puts novice photographers in inferiority mode. As you rightly pointed out this need not be ture but it is the way things have progressed.

For years and years Canon's top-of-the line flagship Camera, the 1D series has had a crop sensor in it. No one suggests they aren't the best cameras on the market and/or even in the world.

You may be savvy enough to know the dictionary definition but most newbie's don't. Be assured that what you see in the view finder is what you are going to get in your photograph. It is full frame!