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

[jeffreydear]

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.

[Skirball]

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.

[ebiggs1]

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

[hsbn]

+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.

[7D5D]

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.

[Skirball]

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.

[hsbn]

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.

[diverhank]

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.

[jeffreydear]

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?

[diverhank]

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.