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.

[ebiggs1]

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

No such thing as "too wide"!

[7D5D]

---

@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.

[ebiggs1]

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.

[Skirball]

---

@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.

[jeffreydear]

Thanks for the advice.

[diverhank]

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

[ebiggs1]

"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!

[jeffreydear]

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.

[7D5D]

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.

[Skirball]

---

@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”.