Thanks for the responses guys, I appreciate it very much!
I can understand having the benefits of the smaller, lighter EF-S lenses. I was just wondering if it would be more cost effective in the long run, if I were to purchase something like the 16-35 f/2.8 II? If my math is correct, and if I understand correctly, the actual field of view would be fairly similar to the 18-55 kit lens, correct? (just a little shorter when fully zoomed in, and a little wider when zoomed out) If I am mistaken, please correct me. I am still trying to learn all I can.
From an experienced user's point of view, would it make sense to buy the 17-55 f/2.8, or would I get the same quality out of the 16-35 f/2.8, at a loss of zoom?
@King315 wrote:Thanks for the responses guys, I appreciate it very much!
I can understand having the benefits of the smaller, lighter EF-S lenses. I was just wondering if it would be more cost effective in the long run, if I were to purchase something like the 16-35 f/2.8 II? If my math is correct, and if I understand correctly, the actual field of view would be fairly similar to the 18-55 kit lens, correct? (just a little shorter when fully zoomed in, and a little wider when zoomed out) If I am mistaken, please correct me. I am still trying to learn all I can.
From an experienced user's point of view, would it make sense to buy the 17-55 f/2.8, or would I get the same quality out of the 16-35 f/2.8, at a loss of zoom?
Go ahead and invest in EF lenses. I once made the same choice. I stopped buying EF-S lenses.
The argument about how you would be paying for more lens [wider image] than what you smaller inamge sensor sensor can use is more rationalization than sensible. The image quality in many lenses falls off toward the edges, anyway. You smaller sensor would pretty much use only the best part of the image produced by EF lenses.
Besides, guess what type of lenses [EF or EF-S] mount that the detractors commonly use on their crop sensor cameras?
@King315 wrote:Thanks for the responses guys, I appreciate it very much!
I can understand having the benefits of the smaller, lighter EF-S lenses. I was just wondering if it would be more cost effective in the long run, if I were to purchase something like the 16-35 f/2.8 II? If my math is correct, and if I understand correctly, the actual field of view would be fairly similar to the 18-55 kit lens, correct? (just a little shorter when fully zoomed in, and a little wider when zoomed out) If I am mistaken, please correct me. I am still trying to learn all I can.
From an experienced user's point of view, would it make sense to buy the 17-55 f/2.8, or would I get the same quality out of the 16-35 f/2.8, at a loss of zoom?
If you really think paying almost twice as much for a lens without image stabilization and less of a zoom range makes sense go for it.
And no you would not get the same image quality out of the 16-35 f/2.8 II, it would not be as good as the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
@King315 wrote:Thanks for the responses guys, I appreciate it very much!
I can understand having the benefits of the smaller, lighter EF-S lenses. I was just wondering if it would be more cost effective in the long run, if I were to purchase something like the 16-35 f/2.8 II? If my math is correct, and if I understand correctly, the actual field of view would be fairly similar to the 18-55 kit lens, correct? (just a little shorter when fully zoomed in, and a little wider when zoomed out) If I am mistaken, please correct me. I am still trying to learn all I can.
From an experienced user's point of view, would it make sense to buy the 17-55 f/2.8, or would I get the same quality out of the 16-35 f/2.8, at a loss of zoom?
All the arguments have already been laid out, so there's nothing left but to venture into personal opinion. Mine is that you'd miss the extra telephoto range if you chose the 16-35 over the 17-55 and that any difference in image quality would be negligible.
If you were to decide to go full-frame in the next year or so, you might regret spending the money for the 17-55. But consider this: The Alaska trip will likely cost you several thousand dollars, and in that context the cost of the lens may not matter much. And it's a well regarded lens, so you could probably sell it on the used market.
And in answer to Waddizzle's question for "detractors" (since I guess my opinion makes me one): when I use a crop camera, the lens I use on it is almost always the 17-55. My wife also has the 17-55 and uses it almost exclusively on her 7D Mark II, even though she has three other lenses (WA, telephoto, macro).
@RobertTheFat wrote:Mine is that you'd miss the extra telephoto range if you chose the 16-35 over the 17-55 and that any difference in image quality would be negligible.
If he was talking about getting the EF 16-35 f/2.8L III (at three times the cost) I would agree there isn't much image quality difference. However, he was asking about the EF 16-35 f/2.8l II and in that case there is.
EF 16-35 f/2.8L III
EF 16-35 f/2.8L II
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS
