Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 02 Dec 2011 (Friday) 21:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55 vs 16-35 mk II with a twist!

 
Camera ­ Nerd
Senior Member
935 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Dec 02, 2011 21:48 |  #1

Hey!
I haven't posted in months because I've been so busy (mostly shooting), which I suppose is good thing. I've acquired a 24-70 2.8, a 70-200 2.8, 50 1.8 and 3 bodies over the past months/years. I have a 7d, 1d mark III, and a 5d classic and for the most part love them all. however im getting into video and I HATE using the 24-70 2.8 on the 7d as it is way too long.

Now that its the holidays its time to treat myself. Since I have 2 non crop (full frame bodies) and 1 crop body (the 7d) im not sure if I should get the 17-55 or the 16-35?


canon 7d, canon 5d classic, 24-70 2.8 L, 70-200 2.8 (non-is) L, .
my flickr http://www.flickr.com/​photos/51827770@N04/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
15,552 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1888
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Dec 02, 2011 23:03 |  #2

Is that 1D a 1Ds?


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,472 posts
Likes: 3115
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Dec 02, 2011 23:24 |  #3

Keep in mind that the 17-55 will only mount on the 7D. In your case where you have multiple bodies, the 16-35 may be a better choice.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skywalkee
Member
63 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Dec 03, 2011 01:55 |  #4

I would get 16-35 since you have more non crop bodies than crop body. And it can also be using as a wide angle on your full frames bodies and standard on your crop body.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROGERWILCO357
Goldmember
Avatar
1,551 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: michigan
     
Dec 03, 2011 02:30 |  #5

16-35mk2 is the next lens for me and would love to try it on both my bodies ..good luck post what you get


EOS 5DMKII gripped;EOS 7D;30D:Rebel Xti Digital;24-105L,70-200 f/2.8L.II,85mm f1.2L.II,16-35Lmk2, SP AF90mmF/2.8DI,28-135mm x 2,580EX II-430ExII with Pocket Wizards II,(Adobe CS5)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Camera ­ Nerd
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
935 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Dec 03, 2011 12:59 |  #6

windpig wrote in post #13487518 (external link)
Is that 1D a 1Ds?

no I have a 1d mark III. but I understand that it will NOT mount an ef-s lens.


canon 7d, canon 5d classic, 24-70 2.8 L, 70-200 2.8 (non-is) L, .
my flickr http://www.flickr.com/​photos/51827770@N04/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
camera ­ dude
Senior Member
275 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Dec 03, 2011 13:24 as a reply to  @ Camera Nerd's post |  #7

I would have gotten the 17-55 and the 24-105 for your camera's...

17-55 - Fast video lens and good normal lens (EFS)
24-105 - Good all around lens for both camera's.
70-200 good zoom for both

Sell the 24-70

24-70 and 16-35 are odd lenses for the 7D.


7D | Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 | Sigma EF-S 30 1.4 | Canon 85 1.8 | Canon 135 2.0 L | 430EX | TT Speed Demon | Sony RX100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jase1125
Goldmember
Avatar
3,027 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 82
Joined May 2010
Location: Lewisville, TX (DFW)
     
Dec 03, 2011 14:42 |  #8

Since you shoot full frame and APS-h, get the 16-35. A much better investment and versitile option than the 17-55. Stay away from ef-s.


Jason

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,899 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55 vs 16-35 mk II with a twist!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Dontcry4mejanhrdina
727 guests, 165 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.