Moving to FF. Keep Canon 17-55 or exchange for 16-35?

I did try to search to see if this had been asked, but didn't see it in the list. So here goes. I purchased the Canon 17-55 a few weeks back to go with my 70D and have been mostly happy with it. However, most of my shots lately have been at indoor gym's with fairly low light. This pairing doesn't work as good as I hoped in that scenario. So I've decided, in the next couple of months, I'll be moving on to a 6D or 5DIII. I will also be keeping the 70D as a backup/secondary for whatever it may be more useful for.

Since I'm still within the 30 return window, I was hoping some of you could give an opinion about returning the 17-55 for the 16-35 or something similar. Keep in mind that this is currently with the intention of shooting basketball and volleyball in low light. If only the 17-55 would work on a FF I'd be fine with it. One of the big questions on my mind is the IS of the 17-55 and the fact that the 16-35 doesn't have it. In fact, I don't own a lens that doesn't have IS and never have. I know this change will also affect the focal range, but I'm not as concerned about that as I am clarity and sharpness.

Lastly, the 24-70 is an option, but on my budget its an extremely expensive option. I could much easier absorb the cost of the 16-35 than I could the 24-70.

Any constructive help would be appreciated! Thank you!

How about the Tamron 24-70? Has IS, is basically as good as the Canon, with a few exceptions that most likely would only be an issue if you are a pixel peeper.

The things about IS is that it helps to prevent camera shake, or movements of the camera causing blurriness in the photo. At wider focal lengths camera shake is less obvious (the shaking movements are small relative to the size of the scene). Furthermore I would imagine that if you're shooting sports then you are taking pictures at relatively fast shutter speeds, further reducing the effect of camera shake (faster shutter = less time passes = less shaking occurs while the shutter is open). So my guess is that you wouldn't have any problems using a 16-35mm lens without IS for your purposes.

Also note that Tamron makes a 24-70mm lens with IS (they call it "vibration control" or "VC") so if you really want a 24-70 with IS the option exists...

IMO, I don't see any use for IS on anything less than 50mm (or 55 in this case). It wouldn't be something that concerns me when looking in this range.

Man, I guess the economy is not hurting you, must be nice to just have a 70D as a just in case back up.

Your problem is not FF or Crop, for indoor sports you need fast glass.....a 17-55 is not going to work very well for basketball. Depending on your gym, like the ones I shoot, I use a 85mm f1.8.......

I am not trying to be a A#$, but I think you should research Glass, shutter speed, focus settings, etc more than throwing money at the wall. A 70D should give you excellent shots with the right glass.....Neck I use to get great shots with my XSi...

Get yourself a 85MM, and also a 70-200 2.8 if you want to spend some money.

If 17-55 is the right focal length for your needs on crop, then you need 24-70 variant on ff, not 16-35...

Your 70D is going to have a much better focusing system for sports. No need to spend the money on FF. I sencond the reccomendation on the 85mm and the 70-200mm 2.8. You could even save some pennies and pick up the Tammy version of the 70-200.

mark2009 wrote in post #16651038
Man, I guess the economy is not hurting you, must be nice to just have a 70D as a just in case back up.

Your problem is not FF or Crop, for indoor sports you need fast glass.....a 17-55 is not going to work very well for basketball. Depending on your gym, like the ones I shoot, I use a 85mm f1.8.......

I am not trying to be a A#$, but I think you should research Glass, shutter speed, focus settings, etc more than throwing money at the wall. A 70D should give you excellent shots with the right glass.....Neck I use to get great shots with my XSi...

Get yourself a 85MM, and also a 70-200 2.8 if you want to spend some money.

I forgot to mention I've mainly been using the 70-200 f2.8 mkii paired with 70D for most of my indoor shooting. I'm pretty sure its a very capable lens, but as many different things as I've tried to get clear and sharp images, I'm just not happy with what I'm getting. I bought the 17-55 for when I'm close to the court and/or under the rim shooting.

I've done a ton of research as well. I can't tell you how many days/weeks I've been on the fence about the decision to go FF, but I feel its taking a toll on my life, if that tells you anything. Not to mention I've searched both cameras on flickr and here at POTN, for indoor shots, and there just aren't many good ones that turn up with the 70D. If there are any they are usually using artificial light. This is not an option where I'm shooting.

I will try to get my list of my gear together and list in my signature. I'm off to another game.

If you are going full-frame, may I suggest a fast prime, such as the 24mm/1.4L? It should be fast enough to stop the indoor basketball action.

Life's too short to be agonizing about stuff like this. Get the FF, be happy. Maybe you'll be able to change your usename to chrissleepswell!

The 16-35mm is the same FOV as the EF-S 10-22mm lens
This lens will be much wider on FF than your 17-55mm lens now.
The 24-105 f 4 or better yet the 24-70 f 4 is similar to what you you are use to seeing on your crop camera.

See my signature for prime lens ideas. I got the wide, standard and portrait/macro ranges covered in 4 lenses.

I'm not sure you'll be happy with the 6D for fast indoor sports... but you might with a 5D3 and the 24-70 2.8 II. I think I would.

If you are going to carry the 70D for sports and be using it with the 70-200mm,
I see no strong reason to get the 5D III over the 6D unless you feel you need the superior AF system.

Are you shooting RAW or jpeg?

I took a look at your winfield photos and the postprocessing seems a bit strange...