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 24 Sep 2014 (Wednesday) 13:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35 vs. 17-55

 
icassell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,671 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
     
Sep 24, 2014 13:18 |  #1

I've been using a Tamron 17-50/2.8 as my walk-around lens for years (with my 7D) and have loved the IQ from this lens, but have always disliked the loud and relatively slow AF. Since I'm adding a 7D Mark II to my collection, I figured maybe that it is time to get a new walk-around lens. I'm trying to decide between the Canon 16-35/4 or the much-less-expensive 17-55/2.8. One immediate advantage I see to the 16-35 is the weather/dust sealing. Is the IQ difference very great? Any thoughts on this decision will be appreciated. I'm not planning on going FF so the EF-S designation of the 17-55 doesn't bother me.


Ian - http://www.icassell.sm​ugmug.com (external link)
Canon 7D2, 7D, 30D, Canon 500 f/4L, Canon EF 400/5.6L, Canon 70-200/2.8L II, Canon 100/2.8 Macro, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Canon 50/1.8 Mk I, Canon 40/2.8 STM, Rokinon 8/3.5 FE., Sigma 10-20EX/4-5.6, Sigma 1.4X and 2X EX, Canon 1.4x II, Induro CT313/AT214/GHB-2, Canon 600EX-RT, Olympus TG-3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
GregDunn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,289 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
     
Sep 24, 2014 13:28 |  #2

The 17-55 is very nearly an L quality lens optically, with decent build quality. I've had mine for 6-7 years, and it rarely leaves my 7D. If it were stolen, I'd buy another without a qualm.

Look here for pictures taken with it.


Canon 1Dx | 5D3 | 7D2 | 6D | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 70-200L f/4 | 24-70L f/2.8 | 24-105L f/4IS | 100-400L f/4.5-5.6IS | 17-55 f/2.8IS | 50 f/1.8 | 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 | 4x Godox AD360

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Sep 24, 2014 13:29 |  #3

The IQ and AF performance of the 17-55/2.8 IS is well documented and quite good. I would get it for the extra stop of light (and better AF performance on any Canon camera that has enhanced AF points for f2.8 and faster lenses, typically at the center point or a few center points).

It's USM will completely blow away the micro motor AF on your Tammy... You might wonder why you didn't upgrade years earlier!

While still not up to L-series standards, there are a lot less complaints about dust in 17-55s these days (compared to back when it was new), so I suspect Canon has made some "silent upgrade" efforts to improve sealing a bit, too.

I'd only consider the 16-35 if FF were an important consideration.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jm4ever
Senior Member
Avatar
863 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 535
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Welland, Ontario
     
Sep 24, 2014 13:29 |  #4

I use the 17-55 on my 7d and it's excellent. I really wouldn't want to lose 20mm advantage it has over the 16-35 on the long end. You may also want to look into the Sigma 17-50 f2.8.I've heard it's optically as good as the 17-55, but a fair bit cheaper




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,998 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7473
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Sep 24, 2014 13:57 |  #5

The 17-55 is a lens with L-style IQ and focusing ability with a 28-135 build. It's the best way I can explain it to those locally.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 179
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
Sep 24, 2014 16:34 |  #6

It will either come down to a F4 v F2.8 decision, or a £££ decision.

I have a 7D/17-55 combo, I've recently got a Fuji and their highly rated 35/1.4. Now I appreciate just how good the 17-55 is. Lightening fast AF, awesome IQ and great value for money.........


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / 500/4 :D XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Sep 24, 2014 16:59 |  #7

The main differences that I can think of that might (or might not) matter to you:

1) 36mm to 55mm. The difference in range is fairly significant.

2) Weathersealing. If you are going to shoot in all conditions (and will put a filter on the lens) the 16-35 is sealed.

3) Flare. The one thing I didn't like about the 17-55 in the two years I owned it was that it is a bit prone to veiling flare. A lot of people will never notice it, but if you shoot sunsets or backlit scenes a lot you might not like this one performance issue. The 16-35 will make some ghosts, but it is hard to get it to wash out like that.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icassell
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,671 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
     
Sep 24, 2014 17:34 |  #8

Thanks for all the responses. I have the 40mm pancake and the 50/1.8 Mk I to make up the zoom difference (although it would mean a lens change). I'm more interested in IQ and build quality. So, as I understand it, the disadvantages of the 16-35 are a)cost b)loss of zoom range c) 1 stop slower. The disadvantages of the 17-55 are a) lack of weather sealing b) flare susceptibility c) overall build quality

Do I have it right?


Ian - http://www.icassell.sm​ugmug.com (external link)
Canon 7D2, 7D, 30D, Canon 500 f/4L, Canon EF 400/5.6L, Canon 70-200/2.8L II, Canon 100/2.8 Macro, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Canon 50/1.8 Mk I, Canon 40/2.8 STM, Rokinon 8/3.5 FE., Sigma 10-20EX/4-5.6, Sigma 1.4X and 2X EX, Canon 1.4x II, Induro CT313/AT214/GHB-2, Canon 600EX-RT, Olympus TG-3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,380 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3278
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 24, 2014 17:48 |  #9

instead of the 16-35mm...i'd look at the sigma 18-35mm f1.8


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icassell
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,671 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
     
Sep 24, 2014 17:58 |  #10

DreDaze wrote in post #17175767 (external link)
instead of the 16-35mm...i'd look at the sigma 18-35mm f1.8

Why? Is it a better lens aside from being faster?


Ian - http://www.icassell.sm​ugmug.com (external link)
Canon 7D2, 7D, 30D, Canon 500 f/4L, Canon EF 400/5.6L, Canon 70-200/2.8L II, Canon 100/2.8 Macro, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Canon 50/1.8 Mk I, Canon 40/2.8 STM, Rokinon 8/3.5 FE., Sigma 10-20EX/4-5.6, Sigma 1.4X and 2X EX, Canon 1.4x II, Induro CT313/AT214/GHB-2, Canon 600EX-RT, Olympus TG-3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,380 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3278
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 24, 2014 18:06 |  #11

it's supposed to be really sharp...the small range can be an issue, but if you're fine with 16-35mm, i think it should be in the running...here's comparisons of it wide open to the 16-35IS
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0 (external link)
and compared to the 17-55IS
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0 (external link)

but, it's hard to find in stock it seems...

the reason i said it instead of the 16-35IS, is because of the 2+ stop difference though...if you're planning on always being stopped down, i don't know if it would matter to you

actually, i'll ask...what do you plan on using the lens for? just a general walk around?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icassell
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,671 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
     
Sep 24, 2014 18:13 |  #12

Yes. I'm predominantly a wildlife photographer, but I like a general walk-around for those other occasions. For years, that has been my Tamron 17-50/2.8 (which I love except for the micro-motor focus). I'm not absoulutely set on replacing it, but it is about 7 years old now and I'm thinking about it.


Ian - http://www.icassell.sm​ugmug.com (external link)
Canon 7D2, 7D, 30D, Canon 500 f/4L, Canon EF 400/5.6L, Canon 70-200/2.8L II, Canon 100/2.8 Macro, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Canon 50/1.8 Mk I, Canon 40/2.8 STM, Rokinon 8/3.5 FE., Sigma 10-20EX/4-5.6, Sigma 1.4X and 2X EX, Canon 1.4x II, Induro CT313/AT214/GHB-2, Canon 600EX-RT, Olympus TG-3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,558 posts
Gallery: 93 photos
Likes: 963
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairie of northwest Minnesota, USA
     
Sep 24, 2014 18:50 |  #13

The EF 17-55 IS lens in on my 7D 90% of the time. Very good focal lengths, fast glass and the IS feature has come in handy as well. Worth every penny.


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SVT ­ Wylde
Senior Member
Avatar
252 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Cleveland Tennessee
     
Sep 24, 2014 21:18 |  #14

amfoto1 wrote in post #17175365 (external link)
While still not up to L-series standards, there are a lot less complaints about dust in 17-55s these days (compared to back when it was new), so I suspect Canon has made some "silent upgrade" efforts to improve sealing a bit, too.

I think you're right. My 15-85mm had several dust bunnies but my 17-55mm is still dust free after 7 months of use. It doesn't have zoom creep either!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alazgr8
Member
Avatar
233 posts
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Orange County, CA.
     
Sep 25, 2014 05:09 as a reply to  @ SVT Wylde's post |  #15

I've had my 17-55 2.8 for several years and I love it. It's given me solid dependable service with great IQ. it's my walk around lens. My brother n law has the 16-35 2.8 and while he loves his, he always comments on the greater range the 17-55 provides. The image quality is equally great between the two. As far as aftermarket lenses, why play the quality control lottery, when you can get a Canon? Cry once, buy once...

Regards,

Rick


Rick S.
My Gear = Canon 50d ~ EF 100 f/2.8L IS USM Macro ~ EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ~ EF-S 17-55 IS USM f/2.8 IS ~ EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ~ EF 28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

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

5,142 views & 0 likes for this thread
16-35 vs. 17-55
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 Lian van den Heever
914 guests, 325 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.