16-35 vs. 17-55

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.........

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.

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?

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

DreDaze wrote in post #17175767
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?

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
and compared to the 17-55IS
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

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?

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.

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.

amfoto1 wrote in post #17175365
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!

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