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 Lenses 
Thread started 03 Feb 2008 (Sunday) 09:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55 or 16-35 plus 50?

 
kvt
Member
Avatar
97 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Feb 03, 2008 09:48 |  #1

Hi, I am new to the forum. I am looking to replace my standard range zoom ( a really cheap kit lens from my Rebel 2000 film days). I currently use a 40D and there is a chance I will upgrade to FF someday (but not in the immediate future). I keep hearing great things about the EF-S 17-55, but I recently started thinking that I should stick to EF lenses in case I eventually go FF. I know that is a constantly debated topic, so I am not trying to stir it up, but I am wondering which you would prefer in my situation...the 17-55 or a 16-35 f/2.8 plus a 50 f/1.4? I am afraid that I will miss IS on the 16-35, but it would be nice to know that I wouldn't have to mess with selling/buying lenses when I go FF.

Thanks!


KVT
Canon EOS 5D, 400D
Canon EF 50 f/1.4, Canon EF 85/1.8, Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro, Canon EF 135 f/2.0L, Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS, Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS, Canon EF 1.4x II Extender, Canon Speedlite 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Larry ­ Weinman
Goldmember
1,438 posts
Likes: 66
Joined Jul 2006
     
Feb 03, 2008 09:59 |  #2

I have five Canon L lenses and my efs 17-55 is equal or better then all of them, that is of course with the exception of build quality although I find the build quality good enough. You are aware that on a 1.6 crop camera your 16-35 becomes the equivilent of a 25-56. Is that wide enough for you? If so, go ahead and buy the 16-35. If not, get the 17-55. I shoot 1.6 crop and don't worry about going full frame. If I do that someday I'll just sell my efs lenses.


7D Mark II 6D 100mm f 2.8 macro 180mm f 3.5 macro, MP-E-65 300mm f 2.8 500mm f4 Tokina 10-17mm fisheye 10-22mm 17-55mm 24-105mm 70-300mm 70-200 f 2.8 Mk II 100-400mm Mk II 1.4 TCIII 2X TCIII 580EX II 430 EX II MT 24 EX Sigma 150-600

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lacks_focus
Goldmember
Avatar
1,025 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Coventry, CT
     
Feb 03, 2008 10:15 |  #3

Larry Weinman wrote in post #4841980 (external link)
You are aware that on a 1.6 crop camera your 16-35 becomes the equivilent of a 25-56. Is that wide enough for you? If so, go ahead and buy the 16-35. If not, get the 17-55.

Not sure I understand your logic there... Focal length is focal length no matter if it's referring to an EF or EFS lens.

Not going to recommend a lens for you, that's your decision. I'll just add that I don't know if you would really be missing anything without IS on a wide lens. Although, I don’t own any IS lenses, so maybe I'm missing something!


1D MKIII | FujiFilm X10 | 24-70 f/2.8 | 70-200 f/2.8 | 135 f/2 | 85 f/1.8 | 580EX |
lacks-focus.smugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drjiveturkey
Senior Member
Avatar
542 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Leesburg, VA
     
Feb 03, 2008 10:33 |  #4

kvt wrote in post #4841935 (external link)
the 17-55 or a 16-35 f/2.8 plus a 50 f/1.4? I am afraid that I will miss IS on the 16-35, but it would be nice to know that I wouldn't have to mess with selling/buying lenses when I go FF.

Thanks!

But you already have a 10-22 EF-S. Just get a 17-55 and 50 1.4 now. So that you can get the shots that you want now. When you need to upgrade to FF, it's not that hard to sell either the 10-22 or the 17-55. You would probably be able to trade the 17-55 for a 24-70 or 24-105


It all started as a hobby with a Rebel XT & KIT lens. $5K worth of equipment & $0 of income later, all I have to show for it is a harddrive full of pictures and priceless memories!! Yeah it's still worth it :)
GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,955 posts
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Feb 03, 2008 10:34 |  #5

Since you already have the EF-S 10-22, why not get the 24-70L? Most people are more concerned with range and limiting any overlaps there may be, so this may be an option as well. And the 24-70 would give you an almost perfect walkaround lens later for FF.

For low light photography you need fast lenses, and F/2.8 isn't fast enough for low light IMO, so you could still get the 50 F/1.4 in case you decide to acquire a 24-70.

HTH, kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 3 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dorman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,661 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
     
Feb 03, 2008 10:38 |  #6

I have to agree with wimg, 24-70 is the way to go.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SilverHCIC
Goldmember
Avatar
1,460 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Swimming, cycling or running ... somewhere in California
     
Feb 03, 2008 10:46 |  #7
bannedPermanent ban

Dorman wrote in post #4842141 (external link)
I have to agree with wimg, 24-70 is the way to go.

^^^^^ And again - Ditto
If you have the 10-22, get the 24-70L.


"It's easy to find your bike in transition when you're the last one out of the ocean ... it's no fun being lost at sea :rolleyes:."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kvt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
97 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Feb 03, 2008 11:29 |  #8

Thank you all so much for the input! Yes, I do have the 10-22, but I am not comfortable getting the 24-70, largely because of it's size/weight. I am a petite female who prefers to not use a tripod whenever possible. I have considered the 24-105, but am concerned that it's not fast enough. It seems like 17-55 might be the way to go...if they ever get re-stocked! Every place that has it in stock wants to sell it for $1100 - $1200.


KVT
Canon EOS 5D, 400D
Canon EF 50 f/1.4, Canon EF 85/1.8, Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro, Canon EF 135 f/2.0L, Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS, Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS, Canon EF 1.4x II Extender, Canon Speedlite 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drjiveturkey
Senior Member
Avatar
542 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Leesburg, VA
     
Feb 03, 2008 11:34 |  #9

kvt wrote in post #4842396 (external link)
Thank you all so much for the input! Yes, I do have the 10-22, but I am not comfortable getting the 24-70, largely because of it's size/weight. I am a petite female who prefers to not use a tripod whenever possible. I have considered the 24-105, but am concerned that it's not fast enough. It seems like 17-55 might be the way to go...if they ever get re-stocked! Every place that has it in stock wants to sell it for $1100 - $1200.

You do realize that when you go full frame the lenses won't get any lighter? If anything, they will get heavier if you want to have the same Angle of View as on your 40D.

In any case, if B&H finally gets them in stock, they are $855 with discount codes. Just look them up in the marketplace section.


It all started as a hobby with a Rebel XT & KIT lens. $5K worth of equipment & $0 of income later, all I have to show for it is a harddrive full of pictures and priceless memories!! Yeah it's still worth it :)
GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thatkatmat
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,342 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 202
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, don't move here, it's wet and cold
     
Feb 03, 2008 11:44 |  #10

Well, you're concerned about weight, the 17-55 is less bulky than the brick, it's pretty big still.....but.....grab the 17-55 and the 50/1.4, that way you get the 50/1.4 too. Both are outstanding IQ and the 50 will be nice and light for you. I was thinking you'd love the 24-70 at first because....it kinda made sense, but if you are petite you won't want the brick around your neck....besides, the IS in the 17-55 is pretty darn nice to have and the 50/1.4 will give you images you'd never get with any zoom


My Flickr (external link)
Stuff
"Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut." -Jimmy Conway
a9, 12-24/4G, 24-70/2.8GM, 100-400GM, 25/2 Batis, 55/1.8ZA, 85 /1.8FE, 85LmkII, 135L...a6300,10-18/4, 16-50PZ, 18-105PZ

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lacks_focus
Goldmember
Avatar
1,025 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Coventry, CT
     
Feb 03, 2008 13:09 as a reply to  @ thatkatmat's post |  #11

I am sure EFS lenses are very good. Lots of people buy and like them. They get wonderful reviews all over the place. Not saying anything about that! I just personally could never see myself spending $800 - $1000 on a lens that I know will only work on some of the 1.6 bodies. If you plan to stay with Canon and even think you may go to a non-EFS camera, I'd say go with a lens that will be compatible. The "what-ifs"... ...you decide you'd like to try shooting film again and pick up an EOS film camera. ...you decide to buy that 5D, or what ever replaces it. ...you find a killer deal on a 1 series and decide you have to have it. Just saying glass should outlive your body and you should invest in glass with the future in mind. Sounds to me from your orignal post you were thinking that too.

Just my .000002 cents!


1D MKIII | FujiFilm X10 | 24-70 f/2.8 | 70-200 f/2.8 | 135 f/2 | 85 f/1.8 | 580EX |
lacks-focus.smugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Philco
Senior Member
Avatar
940 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2005
Location: SandyEggo, CA.
     
Feb 03, 2008 13:19 |  #12

I'm wondering how well the 17-55 holds it's value in the used market? If they do well, then I would just say buy one and take good care of it. If you can sell it later (when you go FF) for most of what you paid for it, then it's not a huge risk. It's definitely light and easy to use for a walk around lens. I shot a few weddings with one and I was not in love with it, but I know of plenty of people that swear by it. If you are certain about FF in the future, then I don't think you'd miss the IS by going w/ the 24-70 - it's just that it really is a bit much for a walk around lens.


Canon 5D MKIII/Canon 5D MKII/ 70-200 F2.8 IS L / 24-70 F2.8L / 85 F1.2L II/ 35 f1.4L / 135 F2.0L / Canon 600 EX-RT X 2

[SIZE=1]r follow me on Facebook. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kuma1212
Senior Member
364 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago
     
Feb 03, 2008 14:01 as a reply to  @ Philco's post |  #13

Just a thought about the weight...

5d+24-70 is about 1lb heavier than 40d+17-55.
That's strictly total weight, not balance/feel. Both should feel about equally balanced since the 5d outweighs the 40d.

(This is roughly estimated based on weights on Amazon, B&H etc)


5DII. 50L. 24-70LII. 16-35LII. 70-200is2.8II. 100L 135L.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JCH77Yanks
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Mar 2007
Location: BKNY
     
Feb 03, 2008 14:17 |  #14

Lacks_focus wrote in post #4842953 (external link)
I am sure EFS lenses are very good. Lots of people buy and like them. They get wonderful reviews all over the place. Not saying anything about that! I just personally could never see myself spending $800 - $1000 on a lens that I know will only work on some of the 1.6 bodies. If you plan to stay with Canon and even think you may go to a non-EFS camera, I'd say go with a lens that will be compatible. The "what-ifs"... ...you decide you'd like to try shooting film again and pick up an EOS film camera. ...you decide to buy that 5D, or what ever replaces it. ...you find a killer deal on a 1 series and decide you have to have it. Just saying glass should outlive your body and you should invest in glass with the future in mind. Sounds to me from your orignal post you were thinking that too.

Just my .000002 cents!

This is a good point... this is also why I'm considering going with a 17-40 f/4L paired with a fast wide angle prime, considering I already own a 50mm prime.


Joe Halliday
7D | XT | 10-22 | 24-105 f/4L | 28 1.8 | 50 1.4 | 85 1.8 | 580EXII | 430EXII | 430EX | Flickr (external link)| 500px (external link) |
Dial "M" for Manual.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ Bell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,977 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Perth, Scotland
     
Feb 03, 2008 14:31 as a reply to  @ JCH77Yanks's post |  #15

If weight bothers you, put FF to the back of your mind. Everything gets bigger and heavier as sensor size increases - the cameras are bigger, the lenses have to be bigger, ypu need a longer (and therefore heavier) telephoto lens because you lose the crop factor etc.

My wife is petite and loves the 350D and EF-S 17-85 IS or EF-S 60. She just wouldn't use anything bigger.


Canon EOS 5DS R EOS 5D Mark III | Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM EF 28mm f/1.8 USM EF 85mm F1.4L IS USM EF 85mm f/1.8 USM EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM TS-E 17mm f/4L TS-E 45mm f/2.8 TS-E 24.0mm f/3.5 L II EF 50mm f/1.4 USM | Canon Speedlite 580EX II

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

2,400 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55 or 16-35 plus 50?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon 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 Anne D
1077 guests, 226 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.