17-55 or 16-35 plus 50?

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!

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.

Larry Weinman wrote in post #4841980
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!

kvt wrote in post #4841935
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

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

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

Dorman wrote in post #4842141
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.

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 wrote in post #4842396
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.

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

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!

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.

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)

Lacks_focus wrote in post #4842953
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.

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.