toxic wrote in post #8000977
Will this be in the next 4 weeks?
Buy a 17-55. At the very least, throw out the 16-35, since you're paying an extra $500 for a gain in absolutely nothing. On top of that, I'll throw another cog in: the 17-55 outresolves the 24-70.
rklepper wrote in post #8001748
Can you please post the photos you have taken with both that demonstrate this? Thanks, but a statement like this if you do not own both and have not shot them side by side does no one any good. Please post away.
You don't need side by side comparisons, the optics on the 17-55 are superb
If anything on a crop body, you get LESS with the 16-35 because you lose length on the long end, and you don't get IS. Plus, the 16-35 is $500 more expensive!
Why anyone would get the 16-35 when they have a crop body is beyond me.
TylerCP wrote in post #8001809
If anything you pay for the ability to use that great lens on a full frame or 1.3x crop body if you ever upgrade, or win that lottery. Sure the 17-55 is nice, but if you can't upgrade and use it, its not my cup of tea.
If you ever upgrade, you can sell the 17-55IS, too. Especially if you buy the lens used, you'll be able to sell it for the same you bought it for.
I'm baffled as to why people believe EF-S lenses become dead weight once (or even if) they plan to move to FF.
To the OP... 17-55IS. Buy used; go for it.
Not only will you spend less money and get more, but you're getting the best zoom lens for crop bodies out there!
The 24-70L is not nearly wide enough on cropped bodies.
Don't think of EF-S lenses as a ball and chain that keeps you locked into cropped bodies. I recently made the change from a 40D to 1D MarkII and have no regrets with my Tamron 17-50, which is for 1.6x cropped bodies.