Comparing Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 to the Canon 16-35mm f/4L

I shoot with a 70D and currently have a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8, I have been very pleased with this lens but have become increasingly disappointed with the sharpness. The lens itself is great but I am just beginning to outgrow it after 2 years of ownership and progression in photography endeavors requiring increased quality images.

I will eventually upgrade to a FF body, but that is currently out of my budget and would like to upgrade my lens. I have done a lot of research on the Canon 16-35mm f/4L and am seriously considering purchasing it (the optical performance appears to be excellent), not to mention to already have a L lens in hand when I do eventually upgrade my body.

Someone did tell me that the optical difference between the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the Canon 16-35mm f/4L was marginal and suggested that I look at purchasing the Canon 24mm f/1.4L instead to get the biggest increase in sharpness, which is true with most prime lens, but I feel it will limit me since I mostly shoot landscapes and travel photography (outdoor and indoor images).

Does anyone have experience with these lenses to give a fair comparison? My gut tells me that I’ll be happier with the 16-35mm f/4L, but I don’t want to pay for something that I basically already own.

Also, random question, since the 70D is a crop sensor, the focal range of the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 16-35mm f/4L will be cropped down by 1.6 equally, right? Or is the 17-55mm adjusted for the crop and would provides a wider angle than the 16-35mm?

no direct experience with those two lenses, but I have recently bought a 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have also been letting my young sons shoot with my old kit 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens. It has been a harsh reminder how slow f/4 is after shooting with primes and my 70-200 2.8 almost exclusively over the last year or two.

Also pretty strong evidence as to why my 24-105 f/4 has been sitting unused more often than not.

don't discount that extra stop.

the 16-35mm will be similar in range as your 17-55mm, it'll be 1mm wider, but you'll lose out on 20mm on the long end

are you fine with losing the faster aperture? if you stop the 17-55mm down to f4, it looks pretty close on the digital pictures comparison site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

both wide open though, the 16-35mm would have the edge...if you still want to retain a fast aperture, but want something sharper you can look at the sigma 18-35mm f1.8

horton581 wrote in post #17741208
I shoot with a 70D and currently have a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8, I have been very pleased with this lens but have become increasingly disappointed with the sharpness. The lens itself is great but I am just beginning to outgrow it after 2 years of ownership and progression in photography endeavors requiring increased quality images.

I will eventually upgrade to a FF body, but that is currently out of my budget and would like to upgrade my lens. I have done a lot of research on the Canon 16-35mm f/4L and am seriously considering purchasing it (the optical performance appears to be excellent), not to mention to already have a L lens in hand when I do eventually upgrade my body.

Someone did tell me that the optical difference between the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the Canon 16-35mm f/4L was marginal and suggested that I look at purchasing the Canon 24mm f/1.4L instead to get the biggest increase in sharpness, which is true with most prime lens, but I feel it will limit me since I mostly shoot landscapes and travel photography (outdoor and indoor images).

Does anyone have experience with these lenses to give a fair comparison? My gut tells me that I’ll be happier with the 16-35mm f/4L, but I don’t want to pay for something that I basically already own.

Also, random question, since the 70D is a crop sensor, the focal range of the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 16-35mm f/4L will be cropped down by 1.6 equally, right? Or is the 17-55mm adjusted for the crop and would provides a wider angle than the 16-35mm?

Focal lengths are as stated, and remain the same no matter what body you mount the lens to. So the 16-35mm will be wide to slightly longer than normal on your 70D. I don't usually try to convert, or fool around with crop factors. On a 70D, a "normal" focal length is around 30mm.

Since the 16-35 is an EF lens (instead of EF-S), its image circle is suited to a full frame camera and your 70D will crop it. So you are basically discarding most of the image that this lens makes. The lens will be physically bigger than necessary for a crop frame camera.

I don't have any experience with the 16-35mm so can't comment on its IQ.

You say you are very pleased with the 17-55mm but it is not sharp. Are you aware of the threads on the AF problems with the 17-55mm when focusing at distance? Have you tried it in manual focus (like in Live View)?

DreDaze wrote in post #17741230
the 16-35mm will be similar in range as your 17-55mm, it'll be 1mm wider, but you'll lose out on 20mm on the long end

are you fine with losing the faster aperture? if you stop the 17-55mm down to f4, it looks pretty close on the digital pictures comparison site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

both wide open though, the 16-35mm would have the edge...if you still want to retain a fast aperture, but want something sharper you can look at the sigma 18-35mm f1.8

That is a handy link!

I know that I would lose a few stops on with a f/4 compared to a f/2.8, but from what I understand, that 16-35mm has very good IS which allows people to get away with a slower shutter speed than usual.

Archibald wrote in post #17741208
I shoot with a 70D and currently have a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8, I have been very pleased with this lens but have become increasingly disappointed with the sharpness. The lens itself is great but I am just beginning to outgrow it after 2 years of ownership and progression in photography endeavors requiring increased quality images.

I will eventually upgrade to a FF body, but that is currently out of my budget and would like to upgrade my lens. I have done a lot of research on the Canon 16-35mm f/4L and am seriously considering purchasing it (the optical performance appears to be excellent), not to mention to already have a L lens in hand when I do eventually upgrade my body.

Someone did tell me that the optical difference between the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the Canon 16-35mm f/4L was marginal and suggested that I look at purchasing the Canon 24mm f/1.4L instead to get the biggest increase in sharpness, which is true with most prime lens, but I feel it will limit me since I mostly shoot landscapes and travel photography (outdoor and indoor images).

Does anyone have experience with these lenses to give a fair comparison? My gut tells me that I’ll be happier with the 16-35mm f/4L, but I don’t want to pay for something that I basically already own.

Also, random question, since the 70D is a crop sensor, the focal range of the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 16-35mm f/4L will be cropped down by 1.6 equally, right? Or is the 17-55mm adjusted for the crop and would provides a wider angle than the 16-35mm?

I am unfamiliar with the threads describing the AF problems of the 17-55mm, but I am familiar with its unreliable AF, and therefore I almost exclusively use manual focus, when, of course, I can get away with it. Even using manual focus, it just never gets as sharp at I'd like or hope, including when using a fast shutter speed, tripod, remote shutter and mirror lock up etc. When looked at closely, images just appear soft and lacking clarity. This is why I think that a better lens would be beneficial.

horton581 wrote in post #17741472
I am unfamiliar with the threads describing the AF problems of the 17-55mm, but I am familiar with its unreliable AF, and therefore I almost exclusively use manual focus, when, of course, I can get away with it. Even using manual focus, it just never gets as sharp at I'd like or hope, including when using a fast shutter speed, tripod, remote shutter and mirror lock up etc. When looked at closely, images just appear soft and lacking clarity. This is why I think that a better lens would be beneficial.

That's interesting, first that you are aware of the inconsistent AF issue of the 17-55/2.8, and secondly that your copy of the lens doesn't give sharp results even in MF. Have you considered that the lens might be faulty? Can you access another copy to compare?

The reason I'm asking is because maybe the solution to your problem is to get a different 17-55.

The 18-55mm STM is excellent, and has fast and accurate focus. Of course it is slow. But is cheap. Might be just what you need until you move to FF. (Most never do.)

I have had both lenses, and while I never did a direct back-to-back test, I can say my 16-35 is sharper. My 17-55 was not soft, just not as sharp as the excellent 16-35.
That said, the 17-55 was my favorite lens on my crop camera, and was almost permanently mounted. I got the 16-35 as a wide angle/landscape lens for full-frame; I think I've only mounted it to the crop camera once. I would definitely miss the 35-55mm range in a general purpose lens, and the extra stop of light is also nice.

I think I'm agreeing with Archibald - you may have a bad copy of the 17-55.

I sent mine in during warranty because of "softness" issues. It was decentered and I think Canon did something else. When it came back, it was like a different lens. My understanding is that this lens and the 24-70 need tunes ups once in a while and to keep it in specs.

Okay, thank you guys for the insight.

I have a 70D and went through your exact thoughts, though for a different reason.

I had a 17-55 and absolutely loved it! Sharp images (or so I thought) and had a perfect walk around focal length for a crop. It shoots great video, but it was a bit short when I needed reach.

My progression in this hobby lead me to wanting to make the jump to FF and in doing so, the 17-55 efs lens wouldn't be compatible with the ff and gave me the excuse to step up to a 16-35. My budget didn't allow the 16-35 2.8ii, and I also wanted IS, so the only natural choice was the F4 IS. After deliberating and procrastinating, which is totally unlike my impulsive nature, I finally bought a 16-35 F4 IS, in a late night stuper. This meant I had to sell the 17-55, which was really hard, as I was really attached to it and loved it's images. To say I'm happy with the swap is an understatement, I noticed an immediate improvement in image quality. Sharpness improved and bokeh was insanely beautiful, comparing between the two. Any reservation I had in selling the 17-55 and the outlay of money, was quickly dissolved, when I started using the 16-35 F4.

This lens also sped up the saving and purchase of my 5D3. I won't be selling the 70D as I love the AF video and the flip out screen, plus with the crop senser I get extra reach with my 70-200.

The only downside to the 16-35, is the reach. As a walk around general lens for the 70D, it's good, but the 35 is too short for me. For landscape photography, it will be awesome! But it will be limiting in it's width. You may want to get a 10-22 3.5-5.6 to get real wide FOV. The 16-35 F4 on a 5D3 is just superb and will see basicly the same FOV as the 10-22 on the 70D.

EFS focal lengths are measured to 35mm standards along with every other lens. The only difference is they are optimised for crop sensers. As an example, the 16-35 on a FF is pretty much the same as the 10-22 on a crop. Just times the focal length by 1.6 and it will give you the field of view equivilent, as if it was on a full frame body. If that makes any sense.

I hope this helps

muvro wrote in post #17747439
EFS focal lengths are measured to 35mm standards along with every other lens.

Don't confuse crop factor "equivalent focal length" with actual lens focal length. Focal length is focal length and has nothing to do with whether it's on a 35mm full frame, APS-C, 4x5, 8x10, etc body. The focal length of a lens is a property of the optical design of the lens. The difference between EF and EF-S lenses is that EF lenses produce an image circle optimized for a 24 x 36 mm sensor, whereas the EF-S image circle is only optimized for the 15 x 22.5 mm APS-C sensor.

Take 17mm for example. It makes no difference whether it's the wide end of an EF-S 17-55 or an EF 17-40L The field of view with a 17mm lens on a crop sensor will be less than with a 17mm lens on a full frame sensor, but that's because the crop sensor spans a smaller part of it, not because one of the lenses isn't really 17mm. Both lenses on the crop sensor will produce the same field of view and image scale.

Mike

The EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM isn't really as short as 17 mm at the short end. When comparing with other lenses, it gives the field of view of an 18 mm lens.

FWIW, I shoot with a 7DII. My 2 main lenses are a 24-105 and a 10-22. I am very pleased with both and prepared for FF if I want. 24mm is wide enough on crop for me most of the time so I don't have to change too often and the 10-22 is quite small and light so it's not a nuisance to carry along.

Your needs, work, and preferences may be very different, so this is just a statement of what works well for me and MAY be worth your consideration.

apersson850 wrote in post #17747834
The EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM isn't really as short as 17 mm at the short end. When comparing with other lenses, it gives the field of view of an 18 mm lens.

Could you provide some evidence for your assertion?

At 17mm, my 17-55mm is noticeably wider than my 18-55mm is at 18mm.

I think you've misinterpreted what I said.

The focal length of a EFS lens is set to the same standard as a normal EF lens.

i.e. They are the same standard.