Snydremark wrote in post #17876990
Mal's dead on on the 17-55. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by discounting the lens just because it's EF-S. Unless you have immediate plans to switch to a FF body in the near future, you're just burning money by skipping over it as an option. It's a fantastic lens for a much better price than the L lenses; plus, should you decide to go FF in the future, it resells fairly well, so you should come out close enough to even to not have to worry too much.
That said, he's also correct that unless you NEED 2.8 for some reason, the f/4 is just that much better that it may be worthwhile to nab it.
Mal's dead on on the 17-55. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by discounting the lens just because it's EF-S. Unless you have immediate plans to switch to a FF body in the near future, you're just burning money by skipping over it as an option. It's a fantastic lens for a much better price than the L lenses; plus, should you decide to go FF in the future, it resells fairly well, so you should come out close enough to even to not have to worry too much.
That said, he's also correct that unless you NEED 2.8 for some reason, the f/4 is just that much better that it may be worthwhile to nab it.
^ This. The EFS 17-55 is a much better solution for a crop body than either 16-35L you are considering. It gives you the best of everything -- quick USM focus motor, f/2.8 constant aperture, and image stabilization, along with excellent image quality. Plus you gain additional focal range on the long end. I currently own the EF 16-35 f/4 IS, and it's a great ultra wide angle lens solution for a full frame body. However, I would rather have my old EFS 17-55 back if I went back to a crop-only kit.
I used to own the EFS 17-55, and only sold it when I moved to a full frame body for any shooting that required this focal range. It's a terrific general use lens for landscapes, indoor shooting, portraits, etc.
