canon 16-35L vs 17-55 IS and more

I'm in a quandry. I shoot 2-3 weddings a year. I mainly use Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 f/2.8. I also shoot senior pictures and local baseball teams (mostly my sons)

I've not been very happy with the Tamrons. Though sharp most times, I find the low light focusing leaves a little to be desired. Not as consistent as I'd like.

I'm considering several lenses. 1) the 17-55 f2.8 IS - everything I've read says it has the quality and sharpness of an L lens, but has dust problems. However the IS makes it great for hand holding in low light. However, the 16-35L has the quality and build of an L, the same aperture, but lacking the IS. Does anyone have these two lenses and what recommendations can you offer.

Also under consideration is the 24-105 L f/4 IS and the 70-200 L f/4 IS. According to Canon... the new 70-200 has a better IS system capable of hand holding at 1/15th. This may be sufficient for low light situations.

I have limited funds, but am willing to take a leap of faith.... sort of a....... "Build it and they will come" scenario (of course I mean more paying jobs to pay for the leap of faith.

I just got the 17-55 today so i cant tell you to much yet other than it is sharp and fast. I have the 24-105 and love the focal length but that f4 is more anoying than I thought. I am glad to go 2.8 with this one and keeping the IS is just plane cool. I have found that the 17-55 length is more appealing than I thought it would be when this lens came out. I know that didnt help but if I can run some paces on this thing I will send em and give you my oppinion.

Sounds like the 17-55 would be perfect for you, the dust problem is not that big a deal

calicokat wrote in post #3066749
Sounds like the 17-55 would be perfect for you, the dust problem is not that big a deal

Why?

I'm also in the same situation, so I'm very interested in the thread. Here's what I've been thinking. The 17-55 has IS, longer focal length, but the dust problem. While the 16-35 is one mm wider (not that it will make a differnce), L quality, and you can use it with full frame camera. I have used IS before and it doesn't seem to help that much when you shoot at the wide end (very helpful when you want to zoom from far away). So, to me, its all about the image quality such as sharpness, distortion... I have used the 16-35 and was very impressed by its performance as far as sharpness. Don't know much about the other one. Anyone has both lenses please let us know your opinion.

thanks

17-55IS is the only way to go on a crop camera. The dust story is highly exagerated.

I am only a sample of one, but my 17-55 has never attracted a single piece of dust on the inside. I would tend to think that the dust problem is a bit exaggerated as well.

-Lik

I use my 17-55 and my 16-35 is now in a drawer. Nuf Said

SIMPLEPHOTOLT wrote in post #3066858
Why?

I'm also in the same situation, so I'm very interested in the thread. Here's what I've been thinking. The 17-55 has IS, longer focal length, but the dust problem. While the 16-35 is one mm wider (not that it will make a differnce), L quality, and you can use it with full frame camera. I have used IS before and it doesn't seem to help that much when you shoot at the wide end (very helpful when you want to zoom from far away). So, to me, its all about the image quality such as sharpness, distortion... I have used the 16-35 and was very impressed by its performance as far as sharpness. Don't know much about the other one. Anyone has both lenses please let us know your opinion.

thanks

if you are interested cin the 16-35L you may want to take a look at the updated model that just hit the market.

ed rader

ryleung wrote in post #3066896
I am only a sample of one, but my 17-55 has never attracted a single piece of dust on the inside. I would tend to think that the dust problem is a bit exaggerated as well.

-Lik

i tend to think the dust problem affects only some lenses, and the affected lenses suck in way more dust than they should.

ed rader

Thanks everyone. Sounds like the 17-55 is the way to go.

cc10d wrote in post #3067014
I use my 17-55 and my 16-35 is now in a drawer. Nuf Said

cc10d..If the 16-35 is in a drawer.... interested in selling? just kidding, I'm leaning more towards the 17-55 now. I think the IS would really make the difference in my situation.

The EF-S 17-55 with IS is going to be a great asset to your wedding photography business. The EF 16-35 is a great lens, but the actual focal length is just about the same as the 17-55 because of crop and the later being an EF-S lens. I've had the 17-55 and I think I saw some dust but the problem is way over stated. Go with that lens and you will have the best lens made for the 20D and 30D available.

yea like everyone already mentioned, the 17-55 IS would be the best choice for weddings on crop body. would like to get one myself if i start to do more weddings but cant afford it right now since i also have the 24-105L

I have the 17-55 and the 24-105 - one's great inside and one is great outside. I worried myself to death about the "dust problem"prior to buying the 17-55 but took the advice of someone on here who said it was over-hyped. To be honest, since buying it, I've been so knocked out with it's performance, I completely forgot to check it for dust! I closely examined the shots I've taken with it during PP (to admire the sharpness ) and there is no sign of dust there (which is where it counts) so I doubt I will bother checking the lens itslef.

I think many people on this board tend to obsess about perceived problems with lenses, sensor dust etc. If I don't see any issues in my shots, why would I want to go point the camera at a blue sky on f22 just to try and make some appear. Same goes for my dusty 17-55. While the shots all come out crystal clear and tack sharp I'm not going to go peering into the thing to try and find stuff.

I also have zero dust problems with my 17-55. Don't think twice, get it!!!

Had my 17-55MM EF-S IS since last June. Have shoot two weddings and several family sessions with it with great results. No dust problems to date. It is my most used lens...go for it