17-55 IS vs. 16-35mm Mark I

I am wanting to get a lens for street photography and am leaning towards this focal length. I have heard a lot of rave reviews about the 17-55mm IS lens, but I have also heard of dust issues etc. I am of the mindset that I should get the best product, take care of it, and utilize it for a very long time. Because of this thinking, I am leaning towards building my kit around very well built lenses such as EX and the L series. I like the versatility of the 17-55, but I also long for the build quality of the 16-35mm. Is the 17-55 lens going to last me, or should I go the other route. Note that I am talking about the 16-35mm Mark I version, since I use crop and figure it would do just fine on that. Recommendations and experiences appreciated. Thanks.

Well, I love my 16-35 MkI... it is sharp and fast, great build and a true pleasure to use, I have not used the 17-55, as I am using 1D bodies. I have heard great things about the optics in that lens, but no so hot reviews regarding build quality, and I think if I had to choose one (provided both could work on my 1D's) I would still take the 16-35. I feel it is a better long term investment, because of build quality and the fact that you could use it on non-EFS compatible bodies... my 2 cents.

I've owned the 17-40L, 17-55 EFS, and 16-35L Mk I all in that order.

Optically the 17-55, is the superior all around lens on EFS but not by much. My main gripe with the 16-35 Mk1 is that it can at times over expose so you have to know the lens very well for when that may happen and adjust exposure compensation.

That aside I really prefer the 16-35L and the build is far, far superior. Plus even if you don't plan to buy a FF today but you may down the road and this would prevent you from having to sell the same focal length should you upgrade one day.

I purchased my mk 1 version somewhat new just recently as a Canon factory refurb. from Adorama. My sole reason for the mk 1 over the mk2 is the 77mm front filter threads. If you aren't committed to a slew of 77mm filters I say spring for the newer mk2 version.

MrChad wrote in post #6945185
I've owned the 17-40L, 17-55 EFS, and 16-35L Mk I all in that order.

Optically the 17-55, is the superior all around lens on EFS but not by much. My main gripe with the 16-35 Mk1 is that it can at times over expose so you have to know the lens very well for when that may happen and adjust exposure compensation.

That aside I really prefer the 16-35L and the build is far, far superior. Plus even if you don't plan to buy a FF today but you may down the road and this would prevent you from having to sell the same focal length should you upgrade one day.

I purchased my mk 1 version somewhat new just recently as a Canon factory refurb. from Adorama. My sole reason for the mk 1 over the mk2 is the 77mm front filter threads. If you aren't committed to a slew of 77mm filters I say spring for the newer mk2 version.

What a coincidence, I had all of them in the same order as well

Since you are using a crop body, I would suggest the 17-55. To me, the build quality between the 16-35L and 17-55 is not a big enough issue for me to not consider using the other.

If the 17-55 worked on a 1.3x crop, I would sell my 16-35L in a heartbeat to get it back.

Don't get me wrong, though, because I love my 16-35L. It is my most used lens. I just think you would benefit from using the 17-55 for street photography because of the IS and extra 20mm on the long end; you don't lose very much with only 1mm on the wide end.

Even if you do move to FF, 17-55's tend to hold their value pretty well, and you shouldn't have a problem reselling it because of it's awesome reputation. Good luck with whatever you choose, you will be happy with any of them.

Kyle

Thanks for the responses. It is kind of a tough decision. I still feel like the 17-55 is probably the more versatile lens, so I may end up going with that route. I also think that the extra reach could come in handy at times. Is the Mark II version a significant upgrade from the original for a crop body?

17-66 unless you want to go FF or 1.3x sometime!

I've never shot with a 16-35, so cannot comment on it. But since you're considering the 17-55, I cannot sing anything but its praises. It was the best zoom lens that I had the pleasure of owning. Sharp at 2.8 at all focal lengths and you get the added bonus of IS and 20mm reach

i picked up the 17-55 recently. i was between that and the 24-70 f/2.8. granted u didnt mention that one, but i wanted the IS for indoor and low light stuff. otherwise i would have grabbed the 24-70. a few people mentioned the focal lenght on the crop body. i agree, the extra 20 or so mm is great.

i also have a 40D and the combo is great. i dont plan to go FF for a few years so it wasnt an issue. the only time i can see ever getting rid of this lens is when i go FF, or if a mk II of the 24-70 comes out with IS. even if i get a 1.3 crop, id keep the 17-55 ( i belive the EF-S still mounts on them).

here are some sample 40D 17-55 IS picks for you. they arent the urban setting u plan to shoot, but its what i got for now.

Thanks for the pics and advice. I take really good care of my equipment so maybe I am worrying a little bit too much about build quality. Does this lens zoom creep? My 28-135mm did this and it annoyed the hell out of me.

40Driggs wrote in post #6947566
Thanks for the pics and advice. I take really good care of my equipment so maybe I am worrying a little bit too much about build quality. Does this lens zoom creep? My 28-135mm did this and it annoyed the hell out of me.

My 17-55mm did develop zoom creep. When new it was stiff around the 28mm mark but after a lot of use the lens started to get pretty loose on the zoom ring.

That's one of the reasons I really like the 17-40mm and 16-35mm lenses, they have absolutely no creep because they effectively never change length over use.

If long term use for years is the main goal of the lens I would go for one of the two L's, no matter what Eos body you use they will likely last you forever with little reason to look for a new model even if one should be introduced.

if you dont care about the build quality as much go with the 17-55.. its not the best build quality but it is some of the best optics...

17-55 no contest. I do have a 16-35 L that gets no use since I bought the 17-55 when it first came out. Never had any problems with it. l Use it for most of my shooting. It has held up well, just as good as when I first got it. I got the lens shade for it also.

MrChad wrote in post #6949578
My 17-55mm did develop zoom creep. When new it was stiff around the 28mm mark but after a lot of use the lens started to get pretty loose on the zoom ring.

That's one of the reasons I really like the 17-40mm and 16-35mm lenses, they have absolutely no creep because they effectively never change length over use.

If long term use for years is the main goal of the lens I would go for one of the two L's, no matter what Eos body you use they will likely last you forever with little reason to look for a new model even if one should be introduced.

Mine hasn't and I have been using it a lot. No lens creep. You are right, if you really are going to step up to a FF you might want to get the 16-35, but I believe the 17-55 is superior.

I have both lenses.

For the 1.6 crop, the 17-55 is the better lens.

I have owned both, first 17-55 on a cropper and now 16-35 on 5D. all things considered, I would keep 17-55 on a cropper. yes the 16-35 has slightly better color out of the camera. its is also better built, but I never had a problem with my 17-55