EF 16-35mm f/2.8L VS EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM vs EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

I was just about to buy the

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens

as heap of people on here have said its a great lens for social events photography and low light situations....

but then the canera store employee insisted i get the

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is alot cheaper ($1800 australian dollars)
the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is dearer and an "L" lens ($2500)

.


i know that the 16-35 is "better, but i want to know how much better.

as sooo many peope say the 17-55 is excellent.

i need very low light images and a fast lens, the zoom is ok, 16-35 or 17-55. but want to hear some advice.

forget about the $$$ side of it, just want to understand mechanics / which one is more modern and advanced. i also know the cheaper one 17-55 has a stabaliser which does appeal to me.

I have the 17-55 personally, and where I work we have the 16-35L II, and I do honestly prefer the 17-55.. the L mainly beats it on build quality, sharpness (but only marginally) and in some direct comparison shots the 17-55 gave me some purple fringing, where the L didnt.. -but in the same test, the L gave me flares, and the 17-55 not (possibly because the 16-35 actually is a ultra wide-angle lens for FF..?), and thats much harder to correct in PP..

both have USM AF, the 17-55 is said to have the same L-quality glass as well, the only functional difference I can think of is that the 17-55 extends when zooming, while the L doesnt, but to me thats not a problem..

in my eyes its not worth to pay that much extra just for better build-quality, if the camera-body's build doesnt match the lens anyway.. and when the 17-55 has IS and a longer range in addition, there's no doubt in my mind, get the 17-55.. you won't find anything better for low-light photo, than the f2.8+IS combo -as long as we're talking about zooms...

For a cropped sensor camera,I would defenitely get the 17-55 F2.8 IS lens.About a year ago,when I still had a Canon 40D camera,I compared the 17-55 F2.8 IS to the 16-35 F2.8L MKII and the former was better.Of course,now that I upgraded to the Canon 5D MKII,which has full frame sensor,I had to sell the 17-55 F2.8 IS and get the 16-35 F2.8L MKII lens.

On a 50D the 17-55 is the superior lens.

As far as technically advanced - The 17-55 has Image Stabilization which the 16-35 does not.

The 17-55 is the premier EF-S lens, designed specifically for use on 1.6x crop sensors like the 50D. The 16-35 however, is primarily an ultra-wide angle zoom for cameras with larger sensors like the 5D and 1D. That doesn't mean you can't use it on a 50D but why cheat yourself out of a few stops of Image Stabilization and the extra 20mm reach?

Personally I'd take the 17-55 even if it were MORE expensive, if I found myself in this situation again.

I guess it also should be mentioned that some 17-55 owners has issues with dust behind the front element, but thats very easy to clean by yourself.. also some users reports of broken IS after only a year of use or so.. but if you only use the IS when you need it, you'll probably never experience that (its very easy to just forget about the IS and have it turned on all the time, which obviously shortens the life of the IS quite alot)..

Stick with the 17-55. The extra $$$$$$ of the L mainly goes towards the build quality and the extra glass needed to make it cover a full frame sensor.

I would pick the 17-55 for a crop body too. However, I have also heard about the dust problem and the broken IS problem with the 17-55. The 17-55 is also an ef-s mount, so you can't use it with a full frame camera (if you ever decided to upgrade).

Joaaso wrote in post #7161605
I guess it also should be mentioned that some 17-55 owners has issues with dust behind the front element, but thats very easy to clean by yourself.. also some users reports of broken IS after only a year of use or so.. but if you only use the IS when you need it, you'll probably never experience that (its very easy to just forget about the IS and have it turned on all the time, which obviously shortens the life of the IS quite alot)..

Dust behind the element doesn't effect the IQ, and after the year is up you can remove it and clean it your self. It's a great lens. If I were shooting a lot of people often say weddings I might like the 16-35 more than say a 24-70, but without trying both I can't tell, and the 17-55 is closer to the 24-70.

It depends on your shooting style. Heck a good number of people shooters rely on the 70-200 2.8 IS.

Sean wrote in post #7162635
Dust behind the element doesn't effect the IQ, and after the year is up you can remove it and clean it your self.

no it doesn't affect IQ noticeably, but its anyway better to not have this issue, than to have it and the 16-35 doesnt have it, which makes a slight difference between the two, thats why I found it worth mentioning

The camera store employee probably insisted you getting the 16-35 b/c he/she gets a cut on the sale and would get a bigger portion if you purchase the 16-35. That's just my guess anyway.

Haven't used the 17-55 personally. Few months ago, I spent a whole weekend shooting with the 16-35 mm. It's a nice lens but the zoom range seems rather limited on a XSi.

I agree

Tawcan wrote in post #7163599
The camera store employee probably insisted you getting the 16-35 b/c he/she gets a cut on the sale and would get a bigger portion if you purchase the 16-35. That's just my guess anyway.

Haven't used the 17-55 personally. Few months ago, I spent a whole weekend shooting with the 16-35 mm. It's a nice lens but the zoom range seems rather limited on a XSi.

When I was a young man (eons ago) I worked for a camera store and that is exactly how it worked. I got a minuscule percentage of the price added on to my salary but, even more important; I had to keep a certain sales quota to keep my job.

Regarding the 16-35L. This is a super wide angle lens for a full frame camera but, it leaves me cold when put on a 1.6x camera because the 35mm (an anemic 56mm equivalent) is certainly not long enough to shoot with as a single lens outfit. The 16mm side (25.6mm equivalent) is not really wide enough to rally be considered a "WIDE" lens on a 1.6x camera.

I use the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens (which provides a much more usable 88mm equivalent) combined with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on two bodies as my go-to travel and general purpose outfit. I don't miss the 55-70mm gap between these two lenses. However, when I tried to shoot with a combination of the 17-40L and 70-200L; I really missed the great 30mm gap between 40mm and 70mm where I do a lot of shooting. Obviously, I would miss the 35mm to 70mm gap even more.

I strongly suggest that if you want a general purpose lens for your 1.6x camera, that you select the 17-55mm. In addition to the extra 20mm on the long side, this lens has IS which makes it a very viable low light lens.

If you want a WIDE lens, look into either the 12-24mm f/4 or 11-16mm f/2.8 Tokina lenses. They will give you a truly wide lens on 1.6x (as will the approximate focal length Canon and Sigma lenses) and are not even in the same ballpark price-wise as the 16-35L. In fact, you could almost buy the 17-55mm plus one of the Tokinas for the price of the 16-35L

I will stay with 1.6x format because, with top-line lenses, this format gives me excellent image quality up to 11x14 and even higher.

For a 1.6x crop, 17-55 all the way.

On a crop the 16-35mm is too short and does not have IS.

I love my 16-35mm - I prefer the colour rendition to the 17-55. I am going to buy a 50mm F1.4 though to chuck in my camera bag as well giving me extra reach and low light capability when using the 16-35mm as a walkaround on the 40D. Without the 50mm the IS and extra reach of the 17-55 is preferable.

17-55 hands down. Longer, IS. 77mm filter instead of 82mm (on the 16-35 Mk2)