Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 or 16-35mm 2.8L?

edsonkwushu

edsonkwushu

Active member
Hey everyone,

I wanted to get some opinions regarding the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 lens versus the Canon 16-35mm 2.8L series lens for the Canon 7D.

Here are the basic Pros and Cons of the Lenses in my head:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8
Pros:
1. covers wide (28mm), normal (50mm) and close-up/portrait (85mm+) angles
2. about $1,000
3. Pretty fast aperture

Cons:
1. Only good for use on EF-S compatible/APS-C Canon cameras.

Canon 16-35mm 2.8L
Pros:
1. Good for use on both APS-C and full frame cameras
2. Pretty fast aperture
3. Probably slightly better resale value

Cons:
1. Not the most useful lens on a full-frame unless (covers wide and VERY wide angles)
2. about $1,500
3. Only covers wide (28mm) and normal (50mm) angles on the Canon 7D.

Our priority is definitely video. Certainly, none of us are going to turn into professional photographers. And I figure if we ever upgrade to something non-APSC, the resale value can't be that horrible especially within the next few years. Certainly not $500 bad resale value, haha.

So, my overall thinking is that the Canon 16-35mm 2.8L isn't really worth the extra $500. If we're going to be primarily shooting on the 7D, the EF-S would provide for all of our necessary shots in one package saving us time and headache switching lenses. It's also $500 cheaper.

Sure, the 16-35mm 2.8L is going to have better resale value and also can be used on full frame cameras, but will it really be that much better than the EF-S? Do people think that the trend will be to shoot video on 35mm full-frame sized sensors or on APS-C size sensors? Aren't lenses like cinema lenses more easily adaptable to the APS-C size of the Canon 7D than the 5D Mark II and the 1D?
 
Sounds like you have made up your mind on the EF-S 15-55 (which is a good choice if you will never go full frame, I however was not so sure).

If you want to go for for a cheaper lens that also does full frame the 17-40 F4L is also a good option. it is a stop slower, but for $700 it is a real bargin and the handling is superb. That is the way I went (for my personal camera package) and haven't looked back. I just shot an entire conference (2000 stills) with it and a 50 on an aps-c sensor and I didn't want for anything.
 
Thanks for your feedback, Mike! It always comes down to what your needs are now, I guess. I'm hoping to get more feedback from others, too. My thinking is also that the saving $500 goes towards getting a crazy 50mm 1.4 for when you REALLY need that extra light.
 
Just to make your decision a little tougher - how about the Canon 24-105mm L IS?

You lose some on the wide end, gain quite a bit on the long end, lose 1 stop, but have a lens with IS and works on both APS and FF sensors.

I have the 16-35mm L and love it, however for the 7D I would prefer the 17-55mm IS for video.

Another contender would be the highly regarded Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC.

In any case I wouldn't worry too much over the resale values of lenses - the prices I have seen lately are heading up, not down.
 
For the 7d I went ofr the tokina 16-50 2.8

IMO the 16-35 is not long enough to make a walkabout lens

IMO the 17-55 the focus mechanism is too small and in the wrong place

the tokina is best to pull focus with the 16-35 in sceond place

of course the tokina is cheap

Id get the tokina and some primes with that cash

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top