EF or EF-S

[FidelCastrovich]

In the long term, what do you say, for an enthusiast on his way to PJism?
I'm getting a 30D, with 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, along with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and everybody tells me the former is a mistake. I should go with a 16-35 2.8L, they say. Because everybody uses it+it is EF and FF upgradeable.

I should say that i intend to upgrade in the future, of course. But not in the near future. I think i'll get an FF, and the 30D will be a backup. And that's where the 17-55 will be used, while the 70-200 will reside on the FF.
Plus, who needs a REAL 16-35 on a FF, for people photography?

What do you think? As a long term investment? The price difference between the 17-55 and the 16-35 is about $450, which is not peanuts, when you're already spending around $4K.

Thanks.

 

[lifeafter2am]

Personally the only EF-S lens I own is the one that came with my camera, everything else is and will be EF. It's always nice to at least have the option to use the lens on either camera. Plus the "L" lens is the top of the line, and will produce better pictures overall.

 

[Big Mike]

Many people have said that the 17-55 is pretty much of L quality...but Canon just isn't giving EF-S lenses that designation.

Personally, I think you should get the best tool for the job (that fits your budget). The 17-55 is very good lens and I would feel pretty confident that APS-S sized sensors will be around for some time to come. So when you upgrade to a full frame digital body, you will probably be able to sell the 17-55 for 80-90% of what you paid for it.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Many people have said that the 17-55 is pretty much of L quality...but Canon just isn't giving EF-S lenses that designation.

Personally, I think you should get the best tool for the job (that fits your budget). The 17-55 is very good lens and I would feel pretty confident that APS-S sized sensors will be around for some time to come. So when you upgrade to a full frame digital body, you will probably be able to sell the 17-55 for 80-90% of what you paid for it.

Yep, that's what i'm thinking. Either it moves permanently to the 30D when i buy an FF, or i sell it with the 30D(or without).

The reviews are great, L-grade great, and the only thing that might pose a problem is the dust issue, which i'm not really worried about, but can understand how it's distressing.

I went to take a look at the 30D today, along with the 16-35, and it just didn't seem like a wide enough range. Plus, again, on an FF - up to 24mm is not really useful, for people photography, other than special purposes. So when i go FF, i'll get something along the lines of the 24-70L.

Thanks, off to B&H.

 

[Big Mike]

When you do go full frame, getting the 24-70 L would probably be good. But then you won't need the 17-55 anymore, because it would essentially be the same thing on both cameras. However, the 70-200 would be great on the 30D because the crop factor gives you the feel of extra reach.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

When you do go full frame, getting the 24-70 L would probably be good. But then you won't need the 17-55 anymore, because it would essentially be the same thing on both cameras. However, the 70-200 would be great on the 30D because the crop factor gives you the feel of extra reach.

Ah, finally, after a week of deliberation, i placed the order. $3800 worth of goodies on their way!
Hope the relatives coming in from the States don't bang them around too much.

Thanks Big Mike, you've been a big help, in this, and other threads.:hail:

 

[Big Mike]

Good luck