Canon 16-35 f/2.8

jessetheginger · Jan 5, 2011

I hadn't heard that... thanks for the tip mike!

AaronA1 · Jan 5, 2011

I will not be upgrading to the full frame for quite some time.....so I am under the assumption that the 17-55 may be the best lense. I have read from multiple places that the IS has broken more than once.

I have seen pictures from both lenses, and the 17-55 is extremely comparable to the 16-35......I am still thinking the 17-55, but I am gonna keep digging deeper into it.

You guys are awesome with all of your responses! This helps so much!

table1349 · Jan 5, 2011

Maybe some research here will help.

FM Reviews - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

FM Reviews - Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

photoSIG » Lens: Canon 16-35mm

photoSIG » Lens: Canon 17-55 IS

AaronA1 · Jan 6, 2011

Wow, thanks! Those are actually very helpful links!

JClishe · Jan 6, 2011

This is a great thread because I'm having EXACTLY the same struggle deciding between these 2 lenses.

On one hand, I kinda don't want to go with an EF-S lens in case I ever go full frame. But on the other hand, should I even care about this since I don't know if I'll ever go FF?

I'm also thinking that the 16-35 and the 24-105 would make a great pair so maybe I should focus on investing in both, the 16-35 now and the 24-105 later this year, and then I'll be all set with excellent lenses for a long time to come and will be covered if I ever do go FF. So that's why I'm kinda leaning towards just biting the bullet and investing in the L's.

But getting both the 10-22 and the 17-55 wouldn't be much more expensive than just the 16-35 by itself. Fortunately I'm in a position where I can afford to make the "right" long term decision, but I don't want to needlessly spend money, either.

Sigh, I feel 'ya Aaron, this is a really hard decision.

AaronA1 · Jan 6, 2011

You know what.....I think I should just go for the 16-35.....simply because, I should just not be cheap. I'm into photography enough to where I know I will be going with a full frame eventually. I'm getting the 16-35, Once I sell my old XSI body.....

I really like the way you think with getting the 16-35 now, and then getting the 24-105 later! That's a pretty beautiful idea......and I think, I might have to go ahead and do that too.....16-35, here I come.....

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hug:: <----- For everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big Mike · Jan 6, 2011

JClishe said:
This is a great thread because I'm having EXACTLY the same struggle deciding between these 2 lenses.

On one hand, I kinda don't want to go with an EF-S lens in case I ever go full frame. But on the other hand, should I even care about this since I don't know if I'll ever go FF?

I'm also thinking that the 16-35 and the 24-105 would make a great pair so maybe I should focus on investing in both, the 16-35 now and the 24-105 later this year, and then I'll be all set with excellent lenses for a long time to come and will be covered if I ever do go FF. So that's why I'm kinda leaning towards just biting the bullet and investing in the L's.

But getting both the 10-22 and the 17-55 wouldn't be much more expensive than just the 16-35 by itself. Fortunately I'm in a position where I can afford to make the "right" long term decision, but I don't want to needlessly spend money, either.

Sigh, I feel 'ya Aaron, this is a really hard decision.

Good plan...except that if you get the 24-105mm F4, you will likely be jonesing for an F2.8 lens. That's why the 24-70mm F2.8 is more popular than the 24-105mm.

The 'Holy Trinity', to borrow a term, is the 16-35mm F2.8 L, the 24-70mm F2.8 L and the 70-200mm F2.8 L. For a full frame body anyway. With a crop body, you would still be lacking an ultra wide.

AaronA1 · Jan 6, 2011

Mike, that combination sounds beautiful. I need to stop thinking about it...... :drool:

bigtwinky · Jan 6, 2011

I prefer the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 Nikon offers. Less overlap in focal ranges than Canon

Aaron, the Holy Trinity is a great place to be at. Focus on one lens at a time. I went with the 70-200, now i'm going with the 24-70 and then the 16-35 (or whatever they have out in a 3-4 years). Throw in some fast primes for really low light like the 50 f/1.4, 85 1.8 and maybe a 24 1.4 and you are good to go!

Don't forget the flashes, bodies, backup gear, lighting kits,... its a never ending purchase really.

JClishe · Jan 6, 2011

AaronA1 said:
Mike, that combination sounds beautiful. I need to stop thinking about it......

Me too (need to stop thinking about it). I keep trying to talk myself into the 17-55 because it's a few hundred dollars cheaper, but I have a feeling that if I get it, the 16-35 will still continue be floating around in the back of my head as a potential "upgrade" or "what if" scenario. But if I get the 16-35 I feel like I'll come to a greater sense of closure that that particular focal range is covered and I doubt I'll give another thought to the 17-55, and I'll move on to looking at better glass for other focal ranges. Hmm, I think I just talked myself into 16-35.

The fact that I'm on a crop body is a non-issue for me because if I want to go wider I'll need the 10-22 whether I get the 17-55 or the 16-35, so it's a wash either way.

Big Mike · Jan 6, 2011

What about those times when you're shooting at 20mm and you need IS.....

AaronA1 · Jan 6, 2011

OH MAAAAAAAAAAN!!!! MIKE! You are making things difficult. I think I'm just going to go win the lottery tonight, and just buy everything. It should work if everything works out that way.....

table1349 · Jan 6, 2011

Big Mike said:
What about those times when you're shooting at 20mm and you need IS.....

IS designed for ever make, model, body and or lens is now available.:mrgreen:

JClishe · Jan 10, 2011

Well I went ahead and ordered the 16-35. I already feel better about having my mind made up. Amazon was even offering free expedited shipping so I should get it tomorrow. Looking forward to shooting with it. Now I'll start setting some money aside for either the 24-70L or 24-105L later this year. I have a feeling I'll get addicted to the f/2.8 in the 16-35, so whenever I get around to getting the next lens it probably be the 24-70 f/2.8.

AaronA1 · Jan 11, 2011

You ordered the 16-35!? NICE! I went with the 17-40, just because I thought.....why not? I just got it this past Friday. I cannot even begin to explain how great this lens really is. Sure I may be limited in low light, situations, but I feel confident with it. I used this lens with my 580 EX II, and OMMMMGGGGGGGG, SO AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!