Choice of canon wide angle zoom

[StrifeYun]

which would u get ?

if you do not compare cost $$ and Full Frame FF

Which Lens ?
17-55 2.8 IS USM ?
or
16-35 2.8L USM ?

:sweat:

 

[StrifeYun]

just wanted to noe, cause i'm reallie cannot decide :dunno:

Thanks guys.

*for me , i like the L build and look. But prefer the additional IS and further reach 55mm

 

[Hein]

which would u get ?

if you do not compare cost $$ and Full Frame FF

Which Lens ?
17-55 2.8 IS USM ?
or
16-35 2.8L USM ?

:sweat:

What do u mean by do not compare cost and Full Frame??

For me:
Full frame : 16-35
1.6x : 10-22

 

[Frijj]

What do u mean by do not compare cost and Full Frame??

For me:
Full frame : 16-35
1.6x : 10-22

Agreed.
One was meant to be an ultrawide angle zoom for FFand the other is a std zoom for 1/6x crop.
So It depends on what you want.

If you ONLY have a 1.6x crop camera, and you're looking for a good std zoom, get the 17-55 f/2.8.
If you have both a cropped and FF body (an EOS film body or a FF DSLR), get the 16-35 f/2.8.
If you're looking for an ultrawide zoom for your 1.6x DSLR, get the 10-22.

 

[miniUltraman]

What do u mean by do not compare cost and Full Frame??

For me:
Full frame : 16-35
1.6x : 10-22

I interpret he meant (Don't take "16-35" allows you to use it even when you upgrade to FF next time as the reason for the consideration). Correct me if I understand that wrongly :sweatsm:

 

[miniUltraman]

I also think he doesn't mean "Wide angle" per se... but in the range of 16-55 (wide and yet walkaround lens for a 1.6x)... which to choose So 10-22 is not in the picture of his choice... I will choose 16-35 (and I have already chosen)... The RED (lord of the) ring is just too tempting :rbounce:
By the way, you should put in your option to take into account that you are using 1.6x body... FF owners don't even use EF-S so no need to choose lah...

 

[Stoned]

Personally I think the 16-35L is a very ho hum range on a 1.6x body. The thing I love best about it is it's FOV on a FF, so you may want to look to the 17-55 for better optical performance for the same range on a 1.6x body.

In short, what you're paying for on the 16-35 is the 16mm fov. If you don't get that, it's not really worth getting IMHO.

 

[Frijj]

I also think he doesn't mean "Wide angle" per se... but in the range of 16-55 (wide and yet walkaround lens for a 1.6x)... which to choose So 10-22 is not in the picture of his choice... I will choose 16-35 (and I have already chosen)... The RED (lord of the) ring is just too tempting :rbounce:
By the way, you should put in your option to take into account that you are using 1.6x body... FF owners don't even use EF-S so no need to choose lah...

Your miniUltra powers very good at deciphering what he means huh!

 

[miniUltraman]

Your miniUltra powers very good at deciphering what he means huh!

:embrass: miniUltra only.. Not even small

 

[StrifeYun]

Your miniUltra powers very good at deciphering what he means huh!

WAh say , Ultraman ! u are right about what i'm thinking hee. i up size u 2 BIG Ultraman liao in my eyes :lovegrin:

Think untraman understands cause he has been in the canon 17-55 thread & B&S hehe



I keep thinking of the L built vs the 17-55mm cause i always take my cam with me 90% where ever i go & like to go tracking & maybe mountain climbing in Malaysia also.

the only think for me is that 17-55mm built is not as gd as the 16-35mm. hmmm ...

*okay regarding the ppl using FF cams who will not use a 17-55mm. pai sei
I should have thought of it :angel:


Thanks for the comments guys.

:think: which 1 .. hmmm

Ultraman u r reallie gd :lovegrin:

 

[miniUltraman]

I think you go for 17-55.. since you go climbing and such.. u only bring 1 lens.. then 16-35 not enough lah.. With IS u can climb as you shoot :bsmilie:

 

[zhikang]

10-22!!!!!

 

[Redsun]

10-22!!!!!

ahh u juz said what was in my mind haha

 

[divadyhl]

16-35

For me, it's the build, colour rendition and image quality.
Build largely. Colour rendition and image quality are more difficult to discern unless you've got a seasoned eye.

I used to use the kit lens. IQ, colour was quite ok. I liked it coz it was light then.
But the moment I started using a lens of metal built like the tokina 28-70 f2.8, i completely fell in love with the feel. It felt so much more weighted and solid in my hands. The camera felt more steady and somehow firmer.
When I took out the tokina to try other plastic body lenses, I was like "urgh"... it really felt toy-like to some extent, lacking in the "feel".
so since then, I only swore by metal body lenses.

For the want of an "L" lens for me at least, I would say it is really equipment lust.
When I saw the colours out of the L lens and the IQ, I just got that little bit more lusty. :devil:

IS for me works only in low light static subjects.
It's not that useful for moving subjects, especially in events.
I'd rather still have a 2.8 with higher iso to freeze motion.
But I must admit IS is really useful for lenses above 1 kg in weight.

just me

 

[miniUltraman]

10-22 and 16-35MII for me :lovegrin:

 

[fz30_user]

Correct me if I'm wrong but IQ of 17-55 is better than 16-35 based on photozone MTF?

 

[calebk]

Correct me if I'm wrong but IQ of 17-55 is better than 16-35 based on photozone MTF?

MTFs are one thing, real life experiences, another. I know users of the first variant of the 16-35 who use it at f/2.8 and do not complain about the "infamous" soft corners.

So, out in the field, sometimes MTFs just don't count (psst. sometimes only.).

 

[holeinone]

The choice is clear for 1.6x bodies. The 17-55 is :thumbsup:

The IS and f2.8 are worth the $$. Build quality is good... the lens has a hefty feel to it.