Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I'm curious as to what your experiences have been. I have a Canon 50D. I would like a wide to standard zoom. I was looking at the EF 16-35 2.8L II USM (which would roughly be 25-55). Recently though, I've read reviews on the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM.

Eventually, I will buy a second camera (1.5 years away maybe), and that camera will be full-frame. So the question is, do I buy the 17-55 for the 50D only, or do I buy the 16-35 which I would eventually use for both?

What are your thoughts and experiences?

16-35 and learn to use it to your advantage

the 16-35 is on a completely different class and price from the 17-55. hard to compare. If you have the kit 18-50, then I wouldn't bother with the 17-55. If you really want wide then go with the sigma 10-20 or canon 10-22mm and sell it when you go full frame.

the 17-40 f4 is also a much cheaper alternative to the 16-35 f2.8, and as these are both ultra wide angles, the circle-of-confusion shows that you only gain a couple inches of DOF at close focus points and your hyperfocal distance is very close as well meaning that you don't gain much of DOF from the extra stop.

from your research, which one you like better?

I agree, the 16-35 on anything less than full frame is a waste. A used 5D Mark 1 and 24-105L is cheaper for the meantime.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm that I use on my 40D, and the 17-40f4L that I use on my 5Dmk2. I originally bought the 16-35f2.8, but traded it back in after a week for the 17-40 as I found that the extra 1mm wide had no effect on my photos and that there was no real difference in the DOF and Bokeh between the f2.8 and f4, for the types of wide angle shots I take.

as the 17-40f4L is ~$750 and the 16-35f2.8L is double the price at ~1400. Couldn't really validate the difference in price.

I definitely WOULD recommend getting one of these Ultra Wide Angle lenses though and get which ever one fits your CURRENT platform so that you can take advantage of it now. I never new how much I was missing at 18mm on my 40D until I got the 10-20mm and it's an entire new world of wide photography that you just can't get unless you buy an UWA lens. In fact, when I upgraded to my 5Dmk2 and couldn't use the 10-20mm anymore, I had to go out within a couple weeks to buy the equivalent to get that range back.

This is great, thanks! I was leaning towards the 16-35, but some places made good arguments for the other. But your inputs have been helpful. 16-35 will be the choice.

I find I usually end up needing the 2.8 for what I do, so that's why I didn't look at the 17-40Lf4 originally.

I think I'll get the sigma 10-20 as well.

And also get Sigma 8-16

Too wide, unless you absolutely positively need 8mm, and it's incompatible with front thread filters.

Getting the 16-35 and 10-22 doesnt make any sense to me....
Get the 10-22 and you will make the best use of 16-35 only when u move to full frame..................
not sure if you thought abt this Sigma 12-24 works both on your full frame and 50D but not as wide as the 10-22

cheers

Yes, though on full frame 12mm is a little much. See my comment above about the 8-16 on crop.

16-35L. No doubt about it. End of conversation. =)

For an UWA APS-C lens don't forget to consider the Tokina 11-16 2.8 lens. Many people, myself included, rate it very highly.

gonna play devil's advocate and ask why not consider a prime somewhere in between?

say a 24L or 35L

Continuing Bernard's line of devil' advocacy, does one ever Need to 'upgrade' to full frame?

was the automatic progression in the film days from 35mm to MF?

for most purposes (e.g. not printing posters), what good is a FF camera except for bragging rights?

For Canon cameras, there are only 2 FF cameras. Barring the 1Ds which most non-working-professionals don't Need, how is the 5DII better than the 7D? Sure, 5DII has better high ISO, but what about AF, weather sealing, FPS rate?

I agree with fizbot, go with the best lens for you and your current platform. You may never need to upgrade to FF. When the time comes you want to upgrade, sell the lens. The lenses you are considering are Canon's more popular lenses (10-22, 16-35, 17-40 etc) and you will not have any trouble selling them at a well retained value. Consider it the cost of a lens rental.

Now to FF or not to FF, that is another question

1:1 field of view is the defacto standard for the 35mm lenses that are now shared with crop bodies.

While I enjoy 1.6x for certain scenarios, I find myself so used to the perspective of a 35mm film camera and a narrower dof which are my primary reasons for FF, also the bonuses of a wider dynamic range
To each their own.

Nobody really needs full frame to be honest. I shot full frame exclusively for the past three years but now I'm back to shooting with an APS-H crop camera. As Mike said, sometimes there are qualities about the other cameras that supercede the image quality advantages of a FF camera.

Full frame sensors usually churn out the best quality images, but the shallower depth of field can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you see it.

But back to the original posters question, if you are shooting exclusively with APS-C cameras, the 17-55mm is really the way to go if you are going to stick with zooms. The 10-22mm is also an excellent lens for ultra-wide. With that being said, if you are planning to change the full-frame in the very near future, it would be wise to invest in FF glass. The 16-35LII > 17-40L > 16-35L. I've had all three over the years and I honestly felt the 17-40L is better than the 16-35L. The 16-35LII is a different story though, it's excellent for an ultra-wide zoom on FF.

Another reason is if you are using manual glass, or manual focus often, and don't want to use (or don't have) live view.

You're welcome to look through my a900 viewfinder and see the difference.

I did once, and boy does it make a difference! words of wisdom here

I agree with mike et al on this point. Not that I wouldn't like to upgrade to FF, and I do believe it is an upgrade, but I don't "need" to. In fact nowhere near do I "need" to-especially when I consider the cost of that upgrade. And that's not just me, I bet the majority of people that do this upgrade don't need to, and I'm not breaking "need" down into some sort of Maslow's hierarchy of needs here but looking at it in terms of pragmatic applications. The truth is most don't need full frame(I can see this argument sliding down the slope of what really is needed-not a fruitful slide). But they can afford to and all the power to them. It's a shame to me that many look down on perfectly usable equipment that more than meets their needs because it's not fullframe. I sure have moments of 5DII & D700 envy yet I know what I have now more than meets my needs. I shot manual with a 7D yesterday well over 100 times yesterday with no problem. Would it have been clearer through a 5D? Sure, but it certainly did not "need" to be. Could I have gotten a narrow depth of field with some shots? Sure. Needed to? No. And my shots didn't suffer for the lack of it.

And, on the topic of buying lenses for the full frame future, here are a few things I've encountered:

1. Lenses, if well chosen, don't lose much value. Yes, crop lenses tend to lose a bit more than fullframe, but a well chosen lens will hold value. The Tokina 11-16 for example (although a stock shortage keeps the value of that one up, but that doesn't completely negate my point). So buy what you need for now-wisely. If you want to shoot wide now and you have a crop sensor get a lens that can do that.

2. There's a lot of talk about how some lenses are wasted on crop cameras. For the majority of these lenses I just don't buy it. The obvious example is the wide set. When I first got my 7D I plunked on a Sigma 16-35 and was sorely disappointed with it because it was not as wide as it was with my 35mm (what I was using when I bought the lens). I put it away in its box for 6 months because I agreed with the Internets that it was a "useless range on a crop." I debated whether I was going to hold onto it for the FF days to maybe come or sell it until recently when, on a whim, I used it at Niagara and got some great shots with it. No it isn't as wide as it would be with fullframe but when I looked through the viewfinder, without that expectation of it, I was still able to compose images I wanted with it. It's not that the 16-35 isn't wide enough on a crop it's that that's not it's job anymore. Now it's a 25-56 and it works rather well when I expect it to work in that range.

3. This is kinda a continuation of 2. Make sure you know what you're shooting and how you shoot it. For example I tend to shoot long. With almost all my lenses, Tokina 11-16 is the exception, I almost always shoot at the long end of the zoom. This means I take advantage of that crop factor and am not hampered by the lack of width very often. If I do feel that way I can pop the Tokina on. This is how I know the 24-70 is the better lens choice for me than the EF-S 17-55. When/if I do go FF I'm going to miss that perceived reach. I'll complain about that when the time comes.

Don't wanna go far off topic, but just wanted to add the point about Crop and FF that only until very recently has a "better spec'd" crop body been released.

The 7D is, by all means, a prosumer body with a crop factor. Until its release, FF bodies (excluding the 1D) offered better ISO performance and IQ, as well as more "feature rich" bodies (weather sealing, larger LCD, more CFn, better ergonomics, etc.).

Going back a couple of years, given the choice between a 5D and 40D, I'm fairly certain (under normal circumstances) that people would choose the 5D, even disregarding sensor size. Since this "line" between Crop/FF and Entry level/Prosumer bodies has only recently been crossed/blurred, I don't think it's surprising to have the mindset that "FF > Crop"

Bragging rights? Depends on who your bragging to. There seems to be a perception that a crop sensor is stripped down version of a FF. At the end of the day you either have a great shot or you don't. Crop or no crop, it doesn't make much of a difference and neither will guarantee a better shot... unless you shoot with one lens and with only one camera setting then the choice of crop or FF is easy. If you shoot a range of subjects and explore the limits of your cameras capabilities the choice is much more subjective.

Bump to ions. There is no such thing as too wide or too narrow. If you shoot crop, buy wider. If you shoot FF buy longer. Problem solved. You can argue DOF on FF can be shorter but is the test of a good photo how short the DOF is? Crop sensors can yield short DOF too. Generally I would stay away from cropped lenses due to the lack of FF compatibility but thats just me. I like options.

I simply like the versatility the zoom offers.

Great stuff here gang!

I agree with Chris in how much it is to have 12mm FF = 122deg field of view since I too have the Sigma 12-24. Won't give it up, though -- I recently shot a whole BBQ/party without looking in the viewfinder at all (and no, no live view ).

And two minor points:

- I do wish I had more speed out of the 12-24 f/4.5-5.6. If I had an extra $700 lying around, I'd pick up the Tokina f/2.8 (but still keep the Sigma).
- Cost of entry into FF isn't that bad... with a film camera.

I'm going to side step the whole full frame versus less-than-full frame argument for the most part, but I'll just say that you're on the right track by planning on going full-frame later.

I'm all about buying used equipment because of the great values you can find and your ability to just buy and sell and in many cases, either get all your money back or even make some change! Regardless, you won't lose too much and just consider it a CHEAP rental fee.

If you're going to stick with the crop-frame and want the ultra-wide lens, I'd go with the:
sigma 10-20mm or
canon 10-22mm ...it just depends on your budget, but I've had both and I love the sigma.

If you just want the wide angle lens, I'd just go with the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 NON-VC - a GREAT bang for the buck lens that's had great reviews. I've had multiple copies of this lens over the last couple of years and it's a lens I've had even when I had only full-frame cameras and couldn't even use it! This way, you can still have some wide-angle capabilities and still save for your full-frame - and you can always sell it later.

If you're on a budget and want to plan for the full frame without switching lenses later, I'd go with the canon 17-40mm. if you're on a really tight budget, try the sigma 17-35mm - it's a great lens!

If you just want to work with L glass and want the f2.8 and that's it, I would go with the version 1 over the version 2 of the canon 16-35mm as you'll save a little bit and you wouldn't be even able to tell the difference - especially if you didn't compare them side to side and if you never even messed around with the version 2. I've had plenty of copies of both and while I'm not a huge pixel peeper, I can't tell the difference between the two.

When all else fails and you just want to throw money into the wind, just get the canon 16-35mm version 2 and call it a day.

GOOD LUCK