17-40mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/2.8L

gipper51 wrote:

psychoticpanda wrote:

So do you think I should get the EF-S compared to a EF lens? I mean I know lenses usually last a while but camera bodies only a few years before they are outdated. I just don't want to have to invest in another few lenses that won't fit a FF camera in the future.

Now that I am thinking about it, I may just pick an EF-S lens and save some money, then worry about the EF exclusive lenses when I get there. Any suggestions comparable to the lens I mentioned? Or even any general suggestions to use as an everyday lens for walking around the city...? Thanks everyone!

Yes, I would go with an EF-S lens. The Canon 17-55 IS is probably the absolute best one, but also the most expensive. There are several very good alternatives from Sigma and Tamron for significantly less money.

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/sigma-17-50mm-f2-8-vs-canon-17-55mm-f2-8-and-tamron-17-50mm-f2-8/

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs17-55/

I personally picked up Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS as a walk-around lens for my 60D after carefully read several reviews (such as two above) and after read many owners' experiences. I used it to cover my entire trip of Disney parks last year together with 70-200L/4.0 IS with pretty good result for example. I appreciate constant f/2.8 in low light that I shoot virtually exclusively hand-held in evening.

http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/f975306243

You choose EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS - It's Canon first and keep value better down to the road. But it's overpriced on my opinion. It's slightly better than Sigma version in edges/corners at f/2.8 (but I don't bother by dim corners/edges in low light when I only need to shoot F2.8 in my usage). It has FTM (full-time manual overrun that is not really a big deal on my experience with Sigma copy). It has extra 5mm at tele-side.

You choose Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS - $400-450 cheaper with lens' hood included, a huge deal to me. It has very similar IQ as Canon copy if not slightly sharper in center at f/2.8 and beyond f/8. Arguably it also has better build.

You choose EF-S 15-85 because it's 15mm at wide side (that equivalent to 24mm on FF that is noticeable wider than 17mm) and 85mm at tele-side but it's slow in low light. It has latest 4-stop 'IS'.

To OP: you choose based on your priority - range vs low light with other factors - price and weight and if you will upgrade to FF in near future.

Reading the reviews of these lenses on this site might help with your decision:

www.photozone.de

-- hide signature --

My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits