Looking for a wide angle prime lens to replace 17-55mm f/2.8

Hi

I have a Canon 7D Mark II and the following lenses (in order of personal preference)

1. Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
3. Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8

I really don't like my 17-55 and trying to sell it. The 50mm is okay and I like the focal length on a crop, but it has its issues. I tend to shoot portrait pictures a lot, but need something more wider for group shots or the occasional scenery shot.

Here are some things I decided

1. I'm not purchasing any more EF-S lenses, in case I upgrade to FF later on
2. Any future zoom lenses will probably be L lens (but not buying it anytime soon)

At the very least, I'm looking for a wide angle prime lens to replace the 17-55, and I'd be open to trying to sell the 50mm and replace it with something similar/better quality.

1. What prime lens should I get to replace the 17-55?
2. Should I go through the hassle of replacing the 50mm with something similar (e.g. perhaps another 50mm but better quality)? If so, what do I replace it with?
3. How much do you think I could sell the 17-55 for (includes canon lens hood and B+W uv filter, all in mint condition)?

My budget would probably be about $200-300 per lens after selling the lens I'm replacing, but it'd be great if the lens I'm selling could almost cover the new lens.

Thanks.

jiffry1017 wrote:

Edit: I can expand the budget to a couple hundred per prime lens (less than $1k).

I know you said you dont want to get any more EF-S lenses but personally id stick with STM lenses for now if you plan on using a crop camera for a while longer. The 50mm f/1.8 STM is better than the f/1.4, and the 24mm f/2.8 STM is really nice. Both would cost you hardly anything and both are very good lenses.

In fact this is what i did when i couldnt get on with my latest 17-55 f/2.8 on my 80D. The 50mm of course will still work on FF, and in fact to my eyes works even better on FF than on my crop camera.

This would also leave you more money for a FF body later on.

I think Dave's advise is good. You could get the 50 & 24 STM's from the refurb store for $221.00. If you later go to FF the 50 still works for you.

BTW, what don't you (and Dave) not like about the 17-55? I've been considering getting one as the Sigma 18-35 seems to have problems on the 80D.

jvceac wrote:

I think Dave's advise is good. You could get the 50 & 24 STM's from the refurb store for $221.00. If you later go to FF the 50 still works for you.

BTW, what don't you (and Dave) not like about the 17-55? I've been considering getting one as the Sigma 18-35 seems to have problems on the 80D.

I loved the first 17-55 i had, years ago on my 30D and 40D. It worked well on my 60D but i sold it to get a 15-85. when i tried to buy it again i ended up with two copies that were decentred so gave up.

Last year i got a 80D and wanted another 17-55. I got one and it seemed fine on my 650D but was not reliable on my 80D. it was sharp enough when it hit the spot but i felt it could/should have been better. The 24 STM, 40 STM and 50 STM (that i ended up getting) had no such issues, all were spot on on my 80D, and i felt at the price the 17-55 cost it wasn't worth living with it.

The Canon 35 f/2 IS would be my choice over the 20mm, although i appreciate its not classed as wide on a crop. Still a fantastic lens though.

BAK wrote:

The only lens that meets your requirements (from Canon) is the 20mm EF 2.8.

I did not look up Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina.

BAK

And the 20/2.8 is kind of a crap lens.  There is the Sigma 20/1.4 for about $900 that does real well but it has a bulb front and can't take filters.

I really don't see the point of trying to replace the 17-55 here.  There just isn't much better.  The Sigma 18-35 is sharper and faster, but you loose stabilization and a little wide end and a lot of tele end and its crop only so doesn't meet the FF upgrade requirements.

I suppose the 16-35/2.8 III is an option, but its a $2000 lens and it will act very differently when you put it on a FF camera.  There again you loose stabilization and focal length range over the 17-55.  I'd just stay with the 17-55/2.8 here until you actually buy a FF body.

Wilco318 wrote:

Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 and

Maybe but besides being out of budget it is not very wide.  Edit... well, it seems he was also thinking of a 50.

Sigma Art 18-35mm f1.8

He also said FF.

are the two most obvious choices, but are likely outside of your budget. Perhaps you could stretch the budget a little.