# Canon 16-35L II vs Tokina 16-35 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 lenses



## Gary W. (Mar 12, 2012)

Hey all, 

I am trying to put together a "wish list" of lenses, and am considering these 3 for the wider end of the spectrum on, currently, a 7D, and possibly a ff somewhere down the road. Anyone that has experience with these compared to each other would be helpful. Thanks in advance!

Gary W.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 12, 2012)

Get a EF-S lens, and don't spend money on a lens that will not help you on a crop body and may be outdated by the time you upgrade to FF. A Canon 17-55mm would be preferable to the 16-35mmL on a crop body, and the IS does make a difference. By the time you get a FF body, you may have additional choices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Get a EF-S lens, and don't spend money on a lens that will not help you on a crop body and may be outdated by the time you upgrade to FF. A Canon 17-55mm would be preferable to the 16-35mmL on a crop body, and the IS does make a difference. By the time you get a FF body, you may have additional choices.



+1. IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.


----------



## Gary W. (Mar 12, 2012)

Hey all,

Thanks for the replies! I really am leaning away from the 17-55 because it is an EF-S lens. I don't care for/like the prospect of getting a lens I would not be able to use on a ff camera when I get one, be it later this year, or 4 or 5 years from now. A good lens now will still be a good lens in the future if it is taken care of.

Gary W.


----------



## nqkhaidl (Mar 12, 2012)

if you are going to full frame in future, then 16-35L II is excellent lens to invest


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 12, 2012)

Gary W. said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Thanks for the replies! I really am leaning away from the 17-55 because it is an EF-S lens. I don't care for/like the prospect of getting a lens I would not be able to use on a ff camera when I get one, be it later this year, or 4 or 5 years from now. A good lens now will still be a good lens in the future if it is taken care of.
> 
> Gary W.



then the 16-35 f2.8 II is the best lens for you on a crop it will be super sharp corner to corner


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2012)

Gary W. said:


> I really am leaning away from the 17-55 because it is an EF-S lens. I don't care for/like the prospect of getting a lens I would not be able to use on a ff camera when I get one, be it later this year, or 4 or 5 years from now. A good lens now will still be a good lens in the future if it is taken care of.



A good lens now can be re-sold later with little or no loss, too. If you're looking for the best optically, the 17-55mm actually outperforms (slightly) the 16-35 II on APS-C. 

Also, you're assuming you'd get rid of the 7D, which you may or may not - a backup camera is nice to have, and 1.6x is better if you're focal length limited. After getting a 5DII, I kept my 7D for shoothing birds/wildlife, and I'll be keeping the 7D after getting the 1D X (but selling the 5DII). I also kept the 17-55mm for times when I need a general purpose zoom on the 7D, even though I have the 16-35 II also. I'd use the latter if going out in the rain, but otherwise I grab the 17-55mm.

I did have an EF-S 10-22mm for the 7D, which I sold after getting the 5DII and 16-35 II. I'd had the 10-22mm for about a year, sold it on Craigslist in less than a day, for only $50 less than I paid for it (new from Amazon). That was before the last round of lens price increases - if I sold the lens today, I'd have made a profit on the sale. 

So...don't be afraid to buy a high end EF-S lens (17-55mm, 10-22mm, 15-85mm) - they hold their value quite well. I'd take a year - or 4-5 years - of better pictures now, over a lens I could use on a FF camera someday-maybe.


----------



## digishooter (Mar 12, 2012)

Stay away from the Canon 16-35mm II if you are considering going to a full-frame sensor. I have one - works great on a crop sensor but on full-frame the edge sharpness is absolutely horrid. This has been widely reported as an issue on that lens. Read some professional reviews if you don't believe me. For the price it should perform better.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 12, 2012)

digishooter said:


> Stay away from the Canon 16-35mm II if you are considering going to a full-frame sensor. I have one - works great on a crop sensor but on full-frame the edge sharpness is absolutely horrid. This has been widely reported as an issue on that lens. Read some professional reviews if you don't believe me. For the price it should perform better.



I don't think that opinion is shared by the majority, I like my 16-35mm a lot and it's the only zoom I have left out of the 3 I had before (24-70/70-200 f/2.8 IS). It is great on an APS-C sensor, but on FF it's not quite as useful. 

I agree the 17-55 is definitely better for an APS-C sensor and will outperform the 16-35mm in sharpness, but the 16-35 is still a great lens. You may want to get your copy recalibrated if it looks that bad, I've seen the quality vary from copy to copy.


----------



## Rob Wiebe (Mar 12, 2012)

My 16-35 L II is quite sharp all around on my 5D2. I wasn't totally thrilled with it on my 7D but love it on the FF. ;-)


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 12, 2012)

Gary W. said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Thanks for the replies! I really am leaning away from the 17-55 because it is an EF-S lens. I don't care for/like the prospect of getting a lens I would not be able to use on a ff camera when I get one, be it later this year, or 4 or 5 years from now. A good lens now will still be a good lens in the future if it is taken care of.
> 
> Gary W.



I am of exactly the same mindset--I'm on a 7D now, but don't want to put money into glass that won't work when I move to a 5D III (or IV as slow as I move. :-\ ) Just yesterday I was playing with the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and was reasonably impressed. There's not a lot of reviews on it, but the ones that are there are pretty favorable. Unfortunately I only got to get a feel for it and did not get any photos, but from a feel standpoint it was good--built like a tank, seem to focus quickly and reasonably quietly. 

One big drawback for some people is that you can't use filters. The other gripe I've seen about it is the lens cap. The one I looked at yesterday was quite different from any of the photos I've seen and seems like they've heard the complaints and upgraded it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 14, 2012)

Gary W. said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Thanks for the replies! I really am leaning away from the 17-55 because it is an EF-S lens. I don't care for/like the prospect of getting a lens I would not be able to use on a ff camera when I get one, be it later this year, or 4 or 5 years from now. A good lens now will still be a good lens in the future if it is taken care of.
> 
> Gary W.



4-5 years from now is a long time; later this year is not. It might be better if you decide when you'll upgrade first before buying another lens to cover range that your current kit spans. 5DII prices have begun to drop. Is that something that you'd consider? If you get the 16-35L and 5DII now, it'd cost about 3600 new, but the 5DII with the 24-105 would cost less than 3000. If you value the mid range over the wide range, then it might make sense to wait to get the FF camera with a kit lens rather than getting the 16-35L now, which you might not use much in FF.


----------

