Printable View
Anyone has experienced with this combination? I'm thinking of buying this lensmainlyfor general purposes and group shots that I can shoot indoor. I've the long range coveredby the70-200. And between 35mm - 70mm, which is critical, Ican just walk a few steps to zoom. Because I feel it's harder to step backto zoom out more than walking a few steps to zoom in. Any advice is greatly appreciated! Thanks!
There's notthing wrong with the 16-35 f/2.8LII and the 40D, but if you want to use it strictly for general purposeI think the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is more versatile, it islighter, cheaper, has IS and can take 77mm filter.
I'll second Nate's recommendation - the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is an excellent lens, fast and with great IQ, image stabilization, and a very useful focal length especially for indoor shooting. You will want something as wide as 16/17mm on your body; 24mm isn't wide enough indoors. With the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, most of what you're paying for is sharpness out to the corners, which on your 1.6x crop body is not useful since the corners of a FF image circle are cropped off. You're also paying for weather sealing (when you add an 82mm filter, and good quality filters at that size aren't cheap), but indoors that's not a need. So, unless you're planning on switching to full frame in the near future, in your place I'd get the 17-55mm f/2.8. That lens is on my camera most of the time.