New EF-S lens???

[HiFiGuy1]

Steven,


I normally agree with broader compatibility, all else being equal, but the thread starter stated he doesn't ever see himself going FF. In this case, the 17-55 will be a better choice than either the 16-35 or 17-40 (which I own). It is as fast as the 16-35, as wide as either, and longer than both, all while having IS. Arguably, it is also as sharp or sharper than either of the other two, especially on an APS-C body.


It also leaves less of a gap to the wide end of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, which gives a two-lens combo of great flexibility, speed and image quality, from 17-200mm.

[Steven23]

Silly me, forgot he did say not going to FF. If no FF the 17-55 2.8 should do fine vs the 16-35 2.8 save about 500 bucks to.