16-35 2.8L or 16-35 2.8L II

[c.edwards]

Hey Stapled, I do agree with you. I don

[neuroanatomist]

I dont really want to repurchase again.

Makes sense - although keep in mind that the better lenses (L lenses and the EF-S 17-55mm and 10-22mm are in that group) hold their value pretty well, especially if you have good timing. For example, I bought my EF-S 10-22mm during a rebate period last winter, and sold it last week (no rebates currently), so I only 'lost' about $50 - that's a pretty reasonable 'rental fee' for nearly a year of use!


I sold the 10-22mm just after I ordered a 5DII. I would have preferred a 5DIII, and will almost certainly upgrade to that when it comes (unless they fail epically and don't upgrade the AF system) - but, I wanted FF for an upcoming trip. I will also point out that I'm keeping my 7D, primarily for birds/wildlife where the speed and crop factor are a big 7D advantage. But even though I'll use the 5DII for 'general purpose' shooting, portraits, landscapes, etc., I'm also keeping my EF-S 17-55mm lens - it's just that good! I'd really recommend considering that lens instead of a FF UWA zoom for your 7D. Especially if you intend the 16-35mm as a walkaround lens, 35mm is pretty short for general use.


To your question about the 16-35mm MkI vs. MkII, while I cannot comment on the differences, have you considered the 17-40mm f/4L? Personally, I'm debating a bit between that and the 16-35 II right now. The consensus seems to be that if you can stop down a bit (e.g. landscapes on a tripod), the 17-40mm is optically similar to the 16-35mm II, and a bargain at half the cost. But, if you intend the 16-35mm as a general purpose zoom lens for your 7D, you may want the wider aperture.


Good luck with your decision, Chris!

[markcoons]

I have always defended the EF-S 17-55 as it is a great lens. But when I got my 16-35mm II I stopped using the 17-55. As good as it is the 16-35 is better, better color and better IQ. I don