Quote Originally Posted by Magijr View Post
Do you think a lens like the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is a good lens for a first lens, walk around and indoor photography on a crop body like e 60d, or is the 17-55 still a better option?
I think the 17-55mm is a better option. The 17-55mm is actually a little sharper than the 16-35L II when comparing both on the same APS-C camera. The 17-55mm has a more useful focal range, and has image stabilization. The 16-35L II is significantly more expensive. It's true that the 16-35 II is weather sealed, but that is only useful is you're using it on a weather sealed body (the T4i is not, the 60D has some sealing, but really you'd want a 7D for decent sealing); also, a filter is needed to complete the sealing and 82mm filters aren't cheap.

If you were asking about an ultrawide zoom for a FF camera, the 16-35L II would be the recommendation. For a general purpose lens on APS-C, the 17-55mm is the better choice of the two.