Look for a new Lens

[plunderisley]

I currently have the 400D with the stock lens. The photos from what I've taken are OK.


I do a lot of landscape photos with plenty of day and night shots. I also play around with HDR imaging.


I'm looking into a new lens that will last me for a long time.





From what I read, I narrowed it down to a few.


Canon EF 17-40 L


Canon EF 16-35 L


Would be one of the preferred ones, but they are not cheap (17-40 being a few hundred $ less than the 16-35)





Canon 17-85mm seems also good, cheaper, but I don't think as good as the "L" series.





Any ideas, comments, thoughts?

[peety3]

Is the kit lens wide enough for you? If so, 17-40 is a great place to start, and it's a LOT less expensive than the 16-35.


If you need wider, consider the 10-22.

[EdN]

I've got the 17-40 F4L for use on a cropped body and it's excellent. It also works on full frame if you ever decided to go in that direction in the future.


If you are only thinking of staying with a cropped body, Brian's review on the new 15-85 says it's a pretty good lens for an EF-S mount. Personally, I still like the 17-40.

[neuroanatomist]

Canon 17-85mm seems also good, cheaper, but I don't think as good as the "L" series.

Don't. If you're willing to consider a variable aperture zoom lens, consider the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM instead. That's the lens that replaced the 17-85, and the image quality is significantly better.

I'm looking into a new lens that will last me for a long time.

How long? Specifically, do you intend to change to a full frame body, and if so, when? I ask because the two lenses you list are FF-compatible, whereas the lens I'd really recommend for you is not. Have you considered the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM? The cost is intermediate between the 17-40mm f/4L and the 16-35mm f/2.8L. However, you get image quality equivalent to an L-series lens, the constant f/2.8 aperture of the 16-35mm lens, a broader focal length range than either of the lenses you list, and the additional benefit of image stabilization. In giving up the L designation, you're not sacrificing image quality with the 17-55mm, but you are sacrificing FF compatibility, and weather-sealing (which is not relevant unless you have a weather-sealed body, which you don't).


If you won't go FF for a couple of years, I'd suggest you strongly consider the 17-55mm. It is, hands-down, the best general purpose zoom on a 1.6x crop body.


Personally, of my seven lenses (4 of which have a red ring), the 17-55mm is the one I use the most on my 7D.

[peety3]

Be careful with the 15-85. Roger at LensRentals says it's overpriced. See http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/cano...-usm/for-canon for his commentary. I think Roger's observations are quietly embedded in Bryan's review, just not spoken in the same manner.

[plunderisley]

Well I want the lens to last many years, and I will probably be replacing the body in the winter time to the 550D

[Jon Ruyle]

Well I want the lens to last many years, and I will probably be replacing the body in the winter time to the 550D

A 550D is still not full frame. Unless you're planning to go full frame, I second John's suggestion.


Different lenses for different uses and different styles. Almost always when people ask "which lens should I get", I say "it depends."


But comparing the 17-55 to the more expensive 16-35 on a crop body, it's hard to argue in favor of the 16-35. As John said, the 17-55 gives you more reach and IS and IQ that is at least as good. (I guess if you absolutely *need* that 16 mm, that argues in favor of the 16-35 but as has been said, if you really want wider than 17-55 get the 10-22)


I wouldn't even recommend the 17-40 (which I own and like very much on my 5DII). Even if the 17-55 costs a little more, you're getting a *lot* for the difference.


It really seems a waste to spend a lot of money on a wide lens that covers a full frame ccd, and then to put the lens on a crop body. It is more difficult, more expensive, and requires more heavy glass to make a wide lens for full frame. Wide EF-S lenses are cheaper and lighter and ofter have superior IQ as compared to a cropped EF counterpart.


(Though usually not- others are free to disagree- as compared with uncropped EF lenses.)

[scalesusa]

The canon 17-55mm should be first on your list. I have the 17-40L and the 17-55mm. The 17-40 goes on my 5d MK II, but the 17-55mm IS really beats it out IQ wise on my 40d. I never bought a wider lens, I found 17mm to be plenty wide. However, it does depend on what type of shots you prefer.

[plunderisley]

What about the 16-35mm L?


Its 2.8, and I like to do night shots without flash, but I do get some noise.


Will a lower f fix that with a higher iso?

[Jon Ruyle]

What about the 16-35mm L?

As I and others have pointed out, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS cost less, is also f/2.8, has just as good IQ (if not better), has more reach, and IS to boot. Why would you prefer the 16-35?

Will a lower f fix that with a higher iso?

Yes, but of course the 17-55 is also f/2.8. And if you're worried about keeping ISO down in low light, the IS of the 17-55 will be a big bonus, especially at the long end. In fact, I believe the 17-55 is the most hand-holdable of all canon lenses on a crop body. You can't buy a better lens for hand-held night photography with no flash, IMO.