17-40 or 24-105

[gregjp48]

I had the 17-40 on my list, but now I'm questioning the 24-105. I own the 50mm f/1.8 II, and after the lens I'm questioning, I will buy the 70-200 (probably).

Is the less trouble of changing and IS worth double the price?
I wasn't thinking so considering I'm losing the wide end of the 17-40 on my 20d, which is a 1.6 crop, but how significant is that 7mm?

Oh, by the way, the 17-85 IS is out of the question because I shoot film as well.

[gregjp48]

also I could buy the 10-22 to go with the 24-105 on the 20d, but that would be even more money: 600 dollars vs almost 2000. This doesn't seem very practical.

I may get the 10-22 (eventually) anyway even if I get the 17-40.

[GyRob]

The 17-40 is a great lens no dout about it but if the 24-105 had been out i would have gone for that not for the IS but for the range 7mm would make no diffrence to me.
you could even sell your 50mm if you know you dont need the f1.8/2.8 it gives.
Rob

[dontblink]

I have and love the 24-105, for me IS was definately worth the price. However, I am seriously thinking of getting the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS now to replace it. I know you mentioned that EF-S doesn't work for you, but I just thought I would share that with my 20D I feel that I could really use those extra 7mm.

[gregjp48]

the 50 is so cheap and I use it to shoot indoors, so it wouldn't be worth it to sell it.

It's just the fact that I don't really want to spend an extra $600+ just so I don't have to change lenses as frequently. Actually, I don't think I'd even change lenses all that much less, since I'll still need to switch to the 70-200 for longer telephoto anyway. Short telephotos of course I wouldn't have to change for, but I don't think that justifies the extra money, especially since I have the 50 to fill the gap between the 40 and 70 mm. Plus, I don't want to buy a $1200 lens just to want something wider.

I guess the best thing to do would be to just go to b&h and try them out and see if I ever really go wider than 24mm.

[Lightstream]

I dunno. The 24-105 is not a lens I would recommend to crop camera users. I do use it myself, but the 17-85 pulls full time duty on the 350D as my standard zoom. The 24-105 has only ever been mounted for testing.

I really like my 28mm focal length equivalent so a 17mm on a crop camera is a must for me. It isn't for some folks who prefer a little bit more tele reach, but I am a wideangle kinda guy.

What I'd do if I were you.... 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. Cheaper than the 24-105 (a little), gives you IS, a huge aperture, and 17-55 coverage to offset the price tag. Then buy the 70-200 preferably the f/2.8 IS version and you can tackle any kind of low light subject. EF-S shooters have an easy decision path... :)

[chrishunt]

What I'd do if I were you.... 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

He shoots film, so it doesn't look like this is an option for him right now.

If I had to make the choice, I'd get the 17-40. I already had it once and it was a great lens. I don't like wide angle at all, however, and that's why I sold it. The 17-40 will work well with your 50 and 70-200. In my opinion, there would be too much overlap between the 24-105 and 70-200...I would always want to use the 70-200 for anything in that range.

[Lightstream]

Ooops! The mention of the 10-22 gave me the wrong impression. My bad....

For full frame, definitely the 17-40 and 24-105, IMO. The reason why I went with this setup is that sometimes I take only one lens or don't have time to change lenses, so I go with the standard zoom range which is very versatile. You can get by with the 17-40, 50 and 70-200 - great combo as well.

[gregjp48]

I was thinking for longer stuff I could get the 100-400L and it would have less overlap, but it's kind of slow, and even more money then, bringing my total budget on lenses to over $3000.

I guess that's what I would spend anyway in the long run: as 17-40 + 70-200 + my anticipated 300 f/4L is about $2300. Yes, never mind, that is quite a bit less. Also that opens room in my budget for A grip, a 580EX, and Two bigger HardDrives (250GB each).
Plus, I'd get the 300 way after everything else (probably getting a 1.4 extender for the 70-200 first to hold me over and see if I ever shoot that long), so I would be spending $1300 first, then I could worry about the rest of the stuff I need (flash, Hard Drive) and want (grip), and I'll be able to buy them, for a bit more than the amount I would've spent on a 10-22, 24-105, and a 100-400(which probably wouldn't satisfy me as much in the long run as a 70-200 and 300 w/ an extender would anyway). I like the idea of one lens along the standard zoom range and not have to change. But I think I can just move up a bit.
Probably the 24 wouldn't cut it for me w/a but I don't know that yet, as I used to shoot telephoto a lot more with my P&S (which was 38 equiv on the wide side anyway), and I haven't really gone out and seen what range I use more on the Kit Lens. I was using the 55mm on it alot though, but I'll have to see.

I'm going to go to B&H soon enough, and I'll bring my 20d, mount on both lenses, and see If the 24 is wide enough for me. Maybe it won't be, but maybe it will, and then watch me walk out just having paid $600 so I didn't have to change lenses as often.

Oh, btw when I say wide enough for me, I mean on a crop sensor, not film (24 would be plenty wide on film I would think.)

Is this a good reason to buy a lens, just so I have one lens throughout the zoom range instead of switching?

Or after getting everything else, should I buy a Tamron 28-75 (which would have less overlap) so if I didn't need the wide angle at that particular moment, I'd have the entire range up to 75 to play with, and then I could switch to 70-200 if I need longer. And I'd have my 50 as well for low light until I get my speedlite, or the event doesn't allow flash.

Ok, it's settled, I'm going to get the 17-40, 70-200 (maybe with an extender if I need it), later the Tamron 28-75, and even later the 300 f/4.

Man, was that a long post.
Sometimes I just need to write(type) it out to think I guess.

[vjack]

I think you'll be happier with the 17-40 on a crop camera. 24mm on the wide end just isn't wide enough.

[Elton Balch]

I think you'll be happier with the 17-40 on a crop camera. 24mm on the wide end just isn't wide enough.

I agree 100% here. The difference between 17mm and 24 mm on a 1.6 crop is huge!!

[timmyb]

If it was me I'd get the 24-105 for both cameras and a Tamron 17-50 for the digital.The Tamron's a great lens, there's no compromise on image quality plus it's 2.8.

[ed rader]

I had the 17-40 on my list, but now I'm questioning the 24-105. I own the 50mm f/1.8 II, and after the lens I'm questioning, I will buy the 70-200 (probably).

Is the less trouble of changing and IS worth double the price?
I wasn't thinking so considering I'm losing the wide end of the 17-40 on my 20d, which is a 1.6 crop, but how significant is that 7mm?

Oh, by the way, the 17-85 IS is out of the question because I shoot film as well.

i own the 24-105 and it's my main lens. i just ordered the 17-40L last night. i'm out of town and i was shooting all evening in the big sur area and so far i like what i see on my laptop.

i wanted a landscape lens with rich colors and contrast that inspires the same confidence as my 24-105 and 70-200 and my choices were either the 17-40 or the tamron 17-50.

i've owned two other tamrons and while they are fines lenses the Ls have better color and contrast and there is no substitute for ring USM.

the 17-40L is $529 @ B&H if you use PSMAR, and there's a $50 rebate from canon.

so in answer to your question i say get both!

ed rader

[Lightstream]

i own the 24-105 and it's my main lens. i just ordered the 17-40L last night. i'm out of town and i was shooting all evening in the big sur area and so far i like what i see on my laptop.

i wanted a landscape lens with rich colors and contrast that inspires the same confidence as my 24-105 and 70-200 and my choices were either the 17-40 or the tamron 17-50.

i've owned two other tamrons and while they are fines lenses the Ls have better color and contrast and there is no substitute for ring USM.

the 17-40L is $529 @ B&H if you use PSMAR, and there's a $50 rebate from canon.

so in answer to your question i say get both!

ed rader
It's actually $629 at B&H even with PSMAR.. :)

I almost jumped sky high when I read $529, I thought I'd made a truly horrible mistake and overpaid for my 17-40, but then I checked and things don't look so bad now....

Agreed nothing is a substitute for L glass. You can come close and I have in the past, but the L's have that extra special something.

[PhotoGeek]

How does one use the PSMAR? I started to place an order but did not see a place for a coupon or promo code.

[Tsmith]

How does one use the PSMAR? I started to place an order but did not see a place for a coupon or promo code.

Type it in the Search Box on the Home page.

[ACDCROCKS]

17-40mm, it's an L, it's wider as well, which comes in handy alot

[PhotoGeek]

Type it in the Search Box on the Home page.

Gracias

[Tsmith]

Gracias

no el problemo ... ;)

[ed rader]

It's actually $629 at B&H even with PSMAR.. :)

I almost jumped sky high when I read $529, I thought I'd made a truly horrible mistake and overpaid for my 17-40, but then I checked and things don't look so bad now....

Agreed nothing is a substitute for L glass. You can come close and I have in the past, but the L's have that extra special something.

thanx for correcting me....i'm sure everyone went to B&H to look :rolleyes: .

my final price with rebate will be $588....which is pretty darn good. i'll post a few pics when i get back into town.

ed rader

[Stan43]

I fill the wide end with the Tokina 12-24. I have been vbery pleased. Won't work on FF so that's a futuire consideration.

[gregjp48]

As much as I would love to get both, I don't have the money for it.

I could go with the 17-40 and buy the 24-105 some other time if I feel the need.

[led hed]

i have the 17-40L and the 50mm 1.8. my next lense will be the 70-200 2.8L IS.

most ranges are covered by this threesome.

[ed rader]

As much as I would love to get both, I don't have the money for it.

I could go with the 17-40 and buy the 24-105 some other time if I feel the need.

i didn't buy al my lenses at once either :D .

it's been a slow and somewhat expensive upgrade process.

as far as which you should get first well that's up to you. my 24-105 is my primary lens so that would be my choice.

ed rader

[Ocean Blue]

Gracias

Actually changes from time to time, PSMAR will bring up items still, but use PSMAY for another set. The deal I had found before was no longer under PSMAR, but was under PSMAY (I think PS is promotional specials plus month abbreviations, or so I suppose).