Anybody with both EF 17-40mm F 4 and EF 24-70mm F2.8 ?

[mhoutman]

As I want to buy a 10D or its successor, I am still not sure which of above lenses to choose.

My main problem with the 24-70mm is its weight and with the 17-40 I get a bigger gap to a next zoom lens starting at 70mm

Please convince me !

[kanwingshing]

I would suggest you to get 17-40 L as with 24-70 you don't really have any wide angle capabilities.
And then next zoom would start at 70mm.
Don't worry about the gap. It just takes a few steps to get the same perspective.
If you have a deep pocket, go with the 70-200 2.8L.

[Belmondo]

The 24-70 is heavier, but it's a more useful focal range. The extra f-stop is occasionally useful, too. If my only concern was weight, I'd likely go with the 17-40, but it would be a little hypocritical to say the lens is too heavy when I'm already using the BG-ED3 battery grip. If weight was a real issue, I'd forego the battery grip and just carry an extra battery or two around in my pocket.

Frankly, mass can be helpful when it comes to the stability of the camera, especially if it's not hanging way out in front as with some longer lenses. The 24-70 is relatively compact considering its rather substantial weight.

The other thing to bear in mind is that on a Rebel or 10D with a 1.6X crop factor, the missing focal lenght between 40mm and 70mm is effectively 64mm to 112mm, and that's significant.

[mhoutman]

Tom,

I did some 10D shooting with 24-70mm and the battery grip.

Without the batterygrip, this heavy lens makes carrying this combination quite unpractical for me. (so yes, if you go for the 24-70 mount the battery grip as well)

[Belmondo]

Actually, I use the E-1 Canon Hand Strap whenever I have the battery grip mounted. It's a much better way to carry the camera----besides, who wants that much weight dangling from your neck and bouncing off your stomach?

[nosquare2003]

The other thing to bear in mind is that on a Rebel or 10D with a 1.6X crop factor, the missing focal lenght between 40mm and 70mm is effectively 64mm to 112mm, and that's significant.


How about 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, 70-200/4L? Not too heavy, but the focal lengths are well covered.

[stevelew]

I have both lenses. They are useful for different purposes. The 24-70 works as a good portrait lens because the 70 is actually about 110 mm which is a perfect choice for head/shoulders. I bought the 17-40 for large groups when I don't have much room. The F4 is only one stop different from the 24-70 but it gives me more room to shoot.

Both lenses are very sharp and the 17-40 is a good buy compared to the price of the 24-70. I almost bought the 12-24 Sigma but after reading both good and bad about that lens I returned it unopened and bought the 17-40 F4 instead.

Steve

[CyberDyneSystems]

I definately use the 17-40mm more than I use my 28-70mm f/2.8

[kanwingshing]

I agree with you CyberDyneSystems.
I think with 17-40 and a 70-200...you should be very well covered

[drisley]

Also, I would have a serious look at the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 lens.
Although it's not as wide as you may like, it's supposed to be atleast as good as the canon 28-70mm L, and alot less money (and lighter).

[maderito]

How about 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, 70-200/4L? Not too heavy, but the focal lengths are well covered.

I've come sooo close to buying a 24-70, but I've now settled for the nosquare solution - at least for now.

At a recent indoor museum event, I had my 50/1.4 and another photographer had the 24-70L with lens hood. To my eye, his equipment looked ridiculously conspicuous, heavy, and out of place in the smallish confines of the museum. Also, the light was so low that I'm not sure he was actually able to use it, even at f/2.8 (no flash allowed).

That said, I noted in a recent survey on this forum that for those who own the 24-70/f2.8 ( or the 28-70/f2.8 ), it tends to be used most frequently relative to other lenses. See http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24772

[dardman]

In that survey, not only did the 24/28-70 rank very highly but the next most-frequent top choice was the 28-135, which serves a similar function.

I've had the 24-70 for two months and while I kept changing lenses the first couple of weeks to try things out, I found myself leaving the 24-70 on more and more. Now it is easily my most used lens.

Since I'm here:
1) 24-70
2) 16-35 /17-40 (selling the 17-40 now that I decided to keep the 16-35)
3) 50 f/1.4
4) 70-200 f/4

Much less used: 28-135 (still a good all-purpose travel lens); 85/1.8 (great for low-light portaits); 300 f4 IS (amazingly sharp tele for special purposes - zoo, air shows, some landscapes).

[kanwingshing]

IMO, if you decide to use only 1 lens I would have 28-70 or 24-70. But if you are going to have more than 1 lens, my experience tells me I would pick 17-40 + 70-200.
But also, it depends on what your subjects are usually. So what do you shoot?

[Belmondo]

IMHO the main advantage of the 17-40L is the extra FOV between 17mm and 24mm. Beyond that, they only other argument is weight.

I'm shocked and saddend that so many of my fellow forum members are such puny weaklings that this becomes a factor in their decision which lens to use. :wink: I'm older than most of you, and considerably older than many of you. :( Did we ever hear Ansel Adams complain about the size and weight of his equipment?

Nooooooooooo. :!: :!: :!: :!:

Truth is: I have the 17-40L when and if I need it. I find I don't need the range between 17-24 nearly as often as the gap between 40-70. I'm always looking for the lens or combination of lenses that's going to give me the lowest probability of having to switch in the field.

For me, that's the 24-70, and not the 17-40.

Of course, I don't shoot a lot of landscapes, so ultimately it boils down to personal preferences based on anticipated use.

Thos.

[stevelew]

Back in the days of Full Frame, the 24-70 would have been perfect for most groups. The the 70-200 would be the next lense to buy. But with the crop factor of the 10D, the 17-40 was created. Even that's not really wide enough but it good enough in most cases. I think in comes down to what you are shooting. Small groups to H/S the 24-70 is perfect. Large groups then you to need something wider and maybe just a 20mm prime would be enough.

Steve

[psk4363]

Hi,

I don't have the 24-70L but I do own the 28-70L and the 17-40L. Of the two I prefer the 17-40 but that's probably because I do a lot of landscapes and like the wider view.

But the 28-70 is my walkabout lens because of its speed and the extra range (i.e. 42mm - (46mm in the 24-70) difference to 23mm). Weight? Pah!

I suppose it comes down to whatever suits your individual needs and purposes but rest assured you will not be disappointed in either lens.

Cheers,
Barry

[George]

I have both and I have to say that I use the 24-70 more than the 17-40. When I first got the lenses, I seem to go for the 17-40 more. However, the color and sharpness of the 24-70 is spectacular. (And the extra stop comes in handy.)