17-40 vs 28-70mm L

[Benjamin Teoh]

I have read the pros & cons of these lens in the forum - but can anyone comment on the differences in the quality of the image in terms of sharpness and color? Is the difference worth the much higher cost of the 28-70mm?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Your comparison is a little odd...

The direct comparison for the 17-40mm f/4 id the 16-35mm f/2.8

The 28-70mm f/2.8 has been discontinued and replaced by the 24-70mm f/2.8


The difference in price from the 17-40mm compared to the others (all a few hundred over the $1K mark) is the max aperture of f/4 as compared to f/2.8

f/2.8 allways costs more,. for a canon.. its above a grand for any zoom at f/2.8

I think you will see next to no difereence in image quality,. allthough for the most part people seem to find the 24-70mm range zoom a littel sharper than the wider 17-40mm and 16-35mm

[Benjamin Teoh]

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I was referring to the 24-70mm. I am trying to build up a set of L lens, like many of you in the forum, and wandering which one to start with. I have the 28-135mm. I am thinking of getting the 17-40mm, and perhaps later the 70-200mm. On the other hand, I thought the 24-70mm first followed by the 70-200mm. I am allowing myself ony two L lens, a self imposed restriction and the 24-70mm is pricey.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think your idea of going with the 17-40mm first is sound. Since you have the 28-135mm allready,. that part of the zoom range is filled.. yes it will be an improvement to have the 24-70mm L in it's place,. but mottoo has allways been.. "get the range you don't have yet before you start replacing what you allready have"

I suppose if all you had was a $99.00 lens to start with that might be different,. but the 28-135mm is a very respectable lens! No need to rush to replace it when there are so many other goodies to be had :)

[Canuck]

That said, when you come back the second time, you will have overlap and that can prove good as it can mean less lens changes. I currently have coverage from 16-70 and 120-300mm. That leaves a gap from 70-120mm which I will eventually sort.

We look forward to seeing what you can do with the lenses. I have found there is this magic to them that makes you a much beter photographer. I can't explain it, it just is. I have had crap lenses and currently a Sigma EX lens and Canon L lenses.

[samdring]

I have had crap lenses and currently a Sigma EX lens and Canon L lenses.

Sorry Canuck - you have been absent for so long, I have forgotten which one of those is crap!

[psk4363]

Hi Ben,

I started with the 17-40, next came the 70-200, and to fill the gap between 17 and 70 got the 50 - I found the 30mm gap between 40 and 70 too big to be filled by the 50 so bought a 28-70. Finally, last week got the 100-400.

That's how I got my collection of 'L' lenses as you say you want to. But re a comparison between the 17-40 and the 28(24)-70 it's almost an impossible task and ultimately depends on your specific requirements for your photography. Both perform on a par with each other re colour reproduction and contrast (they are after all from the same 'L' stable!) - it comes down to whether you need the faster speed of the 28(24)-70 or want the wider focal length of the 17-40. Choose either and you will not be disappointed!

Cheers,
Barry