EF 17-40 4.0L or EF 24-70 2.8L

[Moody Blues]

I know that I just discussed this in another thread, but now I am getting more refined. I have decided to get the EF 70-200 2.8L and need to decide which smaller lens to add to that.

I am hearing people saying that the EF 24-70 2.8L gives much higher quality than the 17-40 4.0L

If I were to get the 17-40 4.0L I would get the 50 1.4 for portraits. If I bought the EF 24-70 2.8L, I would just use that lens as a portrait lense as many people say that the 50mm at 1.4 and 2.0 is much to soft.

So whats worth more to you? Having the wider lens or a faster lens.

Has anyone done a real world test of both of these lenses at say 35mm to see which one is sharper?

FYI again: will be shooting primarily on Digital but also on my Elan IIE

[Perfect_10]

To me the wider lens is more use 8)

[CoolToolGuy]

IMHO the 50mm f1.4 will be much sharper at 2.8 than the 24-70 L, and below that as well.
I would go with the primes if you are doing portraits.

The 24-70 L is a great lens, but it is not good enough at f2.8 to beat either of the 50mm's or the 85mm f1.8.

Have Fun,

[sp00g3]

How about the Tamron 28 - 75 and the 17 - 40?

or better yet if you have a 300d or 20d, how about the following

Tamron 28 - 75, Canon 24, and the new 10 - 22 EFS Canon Wide Angle?

That would be a great setup!

[chris.bailey]

I ended up with all three. The 24-70 is a great all purpose lense that tends to live on my MkII. If I know I need wide then the 17-40 goes on it but for studio portraits the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8 are my lens' of choice. Bothe are sharper and more contrasty IMHO at studio lighting settings i.e stopped down a bit.

The 17-40 was my first L, then I got the primes and only recently the 24-70.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I personally get more use out of my 17-40mmL than I do from my 28-70mmL...

But I don't do any studio or portrait work... I tend to shoot either very log or wide.. so it depends on your style.

In the long run.. you will probably eventually own both :roll: ... so the question is which will you get first.

That all depends on what you shoot more often, .. which fills the more immediate need. The 17-40mm isn't a great lens for portraits (yes you can do it,.. but as you menton it is not as sharp and the wider perspective is limiting)

[DeeplyDigital]

First choice is the 17-40, although I have both.

I did a whole wedding for a friend with the 17-40
and have used it for on the spur of the moment portraits.

It is smaller and therefore less intimidating.
And the wide angle is very sexy. Somehow shots
from this lens can easily be very special.

If I could have only one lens it would be 17-40.
-

[Moody Blues]

Here is another line of thinking. It is more money, but it kinda makes sense.

Instead of getting the 17-40L

Buy the 24-70L and getting the new 10-22 EF-S when it comes out. Does anybody have any idea what the optical qaulity of this lense will be?

[roanjohn]

Hey Moody.......

Remember, the 10-22 is an EF-S lens, so optically, I don't think it will match the L lenses..............(though I could be wrong).

If I was in your shoes, I would go for the 17-40 and the 50 f1.4 or 85 f1.8. These two primes are excellent for portraiture and produces very smooth bokeh.........And the 17-40 is also a light and sharp lens with great contrast etc....

The 24-70 is a great all around lens...........but it is heavy..........probably one of the main reason why I have not purchased it.

Ro1

[Deckyon]

The 24-70 is a great all around lens...........but it is heavy..........probably one of the main reason why I have not purchased it.


2 things, actually.

First, I have the 24-70 f/2.8L and absolutly love it. It is weighty, but damn, is it ever sharp. I am waiting on my 50mm f/1.4 so I will have something to compare to. I have heard from many people I know (many are protrait/wedding or landscape/outdoor pros) who say the 24-70mm L lens is the sharpest zoom lens Canon makes. Again, I understand this is "hear-say" with no proof. I do know I used it all day yesturday on my MKII at my neice's baptism/party and was very happy with the results. Sharp as a tack through the entire range.

Second, I noticed in your sig line you have the 70-200 f2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L. Why both? Seems repetitive. Did you have one before getting the other?

[roanjohn]

[quote=roanjohn]Second, I noticed in your sig line you have the 70-200 f2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L. Why both? Seems repetitive. Did you have one before getting the other?

I initially purchsed the 70-200 f4L..............and loved the lens so much that I decided to get the faster version..........but when I finally purchased the 2.8, I can't seem to rid myself of the f4 version (it is that GOOD!!!) and it is very light to travel with and it balances very well with my camera. I also do a lot of hiking so portability is key.

............In the end...............I will probably sell the 2.8 version very soon - keep the f4 version, and purchase the 200 2.8 prime with the 100 macro USM..............or the 135 f2 L and the 1.4 extender :-p...........or the 35 f1.4...............okay, the list never ends.

Ro1

[DeeplyDigital]

[quote=roanjohn]Second, I noticed in your sig line you have the 70-200 f2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L. Why both? Seems repetitive. Did you have one before getting the other?

I initially purchsed the 70-200 f4L..............and loved the lens so much that I decided to get the faster version..........but when I finally purchased the 2.8, I can't seem to rid myself of the f4 version (it is that GOOD!!!) and it is very light to travel with and it balances very well with my camera. I also do a lot of hiking so portability is key.

............In the end...............I will probably sell the 2.8 version very soon - keep the f4 version, and purchase the 200 2.8 prime with the 100 macro USM..............or the 135 f2 L and the 1.4 extender :-p...........or the 35 f1.4...............okay, the list never ends.

Ro1


Thanks for this, I'll scrap my plans of buying the faster 70-200mm.
Also because today I let go of my 10D and it made me sad.
I have the older 200mm f2,8 - it is sharp & fast, great for
concerts in darkish venues.

[Deckyon]

Yeah, the list never ends. My list includes the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L, though not in that order. Then from there... and so on.

[HKFEVER]

I am wonder do you have notice the Mark II is not as sharp as it should be, especially with the 24-70mm F2.8L !!!



The 24-70 is a great all around lens...........but it is heavy..........probably one of the main reason why I have not purchased it.


2 things, actually.

First, I have the 24-70 f/2.8L and absolutly love it. It is weighty, but darn, is it ever sharp. I am waiting on my 50mm f/1.4 so I will have something to compare to. I have heard from many people I know (many are protrait/wedding or landscape/outdoor pros) who say the 24-70mm L lens is the sharpest zoom lens Canon makes. Again, I understand this is "hear-say" with no proof. I do know I used it all day yesturday on my MKII at my neice's baptism/party and was very happy with the results. Sharp as a tack through the entire range.

Second, I noticed in your sig line you have the 70-200 f2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L. Why both? Seems repetitive. Did you have one before getting the other?

[Deckyon]

Also because today I let go of my 10D and it made me sad.

Why did you get rid of the 10D? New camera coming?

[DeeplyDigital]

Also because today I let go of my 10D and it made me sad.

Why did you get rid of the 10D? New camera coming?


Got the 20D already. Weird how it hurt to give the 10D away.
It served me well... and I didn't much like the person who took it.

J.
-

[Doom1701e]

I got the 17-40L with my 20D last month and love it so far. Excellent lens in my opinion.

[DieselGirl]

I got the 17-40L with my 20D last month and love it so far. Excellent lens in my opinion.

I thought the very same thing....

until

I shot with the EF 24-70 2.8L

[Moody Blues]

I got the 17-40L with my 20D last month and love it so far. Excellent lens in my opinion.

I thought the very same thing....

until

I shot with the EF 24-70 2.8L

And what did you think?

[spearce6]

I have the 28-70 2.8L and the 17-40 4L and don't think there's much to choose between them. On a 10D, I find the 17-40 gives a more useful focal length range and I always have a 50mm f1.8 in the bag as well for portrait work (which incidently is sharper than both the L lenses).

I wouldn't worry about f2.8 vs f4 much either - I can't really tell the difference between ISO100 and 200 on the 10D, although I suppose the autofocus might be slightly better with an f2.8 lens.

The thing that really swings it for me though, is size and weight. The 28-70 is a monster and I have often thought about selling it. I always have in the back of my mind the future affordable full frame digital SLR though..........the EOS 3D perhaps?? :D

Just my opinion!

Regards,

Steve
http://www.steve-pearce-photography.com

[roanjohn]

Excellent point Steve!!!

Ro1