17-40 vs 24mm probs

[suse]

Hi

I am having terrible trouble picking a wider lens for my 20D.....! :o I've finally decided to ask advice on here in the hope someone can say something that will help me make up my mind!

I have kind of narrowed the choices down to Canon's 17-40, and their 24mm f/1.4, which is more expensive here in the UK. I've kind of ruled out the 16-35 on the grounds I can't see that much difference for the amount extra paid. (?)

I had wondered about the 24-70, which I know most people see as an upgrade of the 17-40. Is it basically just a much faster 17-40 in terms of image quality??

My real priority is image quality above speed.

I've looked at a stack of sample shots from pbase, and have a sneaking suspicion the 17-40 might be a bit overrated, which is why I am dithering. Its getting a bit stupid now, as I am losing out on shooting time, so any advice/experience would be appreciated! :confused:

I currently own the 70-200 f/4 and the 100mm macro, both of which I love. I would be using the new lens for architecture and building shots.

[Cadwell]

I have both. Optically the 17-40L is slightly better than the 24mm f/1.4L. Only get the 24mm f/1.4L if you need the low light ability, otherwise you're better off with the zoom.

As to the 17-40L being over-rated... no, it's a great lens. Any lens is only as good as the photographer using it.

[AjP]

I don't have any of these lenses, but also in a process of getting wide one for me, and I think 16-35 will be just great since I'm doing a lot of low light, so I'm trying to get most of my lenses with 2.8, so I'm deffinately getting this set in next few months
16-35 2.8L
24-70 2.8L
and hopefully 70-200 2.8L IS

but it's definately up to you, and depends what type of photography you are doing. I would recomend 16-35 over 17-40 (personal opinion)

[etaf]

24mm for a 20d @1.6x factor would be a 38.4mm - not really wide angle
will that angle be OK for the type of shots you want to take.
you already have the 28-135mm so your gaining 4mm ????

am I missing something

[suse]

Hi Etaf

I don't have a 28-135mm.

I only have the 70-200 f/4, and the 100 macro.

btw I don't use the 18-55 kit lens, because the copy I have is a total lemon. The colour cast is terrible.

[etaf]

sorry read wrong signiture, if you have the 15-55 then thats a 28-88mm equivalent because of the 1.6x factor
so you should be able to set that lens a get an approx idea of what a 24mm lens would look like on the camera given its 1.6x factor - somewhere around the 40mm mark, if my maths a correct.

or go out with the kit les and take some photos th eway you would want to reproduce them and then look at the EXIF info and see what focal length you used the most.

[garyhun]

I just returned my 17-40L to Jessops today and changed it for the 24-70L. Have done no real comparison yet but the 17-40 is a great lens. I only changed because I am getting a 10-22 as well and the 24-70 was a much better companion.


At the end of the day it is fitness for purpose!

[snibbetsj]

You might also think about the EF 24mm f2.8. It's an excellent lens at a good price. I like mine. :)

[clinton]

I have been seriously considering a 10-22mm and 24-70L pair for architecture, landscapes etc. I take everyone's point about the 17-40L as the best choice in the long run when we all eventually go full-frame. But what are you going to do in the meantime? 27mm just isn't good enough for me on a 1.6 body. It is a very standard angle and the super-wide gives you something extra even if there may be a slight reduction in quality compared to an L. (if someone can prove it?)
I don't know much about the 24mm prime but recall unfavourable reports of chromatic abherration in a recent review somewhere. If Canon had a decent super-wide prime I would forget about the 10-22mm and go with the 17-40 - but they don't...

[lancea]

Yeap. The 17-40 can't be called an architectural lens. It's just not wide enough on the 20D. It's really a walk around lens - a better quality replacement for the kit lens if you like (but with less zoom of course). If I did it over again I'd have bought the 10-22 to go with the kit lens and my 70-200. Probably adding a 50 later.

My purchase of a 17-40 would stay on-hold till I can afford a suitably better body with a full-size sensor.