17-40mm L or 24-70mm L for 20d

[mxseduti]

Hi,
I already own a 70-200 L lens and I need something to fill in the gap for a closer range.
Should i go for the 17-40mm L or 24-70mm L or something else? Im not worried about cost I just want to know what people recommend.

Also, I have read a few reviews on the 24-70mm L and people are complaining of focusing/bluring problems. Have any of you guys experienced this?

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Really depends on what you want. Either lens would help fill the gap. Question is, indoor or outdoor use? and need the wide angle? Or need the length?

If your going to be using it indoors a lot, 24-70 is the obvious choice due to it's f/2.8 apeture.

If you really want good wide angle, the 17-40L is your best bet. 24mm definately isn't wide enough, and every 1mm counts on the wide side so 7 is a big difference.

Also, the 17-40 would leave a gap between 40 and 70...... So, if you go with that lens for it's wide angle abilities, I would suggest maybe picking up a 50mm f/1.4. It's a great lens, and for $1,000ish, two two will fill that gap peeerrrrrfectly and you'll have an amazing wide angle lens (Own it and love it) and a great indoor/low light lens as well. To me, that sounds like the more sensable combonation for the most part.

If you want decent wide angle, and some long end to boot, the 24-70 should do it. Good indoor, outdoor all around walk around lens. :) Wish I could afford one! That'll be probably more convenient.

[CyberDyneSystems]

If indoor shooting was not a concern.. I'd go for the 17-40mm first.

But it really depends on what you shoot.
If you shoot people.. I'd get the 24-70mm first..

...if you shoot nature.. landscapes, city scapes.. scenic shots of any kind.. I'd think the 17-40mm would be more appropriate.

[MDJAK]

I have the 17-40, the 24-70 and the 70-200f/2.8 IS. I use the latter two way more than the 17-40, probably due to my lack of skill with it.

I always wish for that 2.8 and so should have gone for the 16-35, one of the finest wide angle zooms ever made, though the 17-40 is no slouch and costs way less.

As far as reported problems with the 24-70, I've read them also but don't put much stock in them. In today's manufacturing processes, the tolerances are so small and the quality control so good, I just don't believe there can be that many examples of bad Canon L lenses out there. I think it is more perceived than reality.

My 24-70 is stunning and basically lives on the camera. Does it sometimes take bad pictures? No, I sometimes take bad pictures.

[Croasdail]

I am doing some traveling right now and I am finding a few things... 1) due to haze from forest fires I am using a polorizer a lot to get good skies... that added to the slow speed of the 17-40 (f4) - and I am having some real issues with some real slow shutter speeds, 2) 28mm - 70 Tamron f2.8 is much faster and better suited to the conditions - but 28mm is not near wide enough - in fact it is not wide at all. All this my seem obvious - but like mentioned above by cyber....- pick your subject then pick your lens. I am really learning that f4 is just not flexible enough. For what it is worth.

[SolPics]

I had the same dilemma, I finally decided on the 24-70L for the 2.8 and the 70mm focal length. Wow! its fantastic.

It's much heavier than the 17-40 but its still easy to carry around and it's great for street photography, and portraits. It just depends on what you like to shoot. They're both great lenses.

[Blink]

Stay away from the 24-70mm ! Mine has been re-calibrated by Canon in Montreal (2weeks) and was not any sharper, it is now back to Canon and I am told that it has been send to Toronto,,,(3weeks) I dont know how it will perform when Iget it back or if they will exchange it... This lens and Canon service in Montréal is just CRAP ! :mad:

[IanD]

Stay away from the 24-70mm ! Mine has been re-calibrated by Canon in Montreal (2weeks) and was not any sharper, it is now back to Canon and I am told that it has been send to Toronto,,,(3weeks) I dont know how it will perform when Iget it back or if they will exchange it... This lens and Canon service in Montréal is just CRAP ! :mad:
Blink,
What body are you using the lens on? Are you shooting RAW or Jpeg? What post processing are you doing to sharpen your images?
Contrary to your experience, I, and other members in the Montreal area, have found Canon Services in Montreal to be excellent, above other Service Centers in North America.
Maybe you truly have a very bad copy. If so, I am certain that it will be replaced.

[Tomasz Dziechciarz]

Go with 17-40 plus 28-75/2,8 TAMRON and 50/1,4 and forget about 24-70 ....

[xuxu1]

I agree with CDS and IMO the 17-40L will make you more happy.

As you can see in my sig, i do have the 17-40L. At the moment im deciding which lens to get first the 24-70L or the 70-200L. Something tells me it´s going to be the 70-200L.

ED

[blinking8s]

17-40

i dont like the 24-70 at all. Id take the tamron model over it any day

[blue_max]

i dont like the 24-70 at all.



Whilst you are perfectly entitled to it, it would be helpful to hear how you came to such an extreme view. If you have had genuine experience of it, then please share it so we can take it into consideration. For all we know, you may just take offence at the price – and join the line in that. :lol:

Graham

[mxseduti]

I really would like the best of both worlds as I will be shooting both indoor and outdoors.
1.) I have a family wedding comming up and 2.) A friends band has just been signed and they want me to take some photos of them in the studio recording their album.

Now you know what its mainly for do you have any different views?

[blue_max]

I really would like the best of both worlds as I will be shooting both indoor and outdoors.
1.) I have a family wedding comming up and 2.) A friends band has just been signed and they want me to take some photos of them in the studio recording their album.

Now you know what its mainly for do you have any different views?

RbrtPtikLeoSeny has a very sound suggestion in the 17-40 and 50 1.4

Recording studios are not huge (I don't imagine). A good wide angle will give you a great 'arty' shot of the band/members. It's not a fast lens, but up the ISO and don't worry if it gives a little 'grittiness'. Call it style!

A 50 1.4 will give you low light ability. Or get a flash.

Sounds like things are taking off, so make a quick decision and practice like mad.

Graham