Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 10 Jun 2011 (Friday) 23:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

17-40 vs 24-105

 
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,134 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 24916
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Jun 11, 2011 10:48 |  #16

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #12575138 (external link)
I think most go for $350~ around a 100 bucks loss from original price. But mostly would recommend get used, cause that way you could sell it the same price you bought it for (unless it was damaged)

17-55 IS are still a thousand, I think I saw one yesterday on Craiglist for $960, while 17-40 F4 for 600ish I think. one of my friends is selling 24-105mm for $800 (Locally though), he got it from MKII package long time ago, so it costed him less than 800 to get 24-105mm.

Hence imo EF-S and EF lens hold value equally. While third party lens are good alternatives but users may bare other risks.

Thanks Calvin, but can you also address the IQ of the 17 50 vs the 17 55


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
866 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
     
Jun 11, 2011 10:58 |  #17

Bianchi wrote in post #12575169 (external link)
Thanks Calvin, but can you also address the IQ of the 17 50 vs the 17 55

I don't know a 17-55 IS 2.8, I can't take sample pictures with the lens and compare it to my tamron, but this is the chart.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 (external link)


flickr (external link)
5∞ portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SamuelYCWang
Senior Member
Avatar
280 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Jun 11, 2011 11:35 |  #18

thestone11 wrote in post #12574917 (external link)
I wouldn't consider the 17-55mm f/2.8, since it is an EF-S lens. If you have the thinking of going full frame later on, get a L lens for sure. You won't be able to use the EF-S on the full frame. Why spend over a $1000 for something that won't be able to use when you upgrade your body? Not to mention, L Lens hold its value better if you are thinking about reselling your gear later.

The 17-40 is usually for taking landscape photo, f/4 is really all its needed. I personally won't use the 17-40 for walk around lens, for that matter the 24-70mm f/2.8 will be the best IMO. Try to find a used copy if money is a matter. I don't mind the 24-70 has no IS, you don't really need IS on a fast lens like that, on 70-200mm is a different case. I really don't like the 24-105 myself, for a walk around lens, I don't think f/4 is enough, especially indoor. And I personally like shooting in your face photo with nice bokeh, the 24-105mm has worse closest focusing distance than the 24-70mm.

Forgive me for saying, but when I decided to get into photography as a habit over five years ago, I know that one day I will eventually go full frame. That huge step took me four years to take. Within that four year, I started out with the XTi, then to the 40D, and then 5DII. By the time I decided to stop beating around the bush and just get the 17-55/2.8 three years later, I ended up beating myself for not get this lens earlier. All those lost opportunities that I could have had if I just settle for this lens to begin with. Like most people, price was the biggest concern when purchasing a new lens, and the 17-55/2.8 pricing didn't make it any easier. Yes, the 17-55/2.8 may be a EF-S lens, and yes, that means its not compatible for a full frame body. If everybody thought that way, than why is the lens still selling so well, and why is it still valued at almost $1000 used, just a hundred or so dollars away from retail...The fact is, there is NO substitute for this lens, not even the 24-70/2.8. There are pros and cons, but so does all of Canons other lens. You just need to pick the one that is right for you and your current gear set up. The 24-70 on a crop is 38-112, as oppose to the 17-55 on a crop is 27-88. The 17-55 has a 3-stop IS which allows you to stop your shutter as far down as 1/6. Try doing that with the 24-70 without upping your ISO. Now, I'm not saying that those L lens mentioned are bad lenses, that's far from the truth. I'm simply saying that they may not be the best lens for your body. If you decide to go full frame today, tomorrow, or even a month from now, don't get the 17-55/2.8. But if you don't plan on upgrading to full frame till years from now, than why not consider EF-S lens, especially if they are made primarily for crop bodies. BTW, the 17-55/2.8 got a rating of 9.1 on FredM, that's L lens Territory.

Also on that note, the angle of view for EF-S lens, along with its respective hood is made to accommodate the crop bodies. EF lens are not, so you are more likely to flare your image.

FYI, IS is not really need for 70-200 when using it outdoors. Your shutter is usually above 1/300, which negates the uses of IS.


Canon 5D MK III
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
ER 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 24-70 7/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ShotByTom
Goldmember
Avatar
3,049 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 136
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Indianapolis
     
Jun 11, 2011 11:56 |  #19

I strongly disagree with those comments about the 17-55. It has great image quality, but terrible build quality. I've had two of them and had problems with both. They get loose and collect dust, the IS seems to have issues and focus had to be repaired on both of mine. A lot of people think that is the must have lens for crop cameras and I've tried to make it work, but was terribly disappointed, mainly because of the price.

In my opinion the best lens in that range right now is the Sigma 17-50 OS (around $600). It is much better built than the canon and the image quality is just as good. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is built even worse than the Canon, even though it has a 7 year warranty, the service from Tamron was terrible!

I would only consider the Sigma 17-50 or the 17-40 L, both are great lenses and will last.

The 24-105 is a fantastic lens too. It really just depends on what your needs are, but you won't regret any of those 3 lenses.


Gear
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ShotByTom
Goldmember
Avatar
3,049 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 136
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Indianapolis
     
Jun 11, 2011 12:00 |  #20

SamuelYCWang wrote in post #12575395 (external link)
FYI, IS is not really need for 70-200 when using it outdoors. Your shutter is usually above 1/300, which negates the uses of IS.

Totally disagree with this! You need IS on longer lenses, you can't always get your shutter speed up that high. I personally don't think you need IS on shorter lenses like 17-55.


Gear
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SamuelYCWang
Senior Member
Avatar
280 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Jun 11, 2011 12:09 |  #21

ShotByTom wrote in post #12575526 (external link)
Totally disagree with this! You need IS on longer lenses, you can't always get your shutter speed up that high. I personally don't think you need IS on shorter lenses like 17-55.

My apologies for making my comment a bit ambiguous. I was referring to those who use the 70-200 for outdoor sporting where your shutter it usually in the high 1/300. As for indoors, IS would be a big help. However, I may be wrong, but most owners of those lenses tent to be sports photographer. Also, short range lens might not need IS, but I rather have it and not have to up the ISO more than I desire.


Canon 5D MK III
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
ER 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 24-70 7/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SamuelYCWang
Senior Member
Avatar
280 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Jun 11, 2011 12:15 |  #22

ShotByTom wrote in post #12575507 (external link)
I strongly disagree with those comments about the 17-55. It has great image quality, but terrible build quality. I've had two of them and had problems with both. They get loose and collect dust, the IS seems to have issues and focus had to be repaired on both of mine. A lot of people think that is the must have lens for crop cameras and I've tried to make it work, but was terribly disappointed, mainly because of the price.

In my opinion the best lens in that range right now is the Sigma 17-50 OS (around $600). It is much better built than the canon and the image quality is just as good. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is built even worse than the Canon, even though it has a 7 year warranty, the service from Tamron was terrible!

I would only consider the Sigma 17-50 or the 17-40 L, both are great lenses and will last.

The 24-105 is a fantastic lens too. It really just depends on what your needs are, but you won't regret any of those 3 lenses.

I can't say I disagree with you, cause its true. The IQ is up there with the L lenses, but the built certainly is not. As far as dust goes, I never really had such an issue, but I have heard complaints regarding it. On that note, the only real issue I had with my 17-55 was the creeping. But that comment in all non-L lenses.

I don't think its a must to own a EFS lens just because you own a crop body, I'm just saying, don't completely disregard there existence. The 17-55 is one of those lenses that really has no substitute and should be consider.


Canon 5D MK III
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
ER 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 24-70 7/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheRealBoat
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
181 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2010
     
Jun 11, 2011 13:51 |  #23

Right now I dont really want to get EF-S just because I have my 1D which I actually started to use more than my 40D. I also plan on eventually going full frame within the next year or so. I personally dont think 24mm is fine considering I dont really shoot much landscape.


5Dc---1Dc---40D
50mm F/1.8 MKI--28mm F/2.8--Tokina 20-35 F/2.8--35mm F/2.0---55-250 F/4.0-5.6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JuliusUpNorth
Senior Member
522 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada
     
Jun 12, 2011 17:00 |  #24

I have both, but I agree with chomish:

chomish wrote in post #12573635 (external link)
I would probably go with the 24-105. Its an excellent lens. Its very sharp and easy to find used as well since it comes packaged with combos. Some purchase the combo with the lens to then sell and make a few bucks. It also has IS which will allow you to shoot stationary objects indoors with no problem. I think 24-105 is a perfect do it all FL.

Julius




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,093 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 129
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Jun 12, 2011 17:05 |  #25

If you are shooting outdoors mostly the f4 would not be a problem on the 17-40. But the 24-105 will be wonderful for mostly any situation. I just love my 24-70, which isn't perfect, but is still my most used combo with the 5D2. For your budget, I think I'd save up another month or two and get the 17-55 because I have never heard anyone who has one of those regret getting it. I have FF, so the 24-70 is what I depend on. For my 40D, it's a little long. I never did get a 17-55 because I don't need it, but if I only had a 40D, I'd get it. Worth the investment. I hear a lot of L lens users dismiss the 17-55, not an L, doesn't have the same quality build, but ignore that and go with the results. That's the key.


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, SONY a7iii, 7D2, G12, M100, M50, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children and grandchildren are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
howiewu
Senior Member
Avatar
629 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Feb 2011
     
Jun 12, 2011 18:40 |  #26

Good call. I also try to stay away from EF-S lenses, no matter how good they are because to me, they are still limited. I have a crop body and a FF, if I buy a lens and can only use it on one camera I feel like I am really only getting half a lens.

Anyhow I have both the lenses you mentioned. I think optically, the 17-40 is a better lens. My 24-105 has pretty severe vignetting. On FF the 24-105 is a better range, but on a crop body it is definitely not wide enough. If I could only keep one, I'd keep the 17-40. I think it is the best value in Canon's L-lineup.

TheRealBoat wrote in post #12575951 (external link)
Right now I dont really want to get EF-S just because I have my 1D which I actually started to use more than my 40D. I also plan on eventually going full frame within the next year or so. I personally dont think 24mm is fine considering I dont really shoot much landscape.


5DII, 70D
17-40mm f/4 USM L, 24-70mm f/4 IS USM L, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM L, 24mm f/3.5 TS-E L, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 USM, 100mm f/2.8 IS USM L, 300mm f/2.8 IS USM II L, 430 EX II, 270 EX II, 1.4x TC III, 2x TC III, Kenko Pro 300 1.4x TC
Home Page: http://www.travelerath​ome.com (external link), Blog: http://travelerathome.​wordpress.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SamuelYCWang
Senior Member
Avatar
280 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Jun 12, 2011 23:12 |  #27

howiewu wrote in post #12581963 (external link)
Good call. I also try to stay away from EF-S lenses, no matter how good they are because to me, they are still limited. I have a crop body and a FF, if I buy a lens and can only use it on one camera I feel like I am really only getting half a lens.

Anyhow I have both the lenses you mentioned. I think optically, the 17-40 is a better lens. My 24-105 has pretty severe vignetting. On FF the 24-105 is a better range, but on a crop body it is definitely not wide enough. If I could only keep one, I'd keep the 17-40. I think it is the best value in Canon's L-lineup.

Yes, you may be limited, but it works both ways because now your body is also limited. You will never be able to go any wider than 17mm.


Canon 5D MK III
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
ER 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 24-70 7/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
corumz
Member
37 posts
Joined Jun 2011
     
Jun 12, 2011 23:41 |  #28

Bottom line is if you plan to go FF, get the L. Whichever one you choose will work great. I just purchased a 17-40L today and I can't stop smiling at it's results. Just know how to use your gear and you will succeed.


40D
50mm f/1.8 II
17-40 f/4L
Strobist-to-go
430EX II (x3) with Cybersyncs :cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

11,324 views & 0 likes for this thread.
17-40 vs 24-105
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.52forum software
version 2.52 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Jimmymod67
611 guests, 228 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.