17-40 OR 24-105?

I have the 24-105 and had the chance to use a 17-40 while out in the Tetons for a day. Really liked it for the landscape stuff. I had been debating selling/trading the 24-105 for the 17-40 before leaving and decided to hold on to it. After using the 17-40, the debate is back on.

This focal length would really be used for landscapes, maybe the occasional daughter portrait and for walk around. I find that I grab the 70-200 for portraits inside or out, so the 24-105 really doesn't get used that much (except for when I go wider on FF).

Any of you used both and picked one over the other? Curious on opinions. Would also be used on a 50D on occasion but primarily on a 5d.

I had a similiar debate but ended up owning both. They compliment each other really well.

get both if you have the budget!

Not the answer I was looking for, but the answer I figured I'd get.

It seems as if you're answering your own question. Ditch your 24-105 and get the 17-40.

If you don't use it outside and can use the 17 for landscapes, I don't see you using it any more if you get the 17-40.

Took a trip to China 2 years ago with both lenses and I used 17-40 95% of the time.

vitacura wrote in post #12752294
I had a similiar debate but ended up owning both. They compliment each other really well.

Ditto.

On full frame the 17-40 is an exciting lens, but after a while shooting ultra wide gets boring just like any other trick. The problem with using it for landscape shots is you better have some strong foreground elements as they are magnified and if you tilt off axis much you get massive distortion.

I have both, love the 24-105 on full frame, but for cropped I like the 17-40 a lot more

17-40 is great on crops, but terrible on FF (soft corners)

I'm getting 17-40 for my 5Dc after I tried this range on cheap 19-35 lens..

I have seen several forum users with siginature for 17-40, 50 prime and 70-200 lens set.
With adding of 17-40, I'll have the same, plus Tamron 28-75 2.8 as switchable lens between 5D and 500D.

r34p3rex wrote in post #12752872
17-40 is great on crops, but terrible on FF (soft corners)

Could not agree less. Take a look at the 17-40 thread its pretty far from terrible.

I have both lenses and I use the 17-40 for all my architecture shoots, but I prefer the 24-105 for landscapes. Every once in a while I would switch, but I found the 24-105 on my FF body to be plenty wide enough for most shots.

r34p3rex wrote in post #12752872
17-40 is great on crops, but terrible on FF (soft corners)

Ummm....it is actually the opposite. That lens performs much better on my 1Ds2 than it did on my 50D.

Tommydigi wrote in post #12752942
Could not agree less. Take a look at the 17-40 thread its pretty far from terrible.

On the one hand, I agree with Tommy, that the 17-40 is excellent on my full frame. So is the 24-105. Landscape use on both is fine.

If I were doing alot of landscape and only had a crop SLR, I probably would not see the need for the 24-105 as much as the 17-40. But the 24-105 does so much more than just landscape on a full frame. As to its use on a crop, plenty of people love it and others get a 15-85 as a one lens compromise.

If you're only using the 24-105 for the 24, then get the 17!