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
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 13 Jul 2011 (Wednesday) 13:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-40 OR 24-105?

 
r34p3rex
Member
192 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: New York/Boston
     
Jul 13, 2011 16:42 |  #16

TGrundvig wrote in post #12753006 (external link)
Ummm....it is actually the opposite. That lens performs much better on my 1Ds2 than it did on my 50D.

You must've had a faulty 50D then.. the 17-40 is notorious for being soft at the corners on FF. Just look at Canon's MTF graphs.. there's noticeable drop off on the corners at 17mm.

IMAGE: http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/lens/ef17-40_f4LUmtf_wide.jpg

Gripped 5DII | 24-105 f/4L | 70-200 f/2.8L | Sigma 180mm f/3.5 Macro | 430EX II
AB800 | YN-602RF | Vagabond Mini
My Feedback (on other sites): Overclock.net (external link) | Pbnation (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
projectmayhem713
Senior Member
584 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area
     
Jul 13, 2011 19:16 |  #17

Strictly from a focal length standpoint, the 17-40 is much more usable on a crop camera. However on FF the 24-105 NEVER leaves my camera with the exception of very certain circumstances.

When I had the t2i and the 24-105 it was never long enough and never wide enough.

thats what she said...


5D2 - 24-70 f2.8L - 50 1.4 - S100
My Blogsite (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TGrundvig
Goldmember
Avatar
2,876 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Colorado
     
Jul 13, 2011 19:17 |  #18

r34p3rex wrote in post #12753332 (external link)
You must've had a faulty 50D then.. the 17-40 is notorious for being soft at the corners on FF. Just look at Canon's MTF graphs.. there's noticeable drop off on the corners at 17mm.

Considering the fact I actually own the lens and a FF body....I think I would know how it performs in the real world better than you. I use this lens just about every day for my job. The corners are just fine, trust me.


1Ds Mk II, 1D Mk II, 50D, 40D, XT (for my son), 17-40L, 24-105L, Bigma 50-500 EX DG, Sigma 150 Macro EX DG, Tokina 12-24 AT-X, Nifty Fifty, Tamron 28-300 (for my son), 580ex II, 430ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TGrundvig
Goldmember
Avatar
2,876 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Colorado
     
Jul 13, 2011 19:20 |  #19

projectmayhem713 wrote in post #12754010 (external link)
Strictly from a focal length standpoint, the 17-40 is much more usable on a crop camera.

What? Says who?

This lens is a great lens on FF bodies for shooting Architecture Interiors and Landscapes. On a crop sensor it would not be wide enough for a lot of Architectural shots.


1Ds Mk II, 1D Mk II, 50D, 40D, XT (for my son), 17-40L, 24-105L, Bigma 50-500 EX DG, Sigma 150 Macro EX DG, Tokina 12-24 AT-X, Nifty Fifty, Tamron 28-300 (for my son), 580ex II, 430ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
reprazent
Goldmember
Avatar
1,045 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jul 13, 2011 19:26 |  #20

If you don't use your 24-105 that much and need to go wider than replace it with the 17-40.
Personally I find 24mm plenty wide on FF.


gearlist | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
projectmayhem713
Senior Member
584 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area
     
Jul 13, 2011 20:08 |  #21

Says me. Sorry, should have typed IMO. Because IMO 17mm on a crop is fairly wide enough for walkaround and 40mm on a crop IMO is just long enough. On a crop, IMO, the wide end of the 24-105 is not wide at all. So for ME, 24-105 on FF and 17-40 on crop. Although if we are talking about walkaround/kit lens type, maybe the 17-40 isnt the way to go.

TGrundvig wrote in post #12754030 (external link)
What? Says who?

This lens is a great lens on FF bodies for shooting Architecture Interiors and Landscapes. On a crop sensor it would not be wide enough for a lot of Architectural shots.


5D2 - 24-70 f2.8L - 50 1.4 - S100
My Blogsite (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HansSteinert
Senior Member
419 posts
Joined Feb 2011
     
Jul 13, 2011 20:15 |  #22

Since you have the 70-200, I would sell the 24-105 and buy the 17-40.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TGrundvig
Goldmember
Avatar
2,876 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Colorado
     
Jul 13, 2011 21:48 |  #23

projectmayhem713 wrote in post #12754232 (external link)
Says me. Sorry, should have typed IMO. Because IMO 17mm on a crop is fairly wide enough for walkaround and 40mm on a crop IMO is just long enough. On a crop, IMO, the wide end of the 24-105 is not wide at all. So for ME, 24-105 on FF and 17-40 on crop. Although if we are talking about walkaround/kit lens type, maybe the 17-40 isnt the way to go.

Ahh, well now I understand your logic. I got it now. ;)


1Ds Mk II, 1D Mk II, 50D, 40D, XT (for my son), 17-40L, 24-105L, Bigma 50-500 EX DG, Sigma 150 Macro EX DG, Tokina 12-24 AT-X, Nifty Fifty, Tamron 28-300 (for my son), 580ex II, 430ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,893 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 11162
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Jul 13, 2011 22:20 |  #24

huntersdad wrote in post #12752201 (external link)
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.

Since you have the 24 105 and the 70 200, the 17 40 will solve your wide end , and make a nice Trio covering 17 to 200 range with no gap, If your budget allows


Good luck with your choice.


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,504 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 721
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jul 13, 2011 22:28 |  #25

I have a 5D, 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200. There are times when I just take the 17-40 and the 70-200 so I can cover a wide range and the gap between them is manageable. But then I'm committed to at least two lenses since 40mm is still pretty short. If I can (will) only take one lens with me, 95% of the time its the 24-105. I really wouldn't want to part with either lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scotthidley
Senior Member
528 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2006
Location: OH, USA
     
Jul 14, 2011 02:19 |  #26

I have both and use the 24-105 far more (on my 5D). I usually switch when in tight town areas in Europe. For most landscape shots, 24 has normally been wide enough. I prefer the extra zoom for a walk around over the wider capability (I rarely even go to 17 in the tight areas I shoot). On the other hand if you're into traveling light, the 17-40 is the better choice.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhilF
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,737 posts
Likes: 517
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Valencia, CA
     
Jul 14, 2011 02:29 |  #27

The 17-40 performs really well with crop sensors... I use it all the time with my 50d and 7d


http://philfernandezph​otography.com (external link)
http://www.philfashion​photography.com (external link)
https://www.instagram.​com/philfernimagery/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/philfphotography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xhack
Goldmember
Avatar
1,283 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Lothian
     
Jul 14, 2011 03:15 |  #28

mike_d wrote in post #12754869 (external link)
I have a 5D, 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200. There are times when I just take the 17-40 and the 70-200 so I can cover a wide range and the gap between them is manageable. But then I'm committed to at least two lenses since 40mm is still pretty short. If I can (will) only take one lens with me, 95% of the time its the 24-105. I really wouldn't want to part with either lens.

I too have 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 2.8. One of my regular day-out combos with the 5D is 17-40, 70-200, with the 50 1.4 filling the 'hole' and providing a useful low-light option. It's one of the rare occasions when I take the 24-105 off the camera. This combo also works well with the 1D; less so with the 20D.


~ Wallace
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,242 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 311
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Jul 14, 2011 09:48 |  #29

H.
I would find a way of adding the 17-40 L to your great current collection of 24-105 L IS and 70-200 L.
This would give you Ultra wide angle, Standard and the Telephoto range covered. Why create another gap by selling the 24-105?


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bang ­ Bang ­ Boy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,347 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: South Africa
     
Jul 14, 2011 09:54 |  #30

Off Topic. Why would you use a 17-40 on a crop camera? It's a ultra wide angle lens, heck I think the 18-55 IS is a better option on a crop than the 17-40 unless you need the build. Nah the 17-40 has hardly been mounted to my 50d but is always on my 5d.

On Topic. Go with your guts, it's all up to you! Thats the tricky thing, I could tell you to sell all your gear and get a Holga cause I like shooting Holgas...
But yeah, it would compliment your current lens setup nicely, perhaps if you switched the 24-105 for a 24-70?


Lots of old stuff but hey I am a student
Photojournalist in Johannesburg.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,499 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-40 OR 24-105?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Flo29
852 guests, 252 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, 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.