ef 17-40/4 or ef 24-105

You know I don't know if I've ever read on here how the 24-105 and 17-70 compare at 24-40 range in iq tests/sharpness/etc.
If you do a lot of landscapes and real estate, I could imagine getting good use out of the 17-40. Even with a 24-105, it's hard to get the inside of a bathroom on a full frame.

I have both, I use both.

On a Full Frame Body
17-40 Ultra-wide Lens
24-105 Standard lens
Different tools for different jobs.

Nick5 wrote in post #16476159
On a Full Frame Body
17-40 Ultra-wide Lens
24-105 Standard lens
Different tools for different jobs.

That is correct, but we do not know whether the OP has a full frame or crop body. Hence my questions in post #8.

Last time I checked 17 mm is wider than 24mm no matter the format. Now depending on the format full,1.3,1.6 depends on whether 17/40 is the best option. But how wide 17 is to 24 stays the same.

jimewall wrote in post #16476058
To the OP. You didn't tell us the body you are using, what you typically shoot, what you feel is limiting you with the 24-105L. How are we going to give a good informed answer to help you without (at least) these pieces of information?

If you have a FF -
The 24-105L is a really good general "normal" range walk around lens. While the 17-24mm is an ultra wide lens, and (for the way I shoot) would not be a good walk around lens for most places I'm going.

It did not seem like you were asking about the 17-40 as a replacement, but more of a lens in addition to the 24-105. In that case yes! To (for) me the 17-40L is a good supplemental lens for a wide view, giving you something a "normal" range zoom cannot. But IMO (for me) 17-40 is not a replacement lens for a "normal" range zoom.

If you are missing the images you want to make on the wide end, then the 17-40 could be what you are looking for.

If you have a crop camera -
There are much better choices for an ultrawide lens than the 17-40 - which would not be an ultrawide angle on a crop camera. To some there are better choices for the 24-105L on a crop, but I like it (especially if you have an ultrawide to go with it).

I use a 6D. I also have a 70-200L and I was concerned(?) about having so much overlap. I wasn't sure if I should sell the 24-105 and get the 17-40, or keep what I have and call it good. I shoot, mainly, landscape, with occasional people (family).

eddieb1 wrote in post #16476343
I use a 6D. I also have a 70-200L and I was concerned(?) about having so much overlap. I wasn't sure if I should sell the 24-105 and get the 17-40, or keep what I have and call it good. I shoot, mainly, landscape, with occasional people (family).

Then I stand by with what I said.

BUT if landscapes (which I think can be shot with any FL) are your first choice, then you could get by with the 17-40. (Then use your 70-200 for people.)

Many people that shoot landscapes do seem to like the ultrawide use in their scapes.

Again for my style I would rather go with the "normal" range zoom first, but the 17-40 might work for you.

jimewall wrote in post #16476386
Then I stand by with what I said.

BUT if landscapes (which I think can be shot with any FL) are your first choice, then you could get by with the 17-40. (Then use your 70-200 for people.)

Many people that shoot landscapes do seem to like the ultrawide use in their scapes.

Again for my style I would rather go with the "normal" range zoom first, but the 17-40 might work for you.

I do also have the Canon 20mm which has been very useful for landscapes.

eddieb1 wrote in post #16476343
I use a 6D. I also have a 70-200L and I was concerned(?) about having so much overlap. I wasn't sure if I should sell the 24-105 and get the 17-40, or keep what I have and call it good. I shoot, mainly, landscape, with occasional people (family).

Do not worry about overlap -- it is actually a good thing to have. Overlap provides you with more flexibility and requires fewer lens changes. I have a 17-40L, 24-105L, and 70-200 f/4 IS, and they all serve different purposes.

eddieb1 wrote in post #16476421
I do also have the Canon 20mm which has been very useful for landscapes.

Has the 20mm been wide enough for you, or did you want wider for many of your shots? If you have often wanted wider when shooting, then maybe the 17-40 is calling you.

Also keep Scott M statement in mind, overlap can be welcome in many shooting situations to prevent lens changes. Though sometimes I'd rather carry two bodies for a similar effect.

i have both. 17mm is really noticeably wider than 24 so if your looking for wide it may be worth it.

I used to own both. Both are very good lenses. Equal build, same color. Obviously the 17-40 is a good bit lighter.

I eventually sold the 17-40 after owning it for about 5 years. Just didn't use it enough when I got the 24-105. Though I did own both concurrently for about three of those years.

But, maybe I am regretting the sale. For example, last summer more of my shots at Yosemite were taken with the 17-40 than with the 24-105 because they were in the 17-20 range - mostly 17.

It's a very nice lens. Get it used for about $600.

Well, I decided to get the 17-40 after all. I think it will fit in nicely along side my 24-105 and the ef 20-200/4L. I picked it up from a forum member and it's in outstanding condition.

I had both. My 24-105 came with my 5D3 and I bought the 17-40 shortly afterwards. I sold my 24-105 for 3 reasons: 1) I never used it, 2) it was very heavy and bulky for travel and 3) I didn't like the IQ.

I used the 17-40 the most. It was a great lens for me and I have some wonderful images as a result. I traded it for a 16-35 because I needed the extra stop, but I would still have it if it weren't for that. Once you have the 17-40, you won't take it off the camera. It's that useful and that good.

lehmanncpa wrote in post #16486019
I had both. My 24-105 came with my 5D3 and I bought the 17-40 shortly afterwards. I sold my 24-105 for 3 reasons: 1) I never used it, 2) it was very heavy and bulky for travel and 3) I didn't like the IQ.

I used the 17-40 the most. It was a great lens for me and I have some wonderful images as a result. I traded it for a 16-35 because I needed the extra stop, but I would still have it if it weren't for that. Once you have the 17-40, you won't take it off the camera. It's that useful and that good.

I'm beginning to realise that.