17-40L or 24-105L for 5D Mark II

K, got a 5D Mark II body only today. Have only $1600 to spend on lenses (going to buy new at local camera shop). I was thinking this...

17-40L
50 1.4
uv filters, memory card

But I came across a 24-105L for sale locally for the same price I can get the 17-40L for new, so it doesnt really affect my budget.

Obviously, I like the 105 range, but the wide angle part is what Im concerned about. Iv never had a full frame, so not really sure how wide 24 is, just thought at 17 Id be about as wide as you would ever want. Then have the 50 1.4 for low light and portraits... Then later down the road maybe add in a 70-200 F4 IS or a 85 1.8 and 135 2.0.

Seems like if I go the 24-105 it gives me more range right away, but eventually when i do want more lenses Im going to be overlapping alot and not really sure how I could handle it if I did decided I wanted wider than 24, have to get the 17-40L also?

Im not really sure if I even need that wide though or if Im just getting caught up in the numbers and internet talk.. Im just an amateur father who wants to take really good pictures of my family, vacations, parties, etc. Im thinking alot of my pictures will be indoors and low light. Dont plan to shoot wildlife, birds, etc so not real concerned with length, but 105 seems like would be nice...

im so confused.

bump

Do a search on this forum...

I'm sure this topic has been discussed MANY times

24-105L hands down. It is plenty wide and has IS. 17-40 is a more specialized lens.

For family & other general stuff get the 24-105. As mentioned, the IS will help you out and you'll have a greater range all in one nice, sharp lens.

well the used on locally sold... so id have to get new.

17-40L and 50mm 1.4
or
24-105L and 50mm 1.8

im really wanting a nice low aperture for blurry background portraits and low light. Was set on the 1.4, but if I jump to 24-105L new, wont have enough really.

I'd go with 24-105L and 50mm 1.8

i would get the 24-105 and save to get the 50 1.4.

17 is nice, but 24 is almost always sufficiently wide.

Agreed! When I shot film I rarely needed to go beyond 24mm focal length. OP: I would go 24-105 between the two choices you have.

OpticalPrime wrote in post #11885105
well the used on locally sold... so id have to get new.

17-40L and 50mm 1.4
or
24-105L and 50mm 1.8

im really wanting a nice low aperture for blurry background portraits and low light. Was set on the 1.4, but if I jump to 24-105L new, wont have enough really.

If you like blurry background why not get the 24-70L is in your budget and you won't need 50mm. 2.8 would be nice enough.

couple questions...

1. someone suggested 50mm sigma 1.4 over canon. is it better?
2. if i go 24-70L, would it give me the really blurry background? always thought ya needed a 2.0 or lower for that. I was kinda set on a low aperture like that...

24-105 best all around lens for that body, IMO. More specialized lenses come later.

Definitely the 24-105, it's perfect for the 5D. I think the sigma is better than the canon 50's, so you could get the 24-105 used on here for around $850 to $950, and you would still have money to buy the Sigma 50 1.4.

Do you have a flash? You will likely need one, so you might want to consider that too.

OpticalPrime wrote in post #11885587
couple questions...

1. someone suggested 50mm sigma 1.4 over canon. is it better?
2. if i go 24-70L, would it give me the really blurry background? always thought ya needed a 2.0 or lower for that. I was kinda set on a low aperture like that...

Generally, creating a blurry background has many more factors than just a fast aperture. Focal length, subject distance, and background distance play a huge factor. A 200mm @ f4 can produce more blur than 50 @ f1.4. With that said, 70mm @ f2.8 should provide a good amount of blur.