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 Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk 
Thread started 03 Jun 2011 (Friday) 13:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-105 vs. 17-40 for lanscapes

 
huntersdad
Goldmember
4,563 posts
Likes: 186
Joined Nov 2008
     
Jun 03, 2011 13:05 |  #1

Is one of these two preferred for landscapes on a 5D over the other?

If 24 is my widest for FF, would I be better off finding a UWA for my crop body?

Would be used for beach sunrise/sunsets and mountain type landscapes. Specifically, NC beaches and Teton/Yellowstone landscapes. Would need to have a 77mm filter to work with my CPl and Lee filter system (UWA adapter).


Facebook (external link)

http://WWW.BLENDEDLIGH​TPHOTOGRAPHY.COM (external link)
5D4 / 35 F2 / 50L / 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MNUplander
Goldmember
2,527 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
     
Jun 03, 2011 14:42 |  #2

No lens is ever required - its all about what suits your style. For me, I dont need the 24-105 - my 17-40 and 70-200 f4 IS cover everything I need for now. But, if I had the 24-105 instead of the 17-40 I'd be wanting to go wider than I could go quite a bit.

Of course, thats just the way I like to shoot - having UWA to "normal" in one lens is more useful for me than having wide to telephoto.

So, ask yourself - how often do I want to go wider? How often do I use my 24-105 over 40mm?

If I were to spend your money the way I would, I'd probably buy the 17-40 for the 5D and use the 70-200 on the 50D. If I found the 24-105 on the shelf more often than not, I'd probably sell it and put the money towards some fast primes.


Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography (external link)
Buy & Sell Feedback
6D, 16-35 f4 IS, 50 1.2, 100L Macro, 150-600C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
huntersdad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,563 posts
Likes: 186
Joined Nov 2008
     
Jun 03, 2011 15:12 |  #3

I'm not a big landscape shooter, just enough to be dangerous. The trip to WY will be a once-in-a-very long time type trip, so I don't want to get out there go "should have gone wider".


Facebook (external link)

http://WWW.BLENDEDLIGH​TPHOTOGRAPHY.COM (external link)
5D4 / 35 F2 / 50L / 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paul3221
Goldmember
Avatar
2,433 posts
Likes: 111
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
     
Jun 03, 2011 15:19 |  #4

It really depends on the type of landscapes you shoot. I have the 24-105 and the 10-22 on a 60D, and I use the 10-22 more. Of course mine is a crop sensor, so the 10-22 would be more like the 17-40 on yours. For big things (Mountains, Horseshoe Bend, Zion, etc), I prefer the wider angle. For smaller things (Waterfalls, flowers, etc), or things at a greater distance, I would probably prefer the 24-105.


Paul
Sony A7RII, 5DII, a bunch of lenses and lighting... Whatever gets the shot... ;-)a
www.PaulDekortPhotogra​phy.com (external link)
Facebook Photography Page (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sparker1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
29,232 posts
Likes: 118
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Montrose, CO
     
Jun 03, 2011 15:21 |  #5

I shoot a 50D, so my 10-22 is nearly the same as the 17-40 in terms of FOV. I love that wide angle for western landscapes. That said, it is occasionally too wide and I really appreciate the range of the 24-105. Sunrises/sunsets are usually better with the 24-105.


Stan (See my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/s​parker1 (external link))

7D, 50D, 300D, EF-S 10-22 mm, EF-S 18-55 mm kit lens, EF 24-105 L IS, EF 50 mm 1.8, Sigma 150-500mm (Bigmos)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,078 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1105
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jun 03, 2011 15:26 |  #6

I would opt for the 17-40 over the 24-105 for landscapes. The 24-105 vignettes a bit on the wide end of the range. But if I were looking for a walkaround lens that could double as a landscape lens, then I might switch that up. But dont get caught up in the thought that all landscapes need be taken with a wide angle lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scubthebub
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Aliso Viejo, CA
     
Jun 03, 2011 16:09 |  #7

Depends on your shooting style. I have both and I am finding there are only very few times I need/want less than 24mm on my 5D. I like the larger range of the 24-105 for different compositions and it has IS which can help after sunset. For -me- I use the 24-105 over 95% of the time. Almost to the point of thinking about selling my 17-40, but that's just me.


You can also call me Matt
|| 5Dc+Grip | 20D || 24-105
L | 50 f/1.8 II | Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 <-Crap on FF |
| 550EX | Yongnuo RF 602 triggers | Aperture 3 | Lowepro Pro Trekker 300 AW |

Flickr (external link) | Redbubble (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bjannsen
Member
Avatar
249 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Tennessee
     
Jun 03, 2011 16:17 as a reply to  @ gonzogolf's post |  #8

I use both - a lot.

I probably use the 24-105 a little bit more - just because of it's range, but anytime I need something below 28mm or so, I reach for the UWA. It's never let me down. Both lenses will vignette at f4-f5.6, but I hardly ever use those apertures - for most landscape work I'm at f8-f16.

I don't think I could pick one over the other because they cover such different ranges. From 28-40mm they're about the same, so it really comes down to what FL you'll need to shoot.

As gonzogolf mentions, don't think landscape has to equal wide. Some of my favorite landscapes were shot with the 70-200.


Brian www.brianjannsen.com (external link)
5dS R | 5d mkIII |EF 16-35 4L | EF 24-70 2.8L | EF 24-105 4L | EF 70-200 2.8L IS | TS-E 24 3.5II | EF 50 1.4 | EF 85 1.8 | EF 135 2.0L | 1.4 Ext. | 430ex | Lee, B&W Filters |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MNUplander
Goldmember
2,527 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
     
Jun 03, 2011 16:37 |  #9

Since you're not a huge landscape shooter, maybe just rent the 17-40 and bring it along. If you decide you cant live without it after your trip, pick one up when you get back!


Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography (external link)
Buy & Sell Feedback
6D, 16-35 f4 IS, 50 1.2, 100L Macro, 150-600C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fernando
Goldmember
Avatar
1,628 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Round Rock, TX
     
Jun 03, 2011 16:45 |  #10

huntersdad wrote in post #12530640 (external link)
I'm not a big landscape shooter, just enough to be dangerous. The trip to WY will be a once-in-a-very long time type trip, so I don't want to get out there go "should have gone wider".

I'm in the same boat as you. For that reason the the fast 50 you see in my sig will be going soon to pick up either a 10-2x or the tokina 12-24. As a general rule my 24-105 has been all I've ever really needed but I'm sure I'm going to be needing something wider on this trip.

-F


Fuji convert - Ping me if you have any Fuji gear or legacy glass you're moving.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HBOC
Senior Member
357 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2010
Location: PDX
     
Jun 16, 2011 18:35 |  #11

I used to have a 40D and had a 17-40L glued to it and I shoot mostly landscapes. It was a great combo on a crop.

That said, I now shoot with a 1Ds and had a 24mm prime, but recently picked up a 17mm prime and haven't looked back. Only you can answer your question. DO you find you want wider? Both the 24-105L and 17-40 both use 77mm as far as I know. I know that some people think the 17-40 isn't as sharp corner to corner, but when I used it with my EOS-3 with velvia, i didn't notice any softness if you will.

From what you have listed in your sig, I think the 17-40L would be better utilized. How often do you shoot 40-70mm? If you find you shoot in that range often, I'd pick up a thrifty fifty (or nifty fifty) to fill that void.


FB (external link)
500px (external link)
Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BrianS
Senior Member
Avatar
412 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Jun 19, 2011 11:29 as a reply to  @ HBOC's post |  #12

I just came back from a trip to Southern Utah and I brought both of these lenses. Naturally, I found that when I was close to things (Arches, Natural Bridges etc) then the 17-40 was best. When it was viewpoints, overlooks etc then the 24-105 was used. For this trip the 24-105 was probably used 80% of the time, BUT I would not have been without the 17-40 for any money in the world.

So my response would be: it depends on what your landscape is and how close you are to it. The 24-105 definitely has the wider use just because of its range and 24mm on a FF is pretty wide, at least for most of the landscapes that I have taken pictures of.


Canon 5D3, Leica M6, Fujifilm x100 & Olympus E-M5 | Walkabout Street (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CameraMan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,322 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 733
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In The Sticks
     
Jun 19, 2011 11:34 |  #13

sparker1 wrote in post #12530700 (external link)
I shoot a 50D, so my 10-22 is nearly the same as the 17-40 in terms of FOV. I love that wide angle for western landscapes. That said, it is occasionally too wide and I really appreciate the range of the 24-105. Sunrises/sunsets are usually better with the 24-105.

Actually the correct FOV is 16mm - 32mm so yah, it's close to the 17-40. I love my Sigma 10-22mm even though it won't work on my 5D it's still a perfect companion to the 40D.


Photographer (external link) | The Toys! | Facebook (external link) | Video (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Shampoo sounds like an unfortunate name for a hair product.
You're a ghost driving a meat-coated skeleton made from stardust, riding a rock, hurtling through space. Fear Nothing!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,108 posts
Likes: 144
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Jun 20, 2011 08:52 as a reply to  @ CameraMan's post |  #14

In my book, both are valuable and well-used for/by landscape shooters.

Although I will say I prefer the image quality of my 24-70 over that of the 24-105. But then the 24-105 has IS, so.....


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Oikos
Member
36 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Asheville, NC, USA
     
Jul 04, 2011 09:00 as a reply to  @ Picture North Carolina's post |  #15

Ditto on the 24-105 on a 50D, mine stays on 99% of the time. I also have the 10-22 for the crowded close-in settings but those seem very rare--absolute necessity for slot canyons but out east not a lot of use. Keep in mind that the 10-22 on your 50D camera would give essentially the same FOV as a 17-40 on your full body 5D camera. My lens kit includes the 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400 to give me pretty complete coverage and the 100-400 stays at home most of the time unless I know I am out for bird or big game. Since you have both the 5D and 50D I think I'd go with the 17-40 as it can be used on both bodies whereas a 10-22 would have to be dedicated to the 50D. However many have complained about the image quality of the 17-40 on full body cameras as this lens isn't all that sharp around the edges. I know a lot of pros who use both the 17-40 and 24-105 for landscapes with the 5D but they seem to favor the 24-105 for most landscapes and only go to the 17-40 for the wide angle shots--Larry




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

13,726 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-105 vs. 17-40 for lanscapes
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk 
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 was a spammer, and banned as such!
274 guests, 246 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.