17mm vs 24mm on FF

Since I am still debating to pickup the 17-40mm...Anybody got a comparison shots that can show me the differences between the FOV between 17mm and 24mm? If the difference is not too much, I may not pick it up and stay with my 24-70mm

there's a FOV tester on some nikon site. I wish I had the link, but I dont. it was a spectacular tool to measure FOV. In short, 17 vs 24 is probably HUGE, even though I find 24 pretty wide for 95% of the time.

I would say the difference is substantial.

http://jamieknop.com …non-ts-e-24mm-comparison/

I have similar gear to the OP and I've considered a fish manual focus prime for best bang for the buck

Definitely a big difference between the two. 24mm is certainly very decent for landscape work, but for some scenes, wider is the only way to go.

Scenes like the grand canyon, green river overlooks, etc... all require at least a 17.

I found 24mm wide enough when I first got my 5D2, but it's definitely not a substitute for a UWA lens. If you like to shoot wide it's worth picking up. I love shooting wide and although I don't use it all the time I don't think I could ever sell mine. One of the best lenses for its $ out there on FF.

Another idea is to make a stitch of 2 (or 3) shots with a panorama software, it works very well, of course you have to be careful with moving persons/objects...

Titi

The difference between 17mm and 24mm is large. But, I find for what I do, I rarely use my 17-40 and stick to the 24-105. Still, I find the few times I need UWA, I'm glad I got the 17-40.

marcosv wrote in post #13913045
The difference between 17mm and 24mm is large. But, I find for what I do, I rarely use my 17-40 and stick to the 24-105. Still, I find the few times I need UWA, I'm glad I got the 17-40.

Same here, I have both but rarely use the 17-40 but when I do want a UWA I am glad I have it. It is also a pretty good lens IQ wise as well.

The difference is huge. 24mm is the standard wide focal length. 17mm is superwide. Check the angle of view from the specs.

17-40mm at ƒ/4 (to demonstrate vignetting) on 5D. SOOC

at 24mm

there is one more option, but pricey:
the TS-E 24mm II
it's an outstanding 24mm performer and if you need extra width, you can you the shift abilities - gets better if you buy a double axix macro rail or a "L" bracket.
Then you pretty much can go past the 17mm wide angle view

NWPhil wrote in post #13914099
there is one more option, but pricey:
the TS-E 24mm II
it's an outstanding 24mm performer and if you need extra width, you can you the shift abilities - gets better if you buy a double axix macro rail or a "L" bracket.
Then you pretty much can go past the 17mm wide angle view

... or you can do the same with the TS-E 17 and get a rectilinear 10 mm....
The TS-E 17 also takes a 1.4x tc so you can use it as a 24 mm tilt-shift. (.... and the 24 takes a 1.4x too.) Both are horrendously expensive lenses - but not without reason.

On the choice of 17 vs 24 - there is a huge change in image scale. Perhaps the most significant thing is that the 17 allows truly exaggerated perspectives. IQ in the 17-40L is good to excellent over most of the field (especially if you stop it down to f/8 or f/11.) It vignettes quite a lot, so stopping down can be important.

As an alternative, you might try for something a little less extreme - maybe an OM-Zuiko 18 or 21 mm with an adapter and keep your 24-105.

I debated over the 17 vs the 24 for months....but the 24 still has an overall better IQ and takes a CPL filter.
I do have the 17-40, which is my hiking lens - I used the 10-22 on my 40D and truth is, I ended always using either all wide (17 or 10)
With that said, I am now saving a little to either get the TS-E 17 or the canon 14mm. Zeiss has a super-nice 21mm and lesser 18mm
Yeah, canon is missing a prime anywhere from 16 to 24 (I believe there is a 20mm, but is an old/outated/underperfo​rmer)
So, for me the 17mm makes more sense rather than the 24mm - if I did not have the 17-40 and the 15mm, the 17 TSE would have been the choice. Aside that, either the 16-35II or the zeiss 21mm.
Shooting at 17mm does not work with everything or all landscapes - to much distortation on people and buildings.
Rent both, or one of the zooms - if the zooms, later look at the exif file, and see which focal length you used the most. It will give you a better idea about your style/needs

pretty much I have a void from 40 to 80mm - I don't take portraits in the 50-85mm range. The 50 f1.4 is/will be outfited with a reverse ring ALL the time.
would I buy the 24-70? nope not wide enough, and into a length end I don't use - but that's just me

The TS-E17 is simple stunning, but so is the TS-E24.