Canon 17-40 or stay with what I have?

First, I have 3 cameras - a full frame, a 1.3 crop and a 1.6 crop.

I mainly shoot macro (Canon 100 and 180 macros) and wildlife (Canon 100-400). For my main walk around I have the Canon 24-70mm. I have dabbled in landscape and for a recent trip I rented a Canon 10-22mm (at the time I only had the 1.6 crop). I liked the lens and my landscape photos so much that shortly thereafter I purchased one.

I am now giving the 1.6 crop to my daughter and as the 10-22mm only works on this camera she will get that but have my other lenses at her disposal.

The 24-70 is not that wide even on the FF. So, I have entertained the idea of getting the 17-40mm.

Would that be too much overlap with the 24-70mm? Would I be better off selling the 24-70 and getting the 17-40mm and possibly getting an 85mm (non-L) down the road to fill the gap between the 40 and 100?

I actually looked at the number of shots I have taken with my 24-70. Majority of shots are under 40mm followed by the long end - not much between 40 and 70. All of the lenses could be used on all 3 cameras (except the 10-22). Oh, the 16-35mm is more than I want to spend at the moment so no need to recommend.

Thanks in advance.

I like my 17-40 on a FF body. It's a good lens for the money

rick_reno wrote in post #14571273
I like my 17-40 on a FF body. It's a good lens for the money

Thanks Rick.

Would you keep the 24-70 or too much overlap? Selling the 24-70 should bring enough to buy a good used 17-40. And, funds left over to put towards an 85 down the road, perhaps.

Hi, Keep the 24-70. I have the 17-40 and it is not a special lens. Your 24-70 will take shots as good as the 17-40. Have fun and keep shootin'. Mike

There is another thread running right nowasking about wide angle lenses for full frame... I suggested another possibility, Canon EF 20mm f2.8 there and tossed a couple sample pics up. I really like it and recently took it on a trip with - for me - a pretty scaled down 4-lens "travel kit": 5D Mark II, the 20mm, 24-70/2.8, 135/2, 300/4 IS and a 1.4X, plus a 580EX II, macro extension tubes and a few other accessories.

In the past I used a 17-35/2.8L, but found I didn't need the 17mm all that much and the zoom had more wide angle distortion than the prime. However, I didn't mind overlap, either. It's really not a big deal.

Personally I wouldn't give up the 24-70/2.8, at any rate. It's just too convenient a lens.

For a wide angle zoom, I like my 17-40. It's pretty light compared to other options. Stopped down like you would for landscape or bright out doors, it performs very well. Sure there is overlap with the 24-70, but, 17mm is a lot wider in comparison. For what I shoot, I rarely use the 17-40, but, when I do need to use it, I'm really glad I bought an ultra wide option.

I too have the 24-70, which I use as my walkaround lens on ff, and am planning on getting the 17-40.
I will be keeping the 24-70 as I figure it will still be my choice for walkaround, especially as it also gives me f/2.8. The 17-40 will be for those occasions when 24mm just isn't wide enough.

Thanks everyone for your input. Looks like I have some thinking to do.

I currently have a 7D with 10-22 and 17-55. If I make the jump to the 5D line, I would replace my 10-22 with a 17-40 and the 17-55 would be replaced with a 24-105. A little overlap (or gap) in focal lengths is fine, it just may take a little while to get used to.

The wife and I each had two croppers. We used 10-22 for landscapes. Then we both got a 5DII. We sold off one of the croppers (40D), and all the Canon non L lenses. We use 17-40 for landscapes, 24-105 for general stuff, and 100-400 for wildlife. Keeping with those 3 lenses gives you max coverage range with minimum lens overlap (and therefore lower lens cost). I love those 3 lenses on the 5DIII.

The 17-40L is a good perfromer IMO

I sold my 24-105L to buy a 17-40L & 100mm Macro & don't regret it so far!!

I agree with others in that the 17-40L is a great lens. It's very wide.

The concept of overlap is silly except for camshafts.

You can't mount both at the same time unless you're Austin Powers.

I like the walkaround lens 24-70 more than 17-40 and 16-35 which is more for landscapes and group people shooting. Sometimes you can do macro on the 24-70 too.

I like the 17-40 on any body, film, 1.3 or 1.6. I'd keep the 24-70 since it's 2.8, but in the right situation, the 17-40 performs very well.