17-40l or 24-105l for FF and landscapes

I recently sold my 40D and much loved 10-22 and am picking up a 5D MKII, I posted something here a while back in regard to a lens recommendation, the 17-40L looks to be a great replacement for the 10-22 and takes the same filters as the 10-22 but so does the 24-105,,
I tend to like a wider view when shooting but also realize with width comes distortion , thats where my quandary comes into play,,
your thoughts

If you want to replicate the function of the 10-22 then get the 17-40. If you want a walkaround lens, get the 24-105. Its not rocket science.

As a former owner of the 10-22 and a current owner of the 17-40, the two lenses are very close in performance with a slight not to the 10-22 in image quality and distortion control. The 17-40 has more but it's not a whole lot more and very manageable. The 24-105 is also a very nice lens but no where near as wide as the 17-40. So if your looking for wide, go with the 17-40.

??...verify that a 10-22 can be used on your new camera if you go that route. I thought I read that the lens had to be modified for FF camera use

I own a 10-22 and love it on my 7D

gonzogolf wrote in post #15456358
If you want to replicate the function of the 10-22 then get the 17-40. If you want a walkaround lens, get the 24-105. Its not rocket science.

ya,, its not rocket science,, just looking for opinions from people who possibly own one or the other,, like I said, the 10-22 was very nice on my beach wide open stuff,, but certainly did show alot of distortion in an urban environment,, the FF has me a little confused as to the actual width ratios

Truth is, you'll likely need both. I find the 24-105 good for lots of landscape work, but sometimes, it's nice to have something wider. The 17-40 is an excellent landscape lens - very sharp corner to corner on FF once it's stopped down.

Bank on acquiring both but if you're tight on expenditure now, then the 24-105 is probably more versatile.

I personally never worry about distortion - it's so easily fixed in post-processing.

jaharris1001 wrote in post #15456390
ya,, its not rocket science,, just looking for opinions from people who possibly own one or the other,, like I said, the 10-22 was very nice on my beach wide open stuff,, but certainly did show alot of distortion in an urban environment,, the FF has me a little confused as to the actual width ratios

I have both and they are way different experiences. Just divide the focal length of of FF lens by 1.6 to get the crop field of view. When you say distortion what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about perspective distortion, or do you mean something else like barrel distortion. All wide angle lenses are doing to show perspective distortion because of the way they render things closer to the camera.

i dont know what advice to give you. if you enjoy wideangle landscapes and playing with distortion then get a 17-40L if you want a solid walkaroud zoom, get a 24-105.

I myself am torn whether to keep the 17-40L i just dont use it as much as I should and would probably be happier with a good walk around zoom. 24 would most likely be wide enough for me. one other option is to get a 24-105 and supplement with a wide prime like a 14mm instead

My experiences mirror gjl711's exactly. However, I'll give a slight edge to the 17-40L for a little bit better color and contrast at the cost of slightly worse distortion than the 10-22. I think it also focuses a bit closer which can yield some very interesting views at 17mm. (moss close-up, etc.)

However, at least with my copies, every focal length that my 24-105 covers it does a better job than the 17-40 so I keep my 24-105 mounted 98% of the time and when I have the 17-40 on it's at 17mm 100% of the time. I.e., I treat it almost like a prime.... kinda a 17-24mm zoom. But the difference between 24 and 17mm is a lot more than the numbers make it sound and sometimes you just need something wider.