ef 17-40/4 or ef 24-105

I can't decide between the 2. I already have the 24-105 and a 20mm for a bit more stretch. Would I gain enough to justify the expense by going with a 17-40?

Yes.

i want to try and help but your question (is there a question?) isn't clearly stated.

so, maybe.

Jerobean wrote in post #16473206
i want to try and help but your question (is there a question?) isn't clearly stated.

so, maybe.

I don't know how better to state the question. Is the 17-40 so much better that it would justify buying, eventhough I already have the 24-105?

Yes, I have both, and there are definitely uses for both.

i dont think so... idk, seems redundant, but ive never had both. i would say a wide prime.

eddieb1 wrote in post #16473211
I don't know how better to state the question. Is the 17-40 so much better that it would justify buying, eventhough I already have the 24-105?

Then your title should be "and" not "or". The answer is still yes.

eddieb1 wrote in post #16473211
I don't know how better to state the question. Is the 17-40 so much better that it would justify buying, even though I already have the 24-105?

It depends on what subjects you shoot, your camera model, and whether you like to shoot ultra-wide. Providing those facts will better state the question.

If you have a full frame body, the 17-40L will be an ultra-wide to normal focal length range. I find this quite useful in combination with my 24-105L on a 5D3 for landscape shooting.

If you have a crop body, the 17-40L is not nearly as useful a focal range when paired with a 24-105L. If you want ultra-wide, you need to look at the Canon EFS 10-22mm or one of the 3rd party alternatives. If you are just looking for a zoom that provides a wide angle, there are better alternatives, too -- the Canon EFS 15-85 IS, Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS, or Sigma/Tamron similar zooms. The Canon 15-85 could completely replace the 24-105L in your kit.

I have both, and yes, the 17-40 is completely different. 17mm is much wider than 24.

I try to choose lenses based on their specific function, fast, macro, telephoto, ultra wide, etc. Overlapping focal lengths is not always bad. The 17-40 is well worth it.

I have neither, but have the crop equivalents (almost) in the 10-22 and 15-85. In my experience some overlap in focal lengths is a good thing.

I have generous overlap in my three zooms : 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200. Three quite different lenses, each with a useful purpose. Quite often, I take both shorter ones out together, each paired to a 5D - a useful combination. Rarely use either on my x1.6 crop body, although they do work on the x1.3 crop of the 1D.

xhack wrote in post #16475834
I have generous overlap in my three zooms : 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200. Three quite different lenses, each with a useful purpose.

I have the same zoom lenses, along with a 100-400L. I never understood why some people here try to avoid focal range overlap between zooms. Overlap is quite useful, as it can mean fewer lens swaps, or even being able to leave a lens at home based on what you will be shooting. It gives your kit more flexibility.

I will sometimes carry both the 24-105L and 17-40L, while at other times I have left one of them at home. I will only take one of the two telephotos -- the 100-400L when I will be focusing on wildlife, or the 70-200 f/4 IS when I just need a general telephoto or want to travel lighter.

i used to own the 24-70 as my walkaround lens

and as i am travelling a lot, i felt like i was missing an UWA to shoot in the city, buildings and landscapes

no matter which lenses you have or plan on buying, the 17-40 will always be useful

To the OP. You didn't tell us the body you are using, what you typically shoot, what you feel is limiting you with the 24-105L. How are we going to give a good informed answer to help you without (at least) these pieces of information?

If you have a FF -
The 24-105L is a really good general "normal" range walk around lens. While the 17-24mm is an ultra wide lens, and (for the way I shoot) would not be a good walk around lens for most places I'm going.

It did not seem like you were asking about the 17-40 as a replacement, but more of a lens in addition to the 24-105. In that case yes! To (for) me the 17-40L is a good supplemental lens for a wide view, giving you something a "normal" range zoom cannot. But IMO (for me) 17-40 is not a replacement lens for a "normal" range zoom.

If you are missing the images you want to make on the wide end, then the 17-40 could be what you are looking for.

If you have a crop camera -
There are much better choices for an ultrawide lens than the 17-40 - which would not be an ultrawide angle on a crop camera. To some there are better choices for the 24-105L on a crop, but I like it (especially if you have an ultrawide to go with it).