canon 17-40L or 24-105L

Im going on vacation in a few weeks and i need a good lens to use.

I used to own the 17-40L but sold it in favor of a 28mm prime. i dont like the prime and i rather have a slower zoom lens

im not sure if i want the 17-40L for the UWA or go with a 24-105 and have a sold walk-around lens that i dont have now.

thoughts?

On the 5D, I'd go with the 24-105. That's still pretty wide on FF.

for a vacation a 24-105 is all you'll need, not sure where your going but nothing wrong with having a fast 28 in your bag though mate

Do you have a flash ??

There is a reason the 24-105 is a kit lens for full framed cameras. Its a damn near perfect focal range for a day out and about. Its not the most exciting lens, but its the one thats on my camera as a default most of the time.

I have both lenses, and if I was only going to take one along on a vacation it would be the 24-105L. It's a great walk around lens for a full frame body.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16539933
There is a reason the 24-105 is a kit lens for full framed cameras. Its a damn near perfect focal range for a day out and about. Its not the most exciting lens, but its the one thats on my camera as a default most of the time.

Yep, nothing magical about it, but it's a versatile, rugged, highly competent lens.

Orrrrr...

Just pick up a lightly used 28-135mm. So many have been sold in kit with various Canon cameras, that they are widely available for $250 or less, often practically unused.

Image quality is just about the same as the 24-105mm... Especially at the focal lengths they share. The 24-105mm has stronger vignetting at the wide end. The 28-135mm is slightly softer racked all the way out at 135mm (but improves if stopped down). Focus performance, close focusing ability, and IS effectiveness are all about the same, too. The L is better built, as you might expect, and possibly better sealed.

But if you only spend $250 or less on a walk-around lens, maybe you'll have enough budget remaining to also pick up another 17-40mm, so you'll be covered all the way from UWA to moderate telephoto.

I would want to have both. (Ok, I would take both.) To me they are different tools.

As a generalization, I'd take the 24-105 if I was going to get only one. Unless I was going somewhere known for needing (better suited) for UWA, like some of the cities in Europe with narrow roadways.

I recently picked up a used 28-135mm IS (inexpensively), but I haven't yet got to compare it against the 24-105 too much. So far (small amount of use from the 28-135), it does not seem like amfoto1 too far off about them being close. So his suggestion is potentially a good one. If you can locate them used, you could get both the 28-135 and the 17-35 for not much more than a used 24-105L.

thanks for the advice. i'm selling the 28mm, i shoot mainly portraits so it rarely gets used. i remember always wishing the 17-40L be a bit longer too. thanks for the advice i'll start shopping.

heading to St Thomas in a few weeks.

24-105 is my most used lens when traveling, followed by my 16-35, and finally my 70-200.

jimewall wrote in post #16540416
I would want to have both. (Ok, I would take both.) To me they are different tools.

As a generalization, I'd take the 24-105 if I was going to get only one. Unless I was going somewhere known for needing (better suited) for UWA, like some of the cities in Europe with narrow roadways.

I recently picked up a used 28-135mm IS (inexpensively), but I haven't yet got to compare it against the 24-105 too much. So far (small amount of use from the 28-135), it does not seem like amfoto1 too far off about them being close. So his suggestion is potentially a good one. If you can locate them used, you could get both the 28-135 and the 17-35 for not much more than a used 24-105L.

You must have a really good copy of the 28-135mm. I really didn't like mine at all. I thought it was quite soft and the color/iq wasn't great.

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16542057
You must have a really good copy of the 28-135mm. I really didn't like mine at all. I thought it was quite soft and the color/iq wasn't great.

I hope! Like I said not a lot of play time with it yet - so it is a qualified statement. I have used it only some, but so far looks pretty good in sharpness. Though so far I still grab the L (or my Sigma f/2.8) because I know what I am getting. Plus they are better (or so my head says), I need to see how much better they truly are.

Now that Christmas break is here, I should get some time to play with the 28-135, and then do some comparisons. The question will be if it is close (like it seems so far), do I keep the L? I guess that will depend on how close it really is, and how the IS compares. If I get to play a lot in the next couple of days, I post a better (more accurate/not guarded) account.

I think it would depend on where you're going on vacation. For my three trips to Europe, I very seldom needed longer reach, but I often wished I had something wider (and taller). For that circumstance, the 17-40L would be my choice.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16540317
Orrrrr...

Just pick up a lightly used 28-135mm. So many have been sold in kit with various Canon cameras, that they are widely available for $250 or less, often practically unused.

Image quality is just about the same as the 24-105mm... Especially at the focal lengths they share. The 24-105mm has stronger vignetting at the wide end. The 28-135mm is slightly softer racked all the way out at 135mm (but improves if stopped down). Focus performance, close focusing ability, and IS effectiveness are all about the same, too. The L is better built, as you might expect, and possibly better sealed.

But if you only spend $250 or less on a walk-around lens, maybe you'll have enough budget remaining to also pick up another 17-40mm, so you'll be covered all the way from UWA to moderate telephoto.

I completely agree. I sold my 24-105L and bought another 28-135mm IS because of that very reason, plus it was extra money for me. I've long prefered the 28-135mm IS over the 24-105L because the L just didn't quite live up to my expectations. Color is better on the 24-10L, but that is something easily adjusted in post. I bought my lastest one with lens hood for $150.

Where is this vacation? 24mm isn't very wide if you're talking about shooting cityscapes. You really want both the 17-40mm and 24-105mm. I would rather bring the 17-40mm and 85mm than the 24-105mm, an ultra wide is quite essential for any travel if you want to capture architecture.

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16542057
You must have a really good copy of the 28-135mm. I really didn't like mine at all. I thought it was quite soft and the color/iq wasn't great.

It's decently sharp from f8 which is just fine for daylight travel photograhy. However yes, the colour isn't as good as an L lens.