Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 29 Nov 2014 (Saturday) 18:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Looking at 17-40 f4 and 24-105 f4

 
Chief_10Beers
Didn't get his vaccinations . . .
Avatar
487 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 121
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Kenly, North Carolina
     
Nov 29, 2014 18:04 |  #1

I'm adding a 6D to my 60D. I have 3 lenses, a EF-S17-55 f2.8 IS, EF 50 f1.4 and a EF-70-200 f4 L IS.
I was looking at the 17-40 f4 and the 24-105 f4 for the 6D. I absolutely have to stay in budget. Between youtube and on line reviews, I'm getiing almost a 50/50 split between the two so I ask the POTN members on their opinion. The 6D will be used for Landscapes and Portraits and walk around Lens. I'm looking for a lens that sort of matches the EF-S 17-55. I'm looking at Image quality...............


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I am John Galt
TVC15
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 29, 2014 18:07 |  #2

The 24-105L on a FF camera performs pretty much exactly like the 17-55 on 1.6X, except it is a bit wider and a bit longer. The only drawback is vignette and distortion below 28mm, but you lack this range on the 17-55 anyway.

What I would not do is have a 24-105 for my FF body and a 17-55 on 1.6X. That's quite redundant.

Do you often shoot with both bodies at the same time, or really need to have a backup body for business purposes? I could see adding (at the least) the 24-105 with the 6D and selling the 17-55. At that point, if you really want UWA you could also sell the 60D and add the 17-40 as well.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chief_10Beers
THREAD ­ STARTER
Didn't get his vaccinations . . .
Avatar
487 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 121
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Kenly, North Carolina
     
Nov 29, 2014 18:18 |  #3

JeffreyG wrote in post #17300166 (external link)
The 24-105L on a FF camera performs pretty much exactly like the 17-55 on 1.6X, except it is a bit wider and a bit longer. The only drawback is vignette and distortion below 28mm, but you lack this range on the 17-55 anyway.

What I would not do is have a 24-105 for my FF body and a 17-55 on 1.6X. That's quite redundant.

Do you often shoot with both bodies at the same time, or really need to have a backup body for business purposes? I could see adding (at the least) the 24-105 with the 6D and selling the 17-55. At that point, if you really want UWA you could also sell the 60D and add the 17-40 as well.

I do want to keep my 60D and the EF-S 17-55. 60D for Flying Airshows, Motorcycles events, fast moving Grandkids and Dogs and I don't want to sell the 17-55, such a great lens for a crop Camera, So with in my budget I'm looking at the 17-40 or the 24-105...............


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I am John Galt
TVC15
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andy ­ R
Goldmember
Avatar
1,942 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 2202
Joined Dec 2008
Location: So Cal
     
Nov 29, 2014 18:31 |  #4

I have both on FF and they are very different lenses. The 24-105 is a great walk around lens and with IS is great! The 17-40 is an uwa and has a different purpose, it's vey wide, on the down side it is slow and no IS.

Both have great IQ

24-105= big, heavier, has IS, and very versital focal range
17-40= smaller, no IS, very wide and often not long enough for a great walk around, and worthless hood imo.

Depends on what you're looking for!


5D4 ~ 80D
Canon 14L ~ Canon 16-35L f/2.8 mk3 ~ Canon 24-105L mk2 ~ Canon 50 STM ~ Canon 135L ~ Canon 70-200L f/4 mk3 ~ Sigma 100-400 ~ Canon 1.4x mk2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chief_10Beers
THREAD ­ STARTER
Didn't get his vaccinations . . .
Avatar
487 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 121
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Kenly, North Carolina
     
Nov 29, 2014 18:46 |  #5

Andy R wrote in post #17300208 (external link)
I have both on FF and they are very different lenses. The 24-105 is a great walk around lens and with IS is great! The 17-40 is an uwa and has a different purpose, it's vey wide, on the down side it is slow and no IS.

Both have great IQ

24-105= big, heavier, has IS, and very versital focal range
17-40= smaller, no IS, very wide and often not long enough for a great walk around, and worthless hood imo.

Depends on what you're looking for!

Image quality is the main thing, Money is everything for me right now. I'll spend a little more for the 24-105 but if the 17-40 and 24-105 is pretty much the same in IQ, I'll go for the 17-40. If the IQ is better with the 24-105, I'll buy that. That's what's it boils down to...............


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I am John Galt
TVC15
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
Avatar
4,038 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 262
Joined Jun 2014
     
Nov 29, 2014 19:23 |  #6
bannedPermanent ban

Pass on the 24-105. Get a 28 1.8 and an 85 1.8. Both are 2-1/3 stops faster than the 24-105. Hold off on the 17-40 until you are sure you need something wide. You don't have a wide lens for your 60D.

My walk around on the 6D is whichever of the following I feel like mounting: 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 1.4. I have a 28-75, but it doesn't get mounted often.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 29, 2014 19:37 |  #7

I keep coming back to a feeling like you are on a tight budget, but you are sinking money into redundancy and you could do better with a step back and significant re-think.

One thing I see is that you don't really need two bodies. You are keeping two bodies because of the reach of the 60D basically. Could you add one long lens for your airshow and action and just live with the 6D? I wonder.....

I wonder if the following kit would not meet all of your needs:
6D
24-105L
70-200/4L
300/4L IS
1.4X TC
50/1.4

From what you have today, I do not see you giving up anything, and in a lot of ways gaining capability. You add the 24-105 with the fund allocated, and fund the 300/4 and the TC with the sale of the 17-55 + 60D, and here you wind up with some money to spare.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shamlyn
Member
93 posts
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Nov 29, 2014 19:50 |  #8

Andy R wrote in post #17300208 (external link)
I have both on FF and they are very different lenses. The 24-105 is a great walk around lens and with IS is great! The 17-40 is an uwa and has a different purpose, it's vey wide, on the down side it is slow and no IS.

Both have great IQ

24-105= big, heavier, has IS, and very versital focal range
17-40= smaller, no IS, very wide and often not long enough for a great walk around, and worthless hood imo.

Depends on what you're looking for!

I agree with Andy R on this! I have both lenses. I shoot landscape, however I find myself reaching for the Canon 24-105 just because of the longer reach. There are times where a 24mm on a full frame isnt wide enough, so that's where the 17-40 comes in handy.

As far as IQ goes, both the Canon 17-40 and 24-105 have the same great IQ as far as I have noticed when I shoot landscape and cityscape on a 6D.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
halitime
Goldmember
Avatar
1,271 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lantzville B.C. Can.
     
Nov 29, 2014 20:30 |  #9

Keeping the 17-55 makes the choice hard. The 17-55 would basically trade for a 17-40 on the used market.Sell the 50 1.4 and then add this money to your budget and pick up a 24-70 2.8. So you would end up with a 17-40,24-70 2.8 and a 70-200.


Gear List : 1D MK II n,Gripped XSi,70-200 f4,300 f4 IS,Canon 24-105 f4,35 f2 IS,EF 50 1.8 MK I,EF-S 10-22,Canon 1.4 II Extender,Canon 25mm Ext Tube,YN 468/460 II,RF 602's
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/halitime/sets/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,685 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 271
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Nov 29, 2014 20:33 |  #10

Chief_10Beers wrote in post #17300221 (external link)
Image quality is the main thing, Money is everything for me right now. I'll spend a little more for the 24-105 but if the 17-40 and 24-105 is pretty much the same in IQ, I'll go for the 17-40. If the IQ is better with the 24-105, I'll buy that. That's what's it boils down to...............

I am afraid you are mixing up a few different things.

The 17-40 and the 24-105 are completely different tools. Would you rather have a polishing tip for your power drill or a screwdriver tip? Both do their jobs admirably, but the which job do you want? One is an ultra-wide, ther other - a general walkabout lens. Which one do you actually need?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chief_10Beers
THREAD ­ STARTER
Didn't get his vaccinations . . .
Avatar
487 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 121
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Kenly, North Carolina
     
Nov 29, 2014 20:49 |  #11

halitime wrote in post #17300376 (external link)
Keeping the 17-55 makes the choice hard. The 17-55 would basically trade for a 17-40 on the used market.Sell the 50 1.4 and then add this money to your budget and pick up a 24-70 2.8. So you would end up with a 17-40,24-70 2.8 and a 70-200.

Gave me a Idea, sell the 50 1.4 and the 17-55 and then buy the 24-70 2.8 and a 1.4 extender?.............​..


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I am John Galt
TVC15
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,426 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
Nov 29, 2014 20:53 as a reply to  @ Lbsimon's post |  #12

This is easy. Sell the 17-55 and buy a used 17-40. Put the extra $100 or so into a 6D with 24-105 kit. This way you're covered from UWA on FF to 320mm on crop. The 24-105 will be much better on FF than the 17-55 on crop and there will be no need to keep it unless you want a second standard zoom as a business back up.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,685 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 271
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Nov 29, 2014 21:09 |  #13

JeffreyG wrote in post #17300166 (external link)
The 24-105L on a FF camera performs pretty much exactly like the 17-55 on 1.6X, except it is a bit wider and a bit longer. The only drawback is vignette and distortion below 28mm, but you lack this range on the 17-55 anyway.

What I would not do is have a 24-105 for my FF body and a 17-55 on 1.6X. That's quite redundant.

Do you often shoot with both bodies at the same time, or really need to have a backup body for business purposes? I could see adding (at the least) the 24-105 with the 6D and selling the 17-55. At that point, if you really want UWA you could also sell the 60D and add the 17-40 as well.

Even though this was not intended for me, your message made me look at my equipment from new angle. I recently got a 6D with a 24-105. It is in addition to the 70D that I keep for birds and wildlife (I use it with the 120-400, sometimes even adding a Kenko 1.4x TC). What I did not realize is that I really do not need the 15-85 any more, as I would rather use the FF camera and the 24-105 if I need this range.

That made me think: What can I buy with that money when I sell the 15-85? And the 10-20 ultrawide that is not needed either?? Wow, I am on the roll!!! Any takers? :-)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
Avatar
4,038 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 262
Joined Jun 2014
     
Nov 29, 2014 21:30 |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

Lbsimon wrote in post #17300435 (external link)
Even though this was not intended for me, your message made me look at my equipment from new angle. I recently got a 6D with a 24-105. It is in addition to the 70D that I keep for birds and wildlife (I use it with the 120-400, sometimes even adding a Kenko 1.4x TC). What I did not realize is that I really do not need the 15-85 any more, as I would rather use the FF camera and the 24-105 if I need this range.

That made me think: What can I buy with that money when I sell the 15-85? And the 10-20 ultrawide that is not needed either?? Wow, I am on the roll!!! Any takers? :-)

Food for thought....
I've had my 6D for a year. I kept my 60d and 15-85. I considered selling the 15-85, but it is just so damn good on the 60D. One reason to keep the 15-85 is for stuff like kids birthday parties. Inside, poor light, flash and such. In this situation I will want the 15mm end for group/wide shots. The 24-105 is too long for that on crop. I am keeping my 60D/15-85. I use it.

Of course, I could always use the 6D/17-40 combo. Not near as long as the 15-85 on crop. Tight shots with 6D/17-40? I don't think so.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chief_10Beers
THREAD ­ STARTER
Didn't get his vaccinations . . .
Avatar
487 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 121
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Kenly, North Carolina
     
Nov 29, 2014 21:31 |  #15

Lbsimon wrote in post #17300379 (external link)
I am afraid you are mixing up a few different things.

The 17-40 and the 24-105 are completely different tools. Would you rather have a polishing tip for your power drill or a screwdriver tip? Both do their jobs admirably, but the which job do you want? One is an ultra-wide, ther other - a general walkabout lens. Which one do you actually need?

Kind of both, The 17-55 on my 60D was a 27-88...............


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I am John Galt
TVC15
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,792 views & 0 likes for this thread
Looking at 17-40 f4 and 24-105 f4
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is suiyuan
724 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.