Looking at 17-40 f4 and 24-105 f4

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...............

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.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17300166
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...............

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!

Andy R wrote in post #17300208
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...............

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.

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.

Andy R wrote in post #17300208
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.

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.

Chief_10Beers wrote in post #17300221
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?

halitime wrote in post #17300376
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?.............​..

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.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17300166
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?

Lbsimon wrote in post #17300435
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.

Lbsimon wrote in post #17300379
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...............