EF 17-40L or 24-105L

Hi all, my first post to this forum is a question of those two lenses.

I recently got my 1D mk IV and now I'm getting used to 1.3x crop sensor.

My old EF-S -series zoom isn't compatible anymore with the new body and now I need a standard zoom lens for everyday use.

The two mentioned lenses are in comparison mainly because of the similar price range, used about 400€ in Finland.

Both are f/4 and L -glass, so any ideas for the best overall zoom?

I also carry 70-200 f/4 L and 400 f5.6L in my bag. Shooting mainly nature and wedding. (Just swapped from Nikon back to Canon so not much lenses yet.)

For a standard zoom then the 24-105 is the pick of those two, after coming from a 1.6 crop to the 1.3 of the mark IV I was surprised how much wider 17mm was, and far too wide for a standard walk all purpose lens. I in fact now have them both .

Yes, they are quite different lenses for different purposes, that's why the decision is hard because I cannot afford both right now. I like to shoot the wide to ultra-wide end quite a lot and it is useful with big sensor especially in landscape and wedding photography. 17mm equals about 22mm in FF sensor, so it is very wide. (it would need a 14mm lens on a 1.6x crop body to match that)

The tele end of the 24-105 would share the same focal lenght as my 70-200 @ 70-105mm. That's why I'm thinking of getting the 17-40 and later the 24-70 or 28-70 with better aperture of 2.8.

BUT if there is any great reason to get the 24-105 over the 17-40 I would appreciate that.

Have you ever shoot using less than 24mm FF equivelent?

Yes, I got 10-20mm on my crop body and on Nikon FF I had 14-24mm optics.

How much do you shoot below 24mm ff equiv.? That's what I'd be asking myself. I'd also be looking at the new 16-35 F4 IS. The 24-105 is such an outstanding utiliy lens.

Well almost every wedding few shots are below 24mm FF.

Also I go to Lapland few times a year, there's a lot to photograph with wide lens. Altough 24mm FF is wide enough, but the real problem is that will the 1.3x crop be too tight in the end.

Maybe I should try to get my hands on to both of these lenses and do a little test.

hattumies wrote in post #17381556
I recently got my 1D mk IV and now I'm getting used to 1.3x crop sensor.

Although I mainly shoot with full frame, I also have a 1.3 crop camera which I use whenever I need a high frame rate, mainly for wildlife. I have found my 16-35mm f/2.8 Mk II to be a very useful lens on 1.3 crop - it's equivalent to ~21-50mm on full frame, perfect for landscapes when my main subject needs a long lens.

That suggests for the "nature" part of your question the 17-40 might be the one. But I don't own and haven't used either of the lenses in your question. Based on what I know about the 24-105, I personally woulld never buy it for wedding use on 1.3 crop because 35mm on full frame would be an important focal length, and it has the reputation of being fairly bad at its widest focal length. But I don't shoot weddings and for all I know 35mm isn't that important.

Also consider the old 16-35 f/2.8 Mk I. It's supposed to be poor in the corners, but the 1.3 sensor can't see those. I rather think it was designed as the standard zoom for 1.3 crop. Maybe it's in your budget.

The 17-40 has gotten good reviews over the years as good bang for the buck, so probably looks to be a good way to go.

So after comparing these two lenses with my own hands I ended up with 17-40 f4 L due to it's better focal length with 1.3x crop for my needs. I tested also the 24-105 and noticed that I was almost all the time shooting between 24mm and 50mm. When I needed longer range i swapped to 70-200 for it's better IQ.

Conclusion: 24-105 is a great all around lens for example to my hiking trips, but in everyday use I just liked the 17-40 much more.

Thanks for the help!