How useful is a 17-40 if you have a 24-70?

To all those that either have a 17-40 L and bought a 24-70 or to those that had a 17-40 and sold it because the 24-70 was good enough. My question is too you. How much use is a 17-40 L if you have a 24-70 L? Do you find yourself ever using the 17-40 L or does it basically sit in your bag rarely ever used. Your imput please. Thanks.

17-40 is Wide Angle Lens, 24-70 is Telephoto or meduim zoom, so 17-40 is wider and good for landscape, sometimes 24-70 is not so wide, and with 17-40 you can't go longer than 40 which limited it to a focal length not covered by 24-70, so different focal length for sure different use situations.

24mm is not at all wide on a crop camera. If you do landscapes or buildings, you need wider coverage IMO. The 17-40 does duty as my walkaround lens. I don't have any coverage in the 40-70mm range among my lenses and I don't miss it. But that how I shoot, may not work for you.

Well Chris, you have a 28-80 lens in your sig that's 2.8 at the wide end, that's kinda close to a 24-70 for reference. Do YOU use the 28-80 range or does it sit in your bag? If so, why does it? I can see the merits in having both but I'd rather carry the 17-40 and a telephoto like 70-200 and foot zoom the gap. This all changes if you NEED 2.8, and your collection looks to be mostly F/4.

Now, if you had a full frame camera these lenses serve VERY different purposes...

I have a 24-70 and a 16-35 for my 20D, and would not be without either. Sure, there is a little overlap, but neither lens takes the place of the other outside of the overlap region.

I bought the 17-40 first to use for weddings and party shots and after needing a little more reach for weddings got the 24-70. The 17-40 is an excellent lens but now the 24-70 stays on the 30d most of the time now. Actually this is why I decided to get a used 20D since I had a good selection of lenses and now use the 17-40 on the 20D. To answer your question, I perfer the 24-70 and if you have that lens I see no reason to need the 17-40. If you feel any need for wide angle the 10-22 is a neat lens for the 20D.

Jack

I've considered going to either the 24-70mm L or the 24-105mm L IS with an EF-S 10-22mm to cover the wide end. It really does depend what YOU really need. If you don't often want WIDE, and only want 'wide', then the 24mm could be ok. Oh, and consider the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS. I've heard good things.

I bought the 24-70 first and then a month later got the 17-40. Although I don't use the 17-40 as much, I still can't take it out of my primary bag because if I need a wide shot, that's the best lens I have, well I have the kit lens, but . . . .

In my opinion the EF-S 10-22 is a much better companion to the 24-70 than the 17-40. Either way, you can't go wrong with either lens. They are both superb lenses and I am glad to say that I have owned all three.

Lucky.

Depends on your body. I used the 17-40 a LOT on my 10D, even though I had a 24-70. When I went to the 1D2, the 24-70 became the most used "everyday" lens. Full frame leans towards the 24-70 or even the 24-105.

As others have said, it depends on your shooting style. 17 mm makes a nice wide angle on the 20D, but is very wide on full-frame. 40 mm is a bit longer than "normal" on the 20D, but is essentially a wide-normal on full-frame. Try to match the lens to your use.

Don't forget the other lenses that cover this range as well, such as the 17-55 EF-S or the competitive alternatives.

I'm going to try to answer the OP squarely, on all fours.

I owned the 17-40 first. It wasn't until I went full frame that I realized what wide angle really was. There was no 10-22 when I owned the 10D or 20D. I was astonished at the view and the ability to get real close up to a subject and still get the entirety in.

I then purchased the 24-70 because I just had to have it.

Until recently, and besides two weddings where the 24-70 lived on the camera, I rarely used either lens.

I'm now using the 24-70 on a much more frequent basis, almost as my walk around lens, while my 70-200 sits in a waist bag ready for use.

My 17-40 is seeing very little use these days.

As to landscapes, which I love to shoot, if I'm going to include people in the shot, such as my family on vacation, I prefer a greater focal length for the compression it affords.

mark

Here's one with a 17-40mm:

Hmm this is interesting. I am thinking of getting a 24-70mm L first and then some day, probably in spring 2008 get a FF camera.

Here is why I ask this question. I have two bodies, the 10D and the 20D. When my 300mm L was not sent to Canon it lived on my 20D. My 17-40mm L usually sits in my bag simply because the 28-80 has a longer reach. Im trying to sell that one mainly because I want a 24-70 and don't need this old fantastic lens that is primarly on my camera all the time. So owning the both would seem redundant and I wouldn't be using the 28-80 any more if I had one.

Its sort of, yeah the 17mm is 7mm wider then 24mm but the 24mm is f2.8 where as the 17mm is f4. Not a big deal for me but 7mm too me doesn't seem like a big enough difference and is probably a difference of stepping back 1 or 2 feet to get the same image. However I had the 17-35 f2.8 that I bought to replace this 17-40 and I ended up selling it less then 24hrs after getting it simply because I didn't like it as much as this 17-40 L lens.

So I am sort of thinking, should i sell my 17-40 L now or wait until after I get a 24-70. It sounds like a stupid question that I should already know the answer too but I haven't a clue and am 50/50.

but knowing my luck, I'll probably buy the 24-70 L brand new and 6 months later they will release a IS version as the companion to the 70-200mm IS versions.