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

that is a ggood question. right now i own the 17-40L and i love it to death. however, i am in the process of buying the 24-70 and i have been wondering if i should keep them both or just sell the 17-40 and buy another lens instead. the problem is that i use a 1D because if i used a 20 or 30D, i would have sold the 17-40 and bought the 10-22 for sure...

cjm wrote in post #2046376
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.

i have both. i use the 24-70 as a walkaround and the 17-40 for landscapes and close quarter walkaround.

i was in the monterey area again this weekend and took hundreds of landscapes with the 17-40. i also took equal amounts of pictures with the 24-70 and 70-200 at the sentinel triathlon in santa cruz and on various beaches in the area.

i used my 28mm for a few night shots and didn't use my 85mm at all. so all my lenses except one got a workout this weekend .

don't let the anti-overlap guys get to you. buy lenses that you will use not combinations that look good on paper but in reality gather dust.

ed rader

I think they compliment each other especially on a crop body since 24 is not wide at all at 1.6 crop

For me, I find the 24-XX zooms to be near perfect.
Since I only used digicam before, and with max 35mm at the wide end,
I don't find that 24mm on a crop camera is really limiting for my need.
If I walk around, I will use my 24-85, or maybe a new 24-105, still deciding.
But if I want to go wide, I stick with my 12-24.

With good planning of what I will shoot, I find that I bring only one lens and
never seem to need another focal. So I'm pretty happy with the market offering
of 10 to 24mm for wide, 24-70 for normal and 70-200 for long.

The only thing is your personnal preference. And only you can answer that question.
If you already have a 28-70, plan on going real wide, like the EF-S 10-22.
The 17-40 or 16-35 are superb lens, on 1.3x or FF since they provide 16-17mm wide.
To replicate that on a 1.6x, you need 10-12mm.

Hope it helps. I know it's confusing choosing a lens. I'm in the market for one

I wouldn't do without my 17-40. (I have the 24-105 currently, though I've owned the 24-70 until just recently.) They compliment each other very well. 24 isn't wide enough for landscapes (IMO) so the 17 pushes the envelope (on the 5D) w/o much horizon-line distortion...and yet gives it a "vastness" that the 24 doesn't. Plus I've had great luck w/photographing large interiors with the 17-40...chapels, monasteries and the like. The 24 wouldn't give it the same scope...the 24-105 on the other hand is my "almost always on" lens...for general purposes. The 24-70 used to be that...so I think they compliment each other very well...and I find I use them both, quite often.

I cover the wide end with a Tokina 12-24. This complimentys the 24-105 for walk arounds.

I have 10-22, 16-35L, sigma 12-24, sigma 8mm, so can i got wider if possible.

I use the 17-40 and the 24-70 for different situations and lighting conditions. Both are great lens and I'll keep them both. Being that I have a crop camera the 17-40 does the job for landscapes.

It's still useful, but not as much as say, a 10-22mm EF-S lens if your camera body can handle it. You're only getting the 17-23mm range over the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens.

I can't use EF-S lenses on either of my bodies so I stuck with the 16-35mm f/2.8L zoom to complement the 24-70mm f/2.8L. This way I at least have the extra range of 16-23mm. I may or may not pick up either the 14mm or 15mm prime in the future.

At the low end, every millimeter has a profound visual effect, so it's more useful than it sounds... But the wider you go, the more distortion you'll get as well - so it becomes less and less useful (but when you need wide, you need wide).

cjm wrote in post #2047087
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.

The beauty of L lenses is that they maintain a strong resale value - so you could always sell it and not really lose much money in the process.

I owned the 24-70 and it's SO fast that even if they did release the IS version, you'd not be missing out on much at all.

I have both and use both,they both have there place.

cjm wrote in post #2047082
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.

tough question for a tired mind to follow .

if i ever go FF i'll sell my 17-40 and use the 24-70L as my wide lens or the 24-105.

one thing that makes me hesitant about FF is the lack of lens choice. one thing i do like is a true 24mm WA and that is all i need .

ed rader

I might be nuts for thinking this but I think I might keep the 17-40 L that I use most of the time and try out a Sigma 24-70 DG lens. Instead of $1400 bucks like the canon version its only $600. I am not sure I would use the 24-70 L enough to spend $800 extra.

Yeah I know the 24-70 L is the best out there but from the reviews I have been reading the Siggy doesnt seem that bad of a lens and the price is pretty nice too.

Am I nuts?

with psaug on B&H that 24-70L come with about $1100 or so