17-40 or 24-7???

Which one?
17-40 f/4L here it is cheap... but L and wide angle
24-70 f/2.8L, here it is faster and more reach, BUT not too wide!

All choices will be coupled with a 70-200 2.8 IS

My main use for these will be Weddings. Sometimes will travel, and use for walkaround.
Is the 24mm not wide enough for weddings?
then what about the gap between 40 and 70mm?

24mm on a crop body is not wide at all.
I would choose 17-40 then pick up a 50 prime to cover the gap from 40 to 70

Luckie8 wrote in post #2061291
24mm on a crop body is not wide at all.
I would choose 17-40 then pick up a 50 prime to cover the gap from 40 to 70

Sounds like what I'm planning to do once I get my 70-200.

Cool... What about the 17-55?
or no...

I agree with what Luckie8 says. 24mm (x1.6) is not quite wide enough for my tastes either. The 17-40 would be a good walk-around lens and it would also do fine at weddings if you are using flash.

get the 24-70... its the perfect wedding lens. 17-40 could be too slow, and why get it when you have a 17-85 you can use for the wide shots?

I'd go for 24-70 then once I had enough money, an ultrawide to really get wide.

Hey wait a minute...I did exactly that!

I recommend that 24-70 for weddings because it is so handy. Some have opted for the Tamron 28-75 which is also a wonderful lens and much cheaper.

On a crop body as the OP has, I'd hesitate recommending the 24-70, is it really wide enough?

I have 16-35L and 24-70L, both are so fast and both are great.
I am so happy with both and i don't look back for another lenses as 17-40 or 17-55 or 24-105 as i need f2.8 or Wider always.
Good luck.

kevin_c wrote in post #2061517
On a crop body as the OP has, I'd hesitate recommending the 24-70, is it really wide enough?

Not for everything. But you could argue 17mm isn't wide enough either..for everything...or 40mm long enough...or 70mm long enough...

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2061794
Not for everything. But you could argue 17mm isn't wide enough either..for everything...or 40mm long enough...or 70mm long enough...

I agree totally, But the OP's only asking opinions on these two lenses and focal lengths

kevin_c wrote in post #2061937
I agree totally, But the OP's only asking opinions on these two lenses and focal lengths

Its all good.... im still learning, so i am open to ANY opinions... but thanks for trying to keep it on topic...

-Have you asked anyone in the 'weddings' forum?
They will be the 'experts' to ask about what lenses they use and why.

You really need to cover from 10 to 300mm but that is not always practical

I think anything wider than 17mm on a crop body is likely to introduce severe distortion at the ends of any group shots, although I'm sure if you keep the camera level you can get away with wider.
The 24-70L is by all acounts a good lens, but I'm sure you will find it not wide enough for a lot of group shots.
You say you have (or will have?) a 70-200 so that will cover that range OK, you may have to have 2 others to cover the 10mm to 70mm range, but if I had to chose just one lens to compliment the 70-200 it would be the 17-40L although it is 'only' f/4. You mention the 17-55mm that would give you a bit more range and it's faster (and more expensive!)

You may need a 50 f/1.4 to fill the gap and this would make a great low light lens as well.

The options are quite varied I'm afraid...

surfologist wrote in post #2061194
Which one?
17-40 f/4L here it is cheap... but L and wide angle
24-70 f/2.8L, here it is faster and more reach, BUT not too wide!

All choices will be coupled with a 70-200 2.8 IS

My main use for these will be Weddings. Sometimes will travel, and use for walkaround.
Is the 24mm not wide enough for weddings?
then what about the gap between 40 and 70mm?

i own both and i think you should too .

ed rader