Is 24mm wide enough for most of you?

I have both the 17-40 and the 24-70. I really like them both, but I'm pretty sure that if I had gotten the 24-70 first, I might not have bought the 17-40. Not because I don't like the wider zoom, but because I cover a good part of its range with the larger, faster, and more versatile lens.

Of course, a lot of that depends on what you intend to shoot. If you shoot a good deal of architecture with narrow streets, the wider lens is a must.

I wasn't happy at 28 and knew I would not be satisfied with 24. The 17-40 was a sweet addition to my bag.

I understand the 28-70 won't fullfill my wide-end dreams, and a 16-35 or 17-40 will compliment it some time in the future when I can afford it. But at the moment I have to ask what I need the most, and I think the 28-70 range will see more action than the 16-28 will. And if I can close this deal, then it's quite a bargain at nearly half the price. Cause no matter if I buy the 28-70 or the 16-35 first, I know the other will probably be my next lens-purchase anyway (except that I probably first have to buy back my 50mm 1.4, as I do some (really) low-light shooting now and then. But the 50 is quite cheap anyway.

I have the 24-70 L and it is my default lens. Below that range (38mm equivalent in a full frame) I want a 24mm equivalent, and that equates to a 15mm lens. I skipped the wide-angle zoom and went for a Tamron 14mm f2.8 SP. It is an exceptional lens, it is a good length on my Drebel, and it is fast.

I have used a 24mm extensively with film, including pit and paddock work at motorsports events, and I love what it produces. Until I get a 1D or another body with a crop factor less than 1.6 I will probably stick with the 14mm. This weekend will be the test.

No. You have to remember on our cameras the 16-35 is a 26-56 lens. We both (the wife and I) shoot with Canon 16-35's so we have two of those. In our bag right now we have:

D60/BG-ED3
10D/BG-ED3
Canon 16-35L
Canon 16-35L
Canon 28-105
Canon 28-135 IS
Canon 50:1.8 Mk I
Canon 70-200L IS
Canon 75-300 IS
Canon 100 Macro
Canon 400 5.6L

We like to take landscape shots and just LOVE the 16-35 lens, thus having two of them.

With our 28-1?5 lenses we haven't seen the need to purchase 24-70L's yet. If Ani (the wife) can finally get a job, then we would like to get a couple of 1D MkII's but that is a LOT of money for us. I really think you would like the 16-35L. We really enjoy using ours.

Ken

And before I got the 17-40 the 28-135 was the walkaround. Now we have two walkarounds. We'll see what becomes the walkaround on the MKII when I get it.

I wouldn't used any "walkaround" lenses on the MK-II until the market-demand for that camera have been met =D How far wouldn't you've been willing to go, if you suddenly saw a guy walking around whistling and looking for juatabird outside your house with a MK-II around his neck

allbeit a great lense, i don't yet feel i need the 24-70. i use the 17-40
for wide. i also have a 50 1.4, and the 70-200F4. for now this is working out good. i use the 28-135 as my walk around lens.

thanks,
eric1

Ironically, the 17-40 would have worked just fine for me today - most of my shots were between 24 and 50 and I might have been able to go wider for a greater representation of size of the object I was shooting (A train engine in this case).

I usually find myself in that 24-70 range, both indoors and out so it is a vital lens in my lineup. If I had to give up all lenses but one, the 24-70 would be the one I would keep.

I have to agree with Guillermo, the Sigma 12-24mm is a great lens.

I use it most as a landscape lens, tripod mounted etc. and perfectly level. In this mode you don't really see the extreme distortion/perspective changes.

However, if you get up close to your subject, you can have a lot of fun. In the shots below I was tens of inches close to the subject, rather than feet from it. Great at motorshows as there isn't a chance in hell of anybody walking in front of you.

Cheers

Ian

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I have the 20-35 from canon and i'm thinking of buying the 17-40 because i really miss the wide angle. I miss it especially in cities where you can't walk backwards because of all the buildings.

I had the 20-30 on my analog EOS so i know what it can be to go wide...

Vvizard,

definitely take a look at the Tamron 28-75 /2.8 XR DI as well!

This and the 17-40 can most likely be bought at the cost of the 24-70 L.

Best regards,
Andy

Thanks, I will But I really like to join the L-club now to find out what all this fuzz is all about =) But if the tamron is a fixed 2.8 it looks interesting. The Sigma ain't that attractive to me because it doesn't have a fixed aperture. I really like the idea of 2.8 coverage all the way from 16-200mm some time in the future, and compliment them with even faster primes possible at 20, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200. At the end of my lifetime, I guess I've afforded all those =D

My favorite "really wide" shot taken with the 12-24 (at 12 of course)

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Wow, that perspective _IS_ impressive, no doubt But for the moment I think I wan't the 28-70 or 24-70, because if I sell of my 50mm to afford a new lens, my only lens is the 70-200, and by buying the 24-70, I can get constant f/2.8 coverage all the way from 24-200mm, and that sounds quite usefull to me. If I buy the sigma instead, I will have a gap from 24 - 70, and.... there won't be money left to fill it :/ But darn, that gave an idea.. That lens might be what I'm looking for instead of the 16-35 when time, err.. money for another lens comes.. But that won't happen anytime soon, so I got plenty of time to think about that one =) Thanks for showing me this shot btw.