17-40 or 24-105

OK I have a friend who is upgrading, he is willing to part with one of these lenses REAL REAL cheap just for little ol' me and is selling the other to help fund the move. Now I have the 28-105 and like the range (crop camera) since I seem to shoot towards the tele end of things. But sometimes my 24 prime isn't quite wide enough. Now I would only shoot wide maybe 2-5% of the time. As my 200 sits on the camera about 90% of the time. To be able to buy either lens I'd have to sell of a few lenses, including the 28-105. I worry that the 17-40 would be too wide sometimes and I'd need more reach, and I worry that the 24-105 isn't wide enough for somethings. Of course my husband told me to just take two shots and put them together or crop to make a fake pano type shot.

The choice is driving me nuts! I know no one can help I have to make the decision on my own, but I'm in need to help!! Bascially I need the best lens for me and that means the best IQ. I like to blow up my shots large (20x30) and the cheap zoom can't handle it. I want something to take to the local fairs and festivals and something so I only need to take one lens with me if needed.

24-105L.

yes, it is the same focal range as your 28-105USM II, but it offers more in terms of colour, saturation, IS. and i presume you're going to use this range so much more than wide angle, so if you're going to get a cheap lens, you might as well get as much value you can out of it.

It would be a hard decision, depends if you really need the ultra-wide. Only way to really know is to check the EXIF data on your photos and see what focal length you use the most. Both will give you very good IQ and both are L's so I don't think that will be an issue. If you do lots of landscapes then I think the 17-40 would be ideal, however if you want versatility then the 24-105... oh and you can't rule out the usefulness of IS

If I had to choose between the 17-40 and the 24-105, I'd choose the 24-105. I used the 24-70 for years as my only lens on a crop body and yes, I did wish for something wider, but I wanted longer more than wider. Now I have the 17-40 and I like the wideness of it (not really that wide, I know, on a crop camera). But I like closeup shots more than wide. That's just my style. And, with the 24-105, you are getting the IS, and that makes a lot of difference to me. When I use my 17-40 now, I often, very often, find myself wishing it would go a little longer.

Thanks everyone. I do like closeups over wide most of the time. When I tested his 17-40 I didn't really do wide angle landscapes, I got real close to things and shot it that way. When I had my FD system I mostly used the 35, 50 and 85 other then my teles, so I guess it'll have to be the 24-105.

24-105 gets my vote...

24-105. My rule of thumb is when in doubt, go for range. The 24-105 has much more range, therefore, more for our money.

I got the 24-105. Found the 17-40 not long enough for my use.
Now considering a 135 or 200 prime

willz75 wrote in post #3661586
oh and you can't rule out the usefulness of IS

??? I'm not understanding this last part

canoflan wrote in post #3662203
24-105. My rule of thumb is when in doubt, go for range. The 24-105 has much more range, therefore, more for our money.

My thoughts exactly.

The 17-40mm is a great lens, but again, it's rather specific to a certain kind of photography.