17-40 f/4 or 24-105 f/4

I am trying to decide which "L" lens to purchase here in the near future. I am torn between these two. I have heard that the 17-40 is one of the sharpest lenses, but would like anyone that has either of these two that would care to comment on their experiences with them.

I will be using it for Trains, Sunsets, Landscapes & the kids doing kid stuff. Pretty much my walk around lens. I know that they both have their limitations and benefits but would like to hear from any end users.

Thanks,

Kevin

I used the 17-40 as my walk around lens for about a year and only just sold it because I started to do more low light photography (weddings). The 17-40 is a fantastic lens and when I had it on my 40D it always performed great, any soft shot that I got was user error. The range is a bit short on the long end though, so if you think you'll need to use a longer lens then get the 24-105mm. But to me it sounds like you'd be better off with the wider 17-40mm from the type of shooting that you do. You could also take the money that you saved from the 24-105 and get a nice longer prime (85mm ƒ/1.8 or 100mm ƒ/2) to take care of any of the longer things that you would shoot.

24-105 is a fantastic lens. Pleasure to use on FF or crop camera. But then again, so is 17-40 (mine should be here tomorrow)

Do you shoot with a FF body or a crop body? They both have different functions, depending on which camera you use.

What camera? I sold my 17-40 because it was too wide, brought in a 24-105 and I am very happy, but I shoot with a 5D.

perryge wrote in post #7112386
What camera? I sold my 17-40 because it was too wide, brought in a 24-105 and I am very happy, but I shoot with a 5D.

Perry,

I was following your other cool thread on the 35L where I saw you settled on the 24-105. Looks like it's floating your boat. What's your walk around setup now> The 24-105, flash and 85L?

I'm curious as I think I may go that route or perhaps the 24L, 50 1.4, and 85L/135L.

Don't mean to hijack the thread...

VSV wrote in post #7112633
Perry,

I was following your other cool thread on the 35L where I saw you settled on the 24-105. Looks like it's floating your boat. What's your walk around setup now> The 24-105, flash and 85L?

I'm curious as I think I may go that route or perhaps the 24L, 50 1.4, and 85L/135L.

Don't mean to hijack the thread...

I don't do 'walkaround' photography. If I did I'd probably just go 5D + 24-105, nothing else. Maybe 1DIII + 24-105 if it looks like it'll rain or snow.

But yes, I'm lovin' this lens. A lot more than I thought I would because I always used to think I'd rather have a 28 1.8, 50 1.4, and 85 1.5 for the same price. But I'm pleasantly surprised. I shot a studio session the other day and it let me work SO quickly. I never needed fast glass at wider angles anyway - and the IS is great.

Personally I prefer the 17-40. When I used a crop body (30D) it was my walkaround lens, and when I upgraded to the 5D I found the situation to be the same. Only obviously it was considerably wider on FF.
It's only over the last 6 months that my 17-40 has ended up playing second fiddle to my 35L, but it's the one zoom lens I don't think I would ever sell.

My 24-105 ended up sepnding far too much time in the cupboard at home so in the end I sold it and I have to say that I honestly don't miss it at all even thought it was a very good lens.

It really just depends how wide you want to go.

17-40 is great, a little to wide at times for me, and wish i had some more DOF, but eh..

Have you thought of the 24-70?

Hulka wrote in post #7112131
I will be using it for Trains, Sunsets, Landscapes & the kids doing kid stuff. Pretty much my walk around lens. I know that they both have their limitations and benefits but would like to hear from any end users.

You didn't say what camera you are using. (Or I didn't see it). The 17-40 is a good walk-around lens for the APS-C format, covering moderate wide-angle to very short telephoto. For a full-frame camera, though, it zoom from very strong wide angle to just on the wide side of normal.

The 24-105 would be nearly all telephoto on a small sensor, but on full frame it goes from strong wide angle to short (but not as short as above) telephoto.

For the applications you mentioned, it seems to me that moderate wide at least up through normal would be needed. So, if your camera has an APS sensor, I think the 17-40 will be more useful, and if you have a 24x36mm sensor, the 24-105 will be more useful.

Both are excellent lenses.

Rick "thinking a lens of better quality but the wrong focal length isn't much use" Denney

Rdenney's advice is on target. Using a 40D, I find the 17-40 to be an outstanding walkaround lens enabling shots that would probably be too narrow for the 24-105 with crop factor. Of course it depends on the camera you are using but I would rather have a 17-40 plus a 70-200 (but not IS) for about the same amount of money as a new 24-105. But that's me and as others have said - it depends on you and your camera. Good luck on your decision!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

For "kids doing stuff", I think the 17-40 might be a little short on range. For me, I like the range the 24-105L has. At times, I wish I had it were wider, but there are many more times where the added range has come in handy.

Both lenses are pointless and overpriced for crop cameras. Get neither unless anticipating a FF upgrade

smorter wrote in post #7113389
Both lenses are pointless and overpriced for crop cameras. Get neither unless anticipating a FF upgrade

WOW that's harsh! But I agree. 17-55 2.8 IS ftw.

Sorry, I am using a 40D. I thought I mentioned it but I forgot to.

perryge wrote in post #7113403
WOW that's harsh! But I agree. 17-55 2.8 IS ftw.

Yes I do anticipate a FF upgrade but not until next year some time.

Thanks for the input so far.

It really depends what you want to use the lens for. Debating which one has better IQ is quite pointless. They cover quite differnt focal ranges and have different widest aperture.