Should I Get EF17-40 F4?

I currently have EF24-105 f4 but are dreaming for 17-40 (i can't afford 16-35). I like the 24-105, but i drool at the pictures taken with 17-40. Btw, i am using 5Dmk2.

Anyone has both of these lenses? Is the extra expense justify for the extra coverage at the wide end from 17 - 24? Is the 7cm at the wide end really make significant difference?

Appreciate any advise either way. Thanks.

The 17-40 is nearly half the price of it...but if you're keeping both then it's really not worth the extra 7mm.

Scampo wrote in post #7996150
The 17-40 is nearly half the price of it...but if you're keeping both then it's really not worth the extra 7mm.

Thanks Scampo. I am not giving up on 24-105. Your view is that the price of 17-40 is not worth the extra 7mm.

Need more input from the field.

you have a crop body, look at the 10-22 for wide and 17-55 f2.8 for better than the 17-40

If you like shooting ultra wide angle, it's definitely worth it! 17mm is considerably wider than 24mm.

depends on what you shoot.
I don't shoot wide often, but when I do, I appreciate that it's there.
Gives you a totally different perspective.

And the 7mm on the wide end makes a WORLD of a difference.

p32shooter wrote in post #7996374
you have a crop body, look at the 10-22 for wide and 17-55 f2.8 for better than the 17-40

I think he said he will be using his 5d2. I would say that the 7mm is a huge difference, and i think it would go well with the 24-105. Personally i would save a few more weeks and opt for the 16-35 though.

that 7mm is going to make a monster difference on FF. I've owned the 17-40L twice and its an awesome lens. I just picked up tamrons version, 17-35, and i love how wide 17mm is.

Cl!ckFoto wrote in post #7997776
that 7mm is going to make a monster difference on FF. I've owned the 17-40L twice and its an awesome lens. I just picked up tamrons version, 17-35, and i love how wide 17mm is.

timnosenzo wrote in post #7996392
If you like shooting ultra wide angle, it's definitely worth it! 17mm is considerably wider than 24mm.

If that is the desired effect that you want, go for it. You can't modify your 24-105 on the wide end for the price of a 17-40. So you would be justified in purchasing it.

I have both lenses, love the 17-40, but I like UWA shots, had the 10-22 on my 40D. And it has less distortion from 24-40 than the 24-105.

M

gibbo182 wrote in post #7997618
Personally i would save a few more weeks and opt for the 16-35 though.

Only if you need the extra stop, though. At f/5.6 and above, the IQ of these lenses is near identical.

Crop @ f/5.6

Crop @ f/8

Crop @ f/11

Considering the 16-35 is twice the price of the 17-40, and takes a bigger, more expensive filter, no sense in buying more than you need.

Echoherbie wrote in post #7996133
Is the 7cm at the wide end really make significant difference?

The 7mm makes a big difference. Don't think of it as 7mm, think of it in relative terms. The 17mm is 30% wider.

Really depends on your style.

I find that 24mm on a FF body is wide enough most of the time. I do have the 17-40L for landscape/cityscape/ta​ll building type shots...but even then I find that in most cases 24mm is wide enough...Unless there is a specific reason for using it, the 17-40L generally stays home. You'll certainly feel the difference of 7mm. No doubt. I do. And it can be fun to play around with the perspective and all that...

But if you are into the UWA style, then by all means go for it. It's a great lens.

Echoherbie wrote in post #7996163
Thanks Scampo. I am not giving up on 24-105. Your view is that the price of 17-40 is not worth the extra 7mm.

Need more input from the field.

I really like my 17-40. It's very sharp and plenty wide enough.

Marius B wrote in post #7997817
...it has less distortion from 24-40 than the 24-105.

M

+1 This is why I'm picking it up.