24-105mm vs 17-40mm on crop

[Eugene]

I currently own the 18-200mm, 18-55mm IS II, and the 50mm 1.8.
The body I'm using is a 450D, but I plan to upgrade to a 60D or wait for the 70D
My question is, which one would complement my current set of lenses the most?
I chose these 2 because they were in my budget, and obviously, I wanted L......

I shoot events, sports, streets, presentations, trips, etc.

[marekjoz]

24-105 seems to be better. IS on long end an seems to better suit your needs. 17-40 would be good for street or landscape but in my opinion 24-105 has better optics.
If you plan to shoot movies then on the other way 17-40 maybe better - although it lacks IS, it is perfocal and lightweight.

[Eugene]

Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
And for video, which I do plan to take from time to time, I've seen people's example videos of how important IS is for videos.......

[RC]

Based on what you currently have and since you didn't mention landscape photog, I'd go with the 24-105.  That way if you decide you need something wider, you can add the 10-22 which compliments the 24-105 very nicely as opposed to the 17-40. 

[marekjoz]

Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
And for video, which I do plan to take from time to time, I've seen people's example videos of how important IS is for videos.......

17 is also not wide enough on crop (from my experiece). IS is very important for videos. But it is also important not to be forced to adjust focus each time you zoom in or out (which means perfocal). On 17-40 IS is not so much important for stills, for video a little more important.

Both lens are fine. You already own two lens which cover the short end of 17-40.

[akiskev]

Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
And for video, which I do plan to take from time to time, I've seen people's example videos of how important IS is for videos.......

For me 24mm on aps-c is not wide enough. Although 24-105 is great for full frame, for crop sensors it's just not right. I know it because my dad has a 24-70, and every time I try to use it on my aps-c body, I find its zoom range very awkward and go back to my 17-55.
There is a small possibility that 24-105 will suit you, if you TOTALLY FORGET wide angle that is.

[marekjoz]

Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
And for video, which I do plan to take from time to time, I've seen people's example videos of how important IS is for videos.......

For me 24mm on aps-c is not wide enough. Although 24-105 is great for full frame, for crop sensors it's just not right. I know it because my dad has a 24-70, and every time I try to use it on my aps-c body, I find its zoom range very awkward and go back to my 17-55.
There is a small possibility that 24-105 will suit you, if you TOTALLY FORGET wide angle that is.

I currently own the 18-200mm, 18-55mm IS II, and the 50mm 1.8.
(...)
My question is, which one would complement my current set of lenses the most?
(...)

In my opinion - complement doesn't mean adding the third zoom covered by the other two...

[Eugene]

I suppose 70% of the time I would be using it for photos and 30% for videos.....

True... I shouldn't really notice the difference between 18mm and 17mm...
24mm really isn't wide enough? I've read some articles saying it'd still to the job considering anything below 50mm (35mm equ) is considered wide...

One more question, I WILL notice the difference shooting with either one of these lens compared to my current set, correct?

Complement... Ok, let's say I'm aiming for better image and build quality

[RC]

Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
And for video, which I do plan to take from time to time, I've seen people's example videos of how important IS is for videos.......

For me 24mm on aps-c is not wide enough. Although 24-105 is great for full frame, for crop sensors it's just not right. I know it because my dad has a 24-70, and every time I try to use it on my aps-c body, I find its zoom range very awkward and go back to my 17-55.
There is a small possibility that 24-105 will suit you, if you TOTALLY FORGET wide angle that is.

Agree.  24 is not wide at all on a crop.  I have a crop and the 24-105 plus the 16-35 which is barely wide enough for me.  I use the two as my walk around lens when I don't mind carrying a second lens-- the 24-105 being the second lens.  Both lens are fantastic. 

[Eugene]

So the 24-105mm wouldn't be as ideal as the 17-40mm as a walk around lens on a cropped sensor?

[Tijn]

The 17-40 is lost on a crop camera. It's great for ultra wide angles on a fullframe camera (which are hard to get right). As a crop camera "standard" lens however, it just lacks usefulness. Zoom range less than the standard kit lenses, no IS... There are better (EF-S) lenses to get for crop cameras.

The 24-105 is a great allround lens for fullframe cameras. 24mm on fullframe is framing-wise equivalent to a 15mm focal length on a crop camera. Unfortunately, if you put this lens on a crop camera, it's 24mm. You lack the range between 17-24mm and that is a MAJOR thing. Just go on a shoot now, and force yourself not to use any focal length under 24mm from your kit zoom. What do you see? No more wide shots at all.

For a crop camera, the best lens to get in the main zoom range is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. Its build quality is ok (but not L quality), but its image quality is impressive and L-grade. Having a useful zoom range ánd IS ánd a very large f/2.8 aperture on the entire zoom range, this is just a great lens for a crop camera. None of the L zooms can do this for a crop camera - because they're primarily made for fullframe cameras. The disadvantage to this lens is that it's expensive (for a non-L build quality lens) and it will not work on fullframe cameras because it's an EF-S lens, not an EF lens (which is relevant for if you ever were to upgrade your body to full-frame).

[akiskev]

So the 24-105mm wouldn't be as ideal as the 17-40mm as a walk around lens on a cropped sensor?

Yes, BUT
If you need better IQ and a more useful zoom range + IS, get a 17-55.
17-40 is very nice, but it's kinda waste on a crop body. I'm saying that after having used it for over 2 years on my 400d.
Now I have a 17-55 which makes a lot more sense for me(constant 2.8, IS, better IQ).
I didn't sell the 17-40 because my dad uses it on his FF camera..

edit: I TOTALLY AGREE with Tijn!!!!

[elflord]

I currently own the 18-200mm, 18-55mm IS II, and the 50mm 1.8.
The body I'm using is a 450D, but I plan to upgrade to a 60D or wait for the 70D
My question is, which one would complement my current set of lenses the most?
I chose these 2 because they were in my budget, and obviously, I wanted L......

I shoot events, sports, streets, presentations, trips, etc.

Since you already have two walkaround lenses, an additional one would not  complement them so much as it would replace the 18-55mm.

Getting an L for the sake of getting an L is a mistake. These lenses are made for full frame bodies and aren't really optimal as APS-C walkaround lenses. The 17-40mm f/4 lacks range and speed. The 24-105mm is slow and lacks wide angle coverage.

I'd say go with Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 or one of the third party equivalents. The only reason the 17-55mm doesn't get the L label is that it's APS-C only. But it's a constant f/2.8 zoom that performs well across its range. There's no way it wouldn't be an L if it worked on full frame. 

[neuroanatomist]

...obviously, I wanted L......

Ok, but...why?

The lenses you currently have don't offer the best IQ, so presumably you want better IQ in that focal range?  I think the best general purpose zoom for APS-C is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Same price as the 24-105mm, but delivers better optical quality on the same APS-C camera, and gives both wide angle and short tele.  FYI, wide angle is 35mm and wider (FF equivalent), so 24mm on APS-C isn't wide angle). 

For the uses you indicate, the 17-55mm is ideal in its range; you obviously get more reach with the 24-105, but f/4 is slow for sports/street.  The 17-55 also delivers better IQ than the 17-40, is longer, faster, and has IS.

For longer shots, given the uses you mention and the constraints of budget, I'd consider a fast prime. Not considering cost, I'd recommend the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, but it's quite expensive.  So, for the lens after the 17-55mm, I'd look at your shots with the 18-200, and see what focal length would suit you best. Lenses I'd consider are the 85 mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8L II, and 135mm f/2L.  FWIW, the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are two of the best values in the Canob lineup, great IQ for relatively low cost, and the 200/2.8 isn't far behind.

[jwong]

...obviously, I wanted L......

Ok, but...why?

The lenses you currently have don't offer the best IQ, so presumably you want better IQ in that focal range?  I think the best general purpose zoom for APS-C is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Same price as the 24-105mm, but delivers better optical quality on the same APS-C camera, and gives both wide angle and short tele.  FYI, wide angle is 35mm and wider (FF equivalent), so 24mm on APS-C isn't wide angle). 

For the uses you indicate, the 17-55mm is ideal in its range; you obviously get more reach with the 24-105, but f/4 is slow for sports/street.  The 17-55 also delivers better IQ than the 17-40, is longer, faster, and has IS.

For longer shots, given the uses you mention and the constraints of budget, I'd consider a fast prime. Not considering cost, I'd recommend the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, but it's quite expensive.  So, for the lens after the 17-55mm, I'd look at your shots with the 18-200, and see what focal length would suit you best. Lenses I'd consider are the 85 mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8L II, and 135mm f/2L.  FWIW, the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are two of the best values in the Canob lineup, great IQ for relatively low cost, and the 200/2.8 isn't far behind.

Agreed.  L for the sake of L is not a good enough reason.  You plan on staying with the APS-C format, so the 17-55 is a great choice.  Got that one 4 years ago to replace my kit 18-55.  Felt kinda dumb replicating the entire range of my lineup (only had 1 lens at the time), but that was the best decision I made.  Lenses have greater effect on IQ than bodies.