17-40L vs 24-105L

[bobthebrick]

Hi all,

I've recently been working on upgrading my kit, and I'm wondering what the right decision to make is. I live in Australia, where things are typically much more expensive than in the states. At the moment however, one retailer has a huge sale on some Canon lenses. The 17-40 is about $650AU, and the 24-105 is about $750AU.

At the moment my only high quality lens is the 50 1.4 USM, as I have been selling my old dodgy Tokina and such lens that were with my film cameras. I shoot mainly FF, on either a 5Dc or using film, but I occasionally use a 550D or 600D.

I shoot a bit of everything, some macro, some people, some sports and quite a fair bit of landscape. I'm probably leaning slightly towards the 17-40 because:

• It's wider and gives me more room for landscapes
• With an extension tube it gives some crazy macro photos
• I've used the 24-105 and hadn't found anything 'special' about, the photos didn't seem to have much spark

I'm considering the 24-105 simply because it has IS, a wider focal length range and would be a great walkaround and in some cases a good indoor people lens. Also, it covers a bit more range that my 50 doesn't, and I do find myself wanting more reach sometimes.

If you guys have any advice at all, that would be great

Thanks in advance,
Thomas.


P.S I can't really stretch the budget, but if there are any other lens around this price point I should be looking at, feel free to suggest them

 

[PeterJ]

Mind sharing the Australian retailer? I just ordered a 24-105 for $150 more only last night so still have time to cancel. I can't give any advice on your question not owning either before, but am going for the 24-105 because I don't shoot extra wide so am going to use it as a bit of an allrounder.

 

[verysimplejason]

In my humble opinion, for landscapes, go for 17-40L. 24-105L is used mainly as an all-purpose lens. Since you have a 50mm, just use it as your normal lens but you will have to "zoom" with your feet. It really depends on your style of shooting. I myself, I'm shooting with 500D. I have a 28mm (comparable to 50mm for FF) and it's my travel lens. I have a 100mm macro and 55-250 as my primary "long" lens if needed. I'm planning to get the 17-40 and the 70-300L later with the 6D as I plan to move to FF.

 

[BL]

sounds like you have some experience already with the 24-105

i used my kit lens for about 2 years before i sold it as it felt very redundant sitting between my 16-35 II and 70-200 II

have you ever tried the 17-40? i was never all that pleased with my rental copy at apertures wider than f8

 

[rpt]

I have neither the 17-40 nor the 16-35. I have the 24-105 with my 5D3. I just love it. It is a great general purpose lens. AND it has IS. If you got slightly OOF or soft pics with the 24-105 on your 5D, it is probably due to tolerance issues. The 5D3 has micro-adjustment for the AF and so I do not have a problem. If you take more landscapes than portraits, my guess is the 17-40 will work for you. Even on you crop cameras. Some may vote for the 16-35 but as you said you were on a budget and I dont know the Oz pricing, I'll leave that part of the research to you. For event outdoor shots the 24-105 will be better (even on your crop cameras)...

Sorry I am not giving you marching orders. You see, I was at a workshop the last two days and learned that there is only one good answer to most qualitative questions. And the answer is: (tada....)

"It depends..."



It really does...

 

[bobthebrick]

Mind sharing the Australian retailer?

'Course. They're a grey market dealer sadly, they're called DWI. This is their Christmas Canon sale or something like that.

http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/astore/canon-sale.aspx

In my humble opinion, for landscapes, go for 17-40L. 24-105L is used mainly as an all-purpose lens. Since you have a 50mm, just use it as your normal lens but you will have to "zoom" with your feet.

Thanks for the advice Haha, I've been zooming with solely (no pun intended) with my feet for almost a year now.

sounds like you have some experience already with the 24-105

i used my kit lens for about 2 years before i sold it as it felt very redundant sitting between my 16-35 II and 70-200 II

have you ever tried the 17-40? i was never all that pleased with my rental copy at apertures wider than f8

Sadly I haven't, and I don't have any way to, short of trying it at Teds, and I'd feel way too guilty doing that knowing I'd buy it from somewhere else.

I have neither the 17-40 nor the 16-35. I have the 24-105 with my 5D3. I just love it. It is a great general purpose lens. AND it has IS. If you got slightly OOF or soft pics with the 24-105 on your 5D, it is probably due to tolerance issues. The 5D3 has micro-adjustment for the AF and so I do not have a problem. If you take more landscapes than portraits, my guess is the 17-40 will work for you. Even on you crop cameras. Some may vote for the 16-35 but as you said you were on a budget and I dont know the Oz pricing, I'll leave that part of the research to you. For event outdoor shots the 24-105 will be better (even on your crop cameras)...

Sorry I am not giving you marching orders. You see, I was at a workshop the last two days and learned that there is only one good answer to most qualitative questions. And the answer is: (tada....)

"It depends..."



It really does...

Haha, so amazingly true. I'm thinking whatever I'll do, I'll get it calibrated by Canon along with my 50 so that they focus absolutely perfectly with my 5D. Haha, it was sharp, it had pretty good bokeh, it just lacked the WOW factor, and I didn't enjoy shooting with it

 

[Rat]

I have 'em both and I can unequivocally say: go for the 24-105. 24mm is more than half decent for landscapes and the lens is great for everything else. I was happy with it as my walkaround lens on a crop body and over the moon when I mounted it on the 5D3. IMO, the 17-40 is versatile on crop bodies only. It still is a very nice lens, but with 40mm or less I wouldn't want to do portraits or sports or really, anything but landscapes.

And then, IS.

YMMV but for me it'd be a no-brainer

 

[Kernuak]

I had both the 17-40 and the 24-105. When I switched to full frame for my landscapes (keeping the 7D for wildlife), I found that I rarely used the 17-40, as I found it too wide for the type of landscapes that I shoot. Also, both are soft in the corners on full frame, even stopped down, but the 17-40 is really soft. In the centre and borders it is probably sharper at 24 than the 24-105, but for me, it just didn't give good enough IQ. Of course, now that I have the 24 f/1.4 MkII, the 24-105 doesn't get as much use for landscapes either.
You also mentioned shooting macro with the 17-40 and extension tubes, I have done the same with the 24-105 with some success and the accentuated ditortion can be quite effective.


The Blusher Wideangle by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Here are a few other shots to show its versatility (the last is on the 40D).


Landscape Amongst the Branches by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Reindeer Wideangle Closeup by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Meanish Sunset Serenity by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

 

[Marsu42]

I'm probably leaning slightly towards the 17-40 because:

• It's wider and gives me more room for landscapes
• With an extension tube it gives some crazy macro photos
• I've used the 24-105 and hadn't found anything 'special' about, the photos didn't seem to have much spark

I'm currently looking for a cheaper used 17-40 (not easy in Germany since there's no well-stocked Craiglist or such) and did a lot of research and asking around before that - and the only reason to get the 17-40 is either dual-using it on crop or for the ultra-wide angle if you need it like group shots in a constrained space.

For landscape you should look at your current shots and determine if you really need something wider than 24 on ff, landscape is not necessarily equivalent to "taking it all in".