TheJoker
newbie
Reged: 30/03/2009
Posts: 35
Loc: Liverpool
|
|
I know its not a either or type of lens but
I'm going to buy either a 17-40 or 24-105 i know it would nice be nice to have both but i dont really have the money for both.
I have a 50D, 50 f1.4 a 60 f2.8 macro and a 70-200 f4
I'm looking for a nice walkabout lens. so what would be the better?
Would prefer it to be internal zooming.
Rob
--------------------
I'm so busy thinking "Can I" that i never stop to think "Should I"
|
AGW
Pure Dead Brilliant
Reged: 03/10/2003
Posts: 8898
Loc: Ayrshire
|
|
Well the 17-40 is going to expand your range and introduce you to the world of wide angle photos. Its a good lens and I think you will have fun using it.
Graeme
--------------------
AGW (BSRIPN)
Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where others see nothing. (Camille Pissarro)
|
digitravel
I aint got nuffin
Reged: 03/12/2002
Posts: 1295
Loc: Dorset
|
|
Strangely enough I would agree with Graeme 
|
Wheelu
addict
Reged: 31/10/2007
Posts: 566
Loc: UK, up North
|
|
Depends upon the type of photography you do, but the 17-40 would be the more useful for me, as the 24-105 would not be wide enough for many shots. I used a 24-70 and a Sigma 10-20 for a while with a 20D and was forever swapping lenses. Given that you already have a 50 and a 60, it looks like a done deal to me.
However, having moved to full frame, the 24-70 becomes a much more useful piece of glassware, and the same would be true of the 24-105!
--------------------
Web Site
|
Bettina
Kein Titel
Reged: 12/02/2004
Posts: 4762
Loc: London
|
|
Are you a wide angle person? I'm not. Therefore I would go and buy the 24-105mm lens first. It's really good.
PS: I own both lenses but the 17-40mm mainly stays in my bag waiting to be needed.
--------------------
Bettina
http://www.vibrantpictures.co.uk
Vibrant Pictures on Flickr, My Blog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6282
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Neither. The 24-105 seriously lacks wide angle performance on a small frame camera and the 17-40 seriously lacks tele end "pulling power".
Consider something like the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 instead. It's cheap(ish) and had decent performance; light, compact and has what I consider to be a near ideal range for a "walkabout" lens. The Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS is also worth considering; the image stabiliser makes up for the slower speed of the lens, but in my experience the Sigma is the sharper.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 10750
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
I'd tend to go with what BJB says. I have the 17-70 Sigma for my D30 and 20D EOS and find it more than sharp enough.
Unless you are dead set on full frame compatible lenses you may like to consider the EF-s 17-55mm f2.8 which offers slightly more range than the 17-40 and a slightly faster aperture. I know someone who has one and he reckons the image quality and build are equal to an L series lens - as is the price... 
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
Terrorist?............or potential photographer?....... 
There are no people more opressed than those who willingly opress themselves
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 10563
Loc: Oot n aboot
|
|
Something wrong with the Canon 17-85mm? I'd have to have a very good reason not to buy that(or maybe a Sigma 17-70)....it works fine as a walkabout lens on APS-C IMHO.
The 17-40 and 24-105 make more sense to me when used on a full frame body - on APS-C the 17-85mm is pretty much as good as having both of them without having to change lenses and I'd suggest that as you already have a 70-200 (with IS?) that the long end of the 24-104 is not of much benefit. With the 17-40 you wouldn't get IS which could prove useful on a walkabout lens.
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... My pics on Flickr.
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
|
Norman
Could've been worse
Reged: 23/09/2004
Posts: 2210
Loc: Ealing, West London, UK
|
|
I have both and would say you won't be disappointed with whatever one you choose. My personal favourite is the 17-40 when my long tele is not on the camera. If you like internal zooming/focussing then the 17-40 is the one to go for, the 24-105 has quite a lot of external extension as the zoom is used. I was a bit disappointed to see that when I got mine but there is very little movement at maximum extension and the results are, as you would expect from an L, first class.
--------------------
Regards,
Norman
www.photobox.org.uk
I don't need exercise - I'm already tired.
|
Barney
Baht 'at
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 11457
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
I'd suggest that as you already have a 70-200 (with IS?) that the long end of the 24-104 is not of much benefit.
I'd have to disagree with you for two reasons. Firstly an overlap on zoom ranges minimises lens changing and secondly, if your zooms start and finish at the same focal length, then any shots you take at that focal length will be at the extreme of either lens, not the best for image quality.
--------------------
"Wrong on so many different levels."
Blog - Contre Dour - Capturing the ordinary for posterity.
Flickr
|
alanS
The Flameproof Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 4737
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
I don't see the appeal of the 17-40mm f4 on APS-C, on FF yup, but on APS-C? I suppose if you want FF compatibility...but other than that I'm struggling to see the appeal.
There are several small sensor only lenses that have had very favourable reviews, even compared to the 17-40mm, and they offer a longer reach and a wider aperture too.
I'd personally go for a small sensor 17-50mm f2.8. In fact, I did. I'd disagree with beejaybee over the Canon 17-85mm. It has IS and USM but it also has distortion and all in all I don't regret changing mine for a 17-50mm f2.8.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 10563
Loc: Oot n aboot
|
|
Quote:
... 17-85mm....it also has distortion....
Might be worth checking but I think the 50D can correct for the distortion from Canon lenses...I don't know about 3rd party lenses though. If you use DPP or shoot JPEG you may well never see that distortion.
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... My pics on Flickr.
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
|
alanS
The Flameproof Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 4737
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
That's interesting. Mine produced so much distortion at 17mm that it was right on the edge of what CS2 could correct.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
PeteRob
Reged: 30/03/2004
Posts: 70
|
|
Of my lenses the 17-40 is the most borrowed! I bought it because the 24-105 (on full frame) isn't wide enough for some city landscapes and I got fed up with churches minus spires. When I am not using it it seems to live on my son's 400D. He dropped his 1D with it face down 2 weeks ago - so its tough too (though now minus a lens-hood). For a walkabout the 24-105 might be better but on a cropped sensor it is not very wide. On full frame it is nearly perfect. I only occasionally miss a bit of length.
|
nspur
addict
Reged: 20/07/2005
Posts: 534
Loc: Derbyshire
|
|
Some time ago when I had a 20D I borrowed a 17-40 for the weekend and turned it down as it was heavy and not really special enough for the money. I have a Sigma 20-40 f2.8 EX instead.
I've recently acquired the 24-105 in a bundle with a camera and while the camera does everything I would want (and then some) I'm not really impressed with the lens. It's competent but there's nothing stellar about it. I honestly prefer my 28-135 (which is now cheap is it's being discontinued). You could get the 28-135 plus a 24mm f2.8 for half the price of the 24-105.
--------------------
Nick
|
Bettina
Kein Titel
Reged: 12/02/2004
Posts: 4762
Loc: London
|
|
Quote:
Some time ago when I had a 20D I borrowed a 17-40 for the weekend and turned it down as it was heavy and not really special enough for the money. I have a Sigma 20-40 f2.8 EX instead.
But, IIRC, the Sigma 20-40mm F2.8 is a heavy beast compared to the sleek Canon 17-40mm F4.
--------------------
Bettina
http://www.vibrantpictures.co.uk
Vibrant Pictures on Flickr, My Blog
|
OneTen
'Two Breakfasts'
Reged: 23/06/2003
Posts: 4111
Loc: Lancashire
|
|
I've recently bought the 17-40 for use on a 40D. I wanted something a bit wider than my 20mm for the occasional landscape shot and it fits the bill very well, however my preference is to avoid very wide anyway. One thing I have done is buy the Canon EW-83J lens hood. This hood is much deeper than the original hood and offers greater protection from flare and the elements without vignetting on an APS-C body.
I think your choice comes down to whether your preference is for wide angle or telephoto. For wandering around I tend to use a 50mm more than anything else.
--------------------
Richard .......... My Flickr
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
