1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

24-105 or 17-40??????

Discussion in 'Canon Conflab' started by jaffajim0, Jun 15, 2017.

  1. jaffajim0

    jaffajim0 Member

    I am trying to decide between the 2 above lenses and would welcome opinions. I have a 18-135 kit lens with my 70d which I think is a pretty decent lens for a bundle job, a 10-18mm that I Co fess I have never used, a nifty 50 and a 100-400mm L series.I thought I had decided on the 17-40 but now I am not sure.
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I personally wouldn't bother with either, given what you have - can't see what gaps they fill, and the lenses you have are pretty decent. The 17-40 is at it's best stopped down to f8 or f11 on full frame, and the 24-105 is also a much more useful focal length range on full frame IMHO. You have a sensible set of lenses for a 70D.
     
    MJB and peterba like this.
  3. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    Buying a 100mm macro would give a new option....a whole new world. It would also give you short tele without having to lug a round the 100-400.

    Graeme
     
    peterba likes this.
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    But the 18-135 has the short tele covered nicely.
     
  5. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    I've owned both of these lenses (Note: the Mk1 24-105mm, not the Mk2), and wasn't much impressed with either. I didn't like the in-use feel of the 24-105mm (zoom ring 'throw' too cramped, particularly at the wide end), and I didn't like the rendering of either lens.

    I eventually decided to migrate to all EF prime lenses, and have never regretted the decision.
     
    Geren likes this.
  6. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    I have to agree with Nick. I own both of the lenses that you are considering with a full frame camera. With your camera and your existing lenses I'm really not sure I'd see the need for either of them. If you really have an itch for a new lens I'd be inclined to agree with AGW and go for a macro option. I use mine a lot.
     
    peterba likes this.
  7. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Yes, the EF 100mm macro (whether IS model, or not) is a superb lens, with virtually flawless performance. The non-IS version can also be obtained relatively inexpensively.
     
  8. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    I have both the EF-S 18-135 and the 17-40 L (I share lenses with my wife and call me OCD if you want, but I can't have duplicate lenses) and I'll reach for the 18-135 given the choice. Like everyone else I can't really see you need either lens that you're considering, so save your money, but if you really need to scratch that itch then a macro lens would be a nice addition to the team. Either Canon's 100mm or Sigma's 105mm (I have the latter).
     
    peterba likes this.
  9. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    What's not clear is why you are trying to decide between theses lenses. Clearly you quite happy with the 18-135 so what is the appeal of this pair? As already said both are really for full frame and aren't optimised ranges for APS - the 24-105 will lose you reach at both ends of the range compared to the 18-135 and while the 17-40 matches at the short end it's well off the pace in terms of long reach.

    I have used a 28-105 (and even the very early 35-105) with APS format and neither is ideal as an all purpose lens, particularly if you are a frequent user of wider angles. The 24-105 has a slight advantage over the 28-105 but even then 24mm is hardly wide angle on APS-C. Unless you have an intention to go full frame in the near future I reckon a rethink is on the cards...
     
    peterba likes this.
  10. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    It's probably fair to say that they are among the least impressive L lenses; the 17-40 isn't great wide open, but is a lovely landscape lens stopped down on full frame. Completely outclassed by the 16-35mm f4 IS lens. The 24-105 has quite a bit of distortion, and I replaced that with the 24-70 f4, which is quite a bit sharper, too, but above all, has a near-macro setting. The improvement between the zooms of 10+ years ago and the more recent ones is incredible; even some of the consumer lenses, such as the 18-135, are in the same ballpark as the older L lenses these days IMHO.
     
    peterba likes this.
  11. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Yes, I can quite see that this could be the case. I'll take your word for it, as it's actually about 10 years since I last bought a zoom EF lens.

    Having said that, I'm staying with my EF primes... essentially because I much prefer using them. :)
     
    Benchista likes this.
  12. Snorri

    Snorri Well-Known Member

    In your case neather... I would rather have a look at the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 wich is arguably the best lens you can get on a aps-c Canon. Personally I went for the exelent EF-S15-85mm both of these are L lens quality and will outgun the 17-40 L in every way.
     

Share This Page