17-40 or 24-105???

W

woollyback

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,417
Edit My Images
No
:shrug::shrug:

Hello all,

Well after all the comments re my question of 7D Vs 5D2, I have finally persuaded dad to part with his cash (plus all of my savings), so hopefully I will be a 5D2 owner v soon:love::love:.

Question I am struggling with is coming from a 400D which of the two above lenses would be the better suited to my requirements.I currently have a 50mm f1.8 as my wideset ff fitting lens.
I am looking for a wide angle for seascapes, landscapes but a general walkaround and some fashion type shots as part of my GCSE art work.

Or is there something better?, any views would be great especially from 5d2 users.

Thanks alot

Bridie
(Age 15)
 
I would go for the 24-105 as a good walk about lens on FF. You may find the 17-40 a bit wide for general use.
 
Don't Canon make a 24-70 f/2.8L...? It's supposed to be very good indeed...
 
I'd agree with Dave, I think you will get much more milage out of the 24-105 - great walkabout lens, covers a very useful focal range, not to mention being nice and sharp.
 
:plusone: for Dave

The 17mm on 5D2 is like 11mm on a crop body. The 24mm on FF will be similar to that of 17mm on crop - so very much like the 18mm kit lens that comes with the 400D.


DB
 
Rob_Ashton said:
very much worth considering if you can afford :)
Click to expand...

I had the 24-105 and it was excellent - colours, contrast and sharpness. Main reason I upgraded to the 24-70 was the extra stop of light which was invaluable in a dark forest.

Again, if you can afford the 24-70 buy it. You won't miss the long end too much as the capability of the 5DII to crop is awesome.

DB
 
And probably at least 300 quid better... lol.
 
There's nothing wrong with the 24-105mm. Granted, the 24-70mm is a nicer lens and that extra stop may or may not make a difference to your photography but that price difference is hard to swallow unless you really, really need it!

Given the choice, get the 24-105mm for now and start saving again for the 17-40mm. That'll give you extra wide coverage and a reasonable, short telephoto.

Si
 
Spiritflier said:
There's nothing wrong with the 24-105mm. Granted, the 24-70mm is a nicer lens and that extra stop may or may not make a difference to your photography but that price difference is hard to swallow unless you really, really need it!

Given the choice, get the 24-105mm for now and start saving again for the 17-40mm. That'll give you extra wide coverage and a reasonable, short telephoto.

Si
Click to expand...


No Si...Bad Si...you're not thinking it through...always point newbies towards expensive lenses they cannot afford as they'll suddenly realise they're skint after a few weeks and unload them in the Classifieds section...:D

To the OP - only get the 24-70 if you have the cash - you'll barely notice the difference unless you really look hard and for most practical purposes the other lenses mentioned will be more than adequate...

That said the 24-70 f/2.8L is a peach...


(...apparently it's almost as good as a Nikon lens, but that would be heresy to admit...):D
 
Arkady said:
No Si...Bad Si...you're not thinking it through...always point newbies towards expensive lenses they cannot afford as they'll suddenly realise they're skint after a few weeks and unload them in the Classifieds section...:D

That said the 24-70 f/2.8L is a peach...


(...apparently it's TWICE as good as a Nikon lens, but that would be heresy to admit...):D
Click to expand...

I is sorry Rob... Completely forgot about the classifieds! :D


Will go and stand in the corner for a bit. ;)

Si
 
Thanks everyone for the views so far... and encouraging me to spend Da's money (:lol::lol:).

The 24-105 is probably doable as it comes in a kit but extra £300 - I would have my shoes and handbags confiscated indefinitely.:lol::lol:

What about the sigma 24-70 or the tamron 28-75 - any good?? or should I just plump for the 24-105 or the 17-40?

Thanks again for any info

Bridie:thumbs::thumbs:
 
woollyback said:
Thanks everyone for the views so far... and encouraging me to spend Da's money (:lol::lol:).

The 24-105 is probably doable as it comes in a kit but extra £300 - I would have my shoes and handbags confiscated indefinitely.:lol::lol:

What about the sigma 24-70 or the tamron 28-75 - any good?? or should I just plump for the 24-105 or the 17-40?

Thanks again for any info

Bridie:thumbs::thumbs:
Click to expand...

Siggy's are optically good, but have a bad rep regarding build-quality...some are very good, some are completely duff...and there's no consistency either...

If you get a good one it'll last a lifetime. But a duff one could fail after a few months...pay your money and take your choice...
Personally I'd always go for the camera-manufacturer's own lenses as they may be more expensive but you know where you stand...
 
As I mentioned in another thread, I've just ordered a Tamron 28-75 so will post up some shots when I get it (early next week hopefully) if you can wait that long. No doubt there are some on this board with this lens but no-one replied to my thread on it.
 
Arkady said:
Personally I'd always go for the camera-manufacturer's own lenses as they may be more expensive but you know where you stand...
Click to expand...

That and for backwards compatibility with newer bodies.
 
pearce_jj said:
As I mentioned in another thread, I've just ordered a Tamron 28-75 so will post up some shots when I get it (early next week hopefully) if you can wait that long. No doubt there are some on this board with this lens but no-one replied to my thread on it.
Click to expand...


Look forward to these - hope it is good as its a fair bit cheaper han the canon stuff.

Bridie
 
As someone who recently moved from a 50D to 5DMK2, I would say go with the 24-105 which is a super lens that is on my camera a good deal of the time. Once you have this look to get the 17-40 to compliment it for wide angle landscapes etc.
 
Just got myself a 5D2 after a 40D. I was pondering the same question, and a good friend lent me his 17-40 and 24-105 for a few days to help decide. As I could only buy one lens just now, the 17-40 was just too wide for a walk around everyday lens, so I got the 24-105. Granted, I've only had it one day, but it's a gem so far.

Go for the 24-105, and save for the 17-40, rather than going all out on 24-70.....

You'll love it!
 
24-105L every time. Frankly, you'd be mad not to go for that at the kit price. It also happens to be a stunningly good lens with great range and IS. Nobody else makes anything like it :love:

Then you will want the 17-40L as well at some stage.

Whether you would prefer to trade the 24-105L for a 24-70L at some stage is a moot point (you'll lose range, IS, and quite a few quid, but gain one stop). You could sell on the 24-105L in a trice for pretty much what you paid for it.
 
Ive got both the 24-70 and the 24-105 and to be honest the 24-70 hardly gets a look in these days. Optically there is hardly any difference once you stop down a little and the weight difference is quite substantial, especially if its on all day. Obviously the 2.8 is important for some people but unless you specifically need it then go for the 24-105. much lighter, longer and good IS. Its far more use than a 17-40 as a general purpose lens, although they are very good as well.
 
OP. Great question. I have read this thread from top to bottom. Exactly the same question I have had recently. 24-105 will be what I will be going for next.

Cheers OP and everyone for their views. :clap:
 
damian.r.smith said:
OP. Great question. I have read this thread from top to bottom. Exactly the same question I have had recently. 24-105 will be what I will be going for next.

Cheers OP and everyone for their views. :clap:
Click to expand...

Agree, 24-105 looks the doozy...... now just have to convince pappi;););)

Thanks again all

Bridie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top