Canon 17-40 v 24-105

Brian_C

Brian_C

Suspended / Banned
Messages
169
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
OK, the time has come to sell my Canon 60d and Sigma 10-20 and go full frame with a Canon 6D. I shoot mostly landscape and floral macro, hence the 6D over the 5D MkIII, with occasional Club studio portrait night. My dilemma is do I go for the Canon 17-40 or the 24-105. I like to shoot wide angle landscapes with my Siggy 10-20 and I guess I shoot 12-14mm at the widest end, (rarely at 10mm) which is a crop factor of around 19-23mm.
I'd love to see the same photo taken at 17mm on the 17-40 and a 24mm shot taken on the 24-105 to compare the angle of view.

I also have Canon 50mm, a Tamron 90mm f2.8 and a Samyang 14mm f2.8 (for astro-photography).
 
For your needs as described I'd get the 17-40 it is a more like for like replacement the difference between 17 and 24mm is substantial!
 
I'm a big fan of the 24-105 so if it was me I'd have that - the crop equivalent is 15mm so if you think you could live with that then you gain a lot at the long end for general walkabout stuff and longer landscape shots. Try limiting yourself to 15mm and see if it's going to work ?
 
I would have thought a Canon 24-70 f4L would be a more suitable choice. It has a macro switch and although doesn't have as much reach as a 24-105 f4 L. It is marginal a better lens and on a full frame DSLR should be fairly wide enough for landscape photography.
 
Hotshots said:
I would have thought a Canon 24-70 f4L would be a more suitable choice. It has a macro switch and although doesn't have as much reach as a 24-105 f4 L. It is marginal a better lens and on a full frame DSLR should be fairly wide enough for landscape photography.
Click to expand...

But it does not cover the main focal reach the OP uses most.

I have both the 17-40mm and the 24-105mm I use the 17-40mm mainly for the tighter landscapes and the 24-105 mainlty as a walkabout lens and those large landscape scenarios
 
Last edited:
I have 17-40 and 24-105, and they're completely different. They're designed to work together, not as an either/or.

If you want to see the difference between 17mm and 24mm on full-frame, then take one shot with your Sigma 10-20 on the 60D at 10-11mm, and another one at 15mm - same difference.
 
I've had the 24-105 and I was very pleased with it on a crop sensor. However, looks like I have to agree with the above as 17-40 looks to meet your needs better.
 
HoppyUK said:
I have 17-40 and 24-105, and they're completely different. They're designed to work together, not as an either/or.

If you want to see the difference between 17mm and 24mm on full-frame, then take one shot with your Sigma 10-20 on the 60D at 10-11mm, and another one at 15mm - same difference.
Click to expand...

Exactly this.

My 24-105 is my everyday lens whereas the 16-35 (upgraded from 17-40) is my go-to landscape lens. I guess you need to think what your main shooting will be (you mention landscapes) and prioritise which you purchase first (y)
 
Thanks for all your feedback guys. Instead of deciding between the two, I'm gonna get both the Canon 17-40 and the 24-105 f3.5-5.6 STM (not the L), as it gets great reviews and the optical quality is excellent. Oh, and it's cheaper.
Can't wait now.
 
Wayne Els said:
From what you say I'd get the 17-40. I shoot sort of similar and since getting a 16-35 F4 my 24-105 became redundant and got sold. The only proviso I'd give is that given you have a 14mm prime do you need the WA as much?
Click to expand...

Do not get 17-40. Get 16-35mm f/4. There is a world of difference between them
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Do not get 17-40. Get 16-35mm f/4. There is a world of difference between them
Click to expand...
And circa 300 quid so you'd expect the 16-35 to be a lot better! Obviously if budget allows the 16-35 is the better lens but I guess the op would have included it if he could afford it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top