Canon 24-105 F4L or 17-40 F4L?

Niall97

Niall97

Suspended / Banned
Messages
644
Name
Niall Lea
Edit My Images
Yes
So I'm looking at these two for Christmas, and they're exactly the same price on Digital rev, and the same filter size so they'll work out to be exactly the same amount of money. Now, I have no real agenda for these lenses, but I'm drawn to the 24-105 due to it's close focussing capabilities which would allow me to get some reasonably close macro type shots, and the IS could be good for video, something that I'll be doing in college next year, but mostly it's just a good walkabout lens, with a mix of focal lengths that fills a gap in my current lens range.

Now, the 17-40 is quite a bit wider, but I don't always require super wide photos, so I was wondering if the 24-105 might be the better option, and so I'm brought to the most pressing question of this decision and that is whether 24 is wide enough for most landscape/architecture photography on full frame? I've tried both lenses but the 24-105 was on a 7D so I couldn't get a good indicator of how wide it truly is. Any help would be great, I'm quite torn on this one.
 
Last edited:
As far as I'm aware 24mm on a full frame camera is the same as 15mm on a crop camera, so if you were happy with 15mm on your 7d, 24mm should be fine on your 6d
 
If it helps, I use the 24-105 on my 5D2 for landscapes the vast majority of the time. I also have the 17-40, but I use that mostly for architecture and only rarely for landscapes. The 24-105 is my walkabout lens too, whereas the 17-40 is too short on full frame.
 
I sold my 24-105L for a 17-40L as I wanted wider than 24mm not only for landscapes but I was doing a lot of urban exploring stuff at the time. I don't regret it as I rarely used the 24-105L anyway & was happy with 50mm as my walkaround/holiday/general lens. It does sound like the 24-105L may be better for you though from what you say.... :)
 
Agree with the majority here. The 24-105 on full frame is a very good general purpose lens that covers all the most useful bases. The 17-40 is smaller and lighter, and great for the ultra-wide end, but not as useful as a walkabout lens.
 
You either need a wide angle or you don't . I liked the 17-40 when I had one , whereas I used the 24-105 more although I always thought this was an average lens...not really a proper L lens for me.
 
I’ve decided on a completely different lens now lol, I’ve decided to go for the 24-70 F2.8L, that way, when paired with my 70-200 F2.8L I’ll have 24-200 F2.8 L glass. From what I’ve read people recommend the 24-70 over the 24-105 :) This will have to be second hand with my budget so I’m on the lookout for a good condition 24-70 2.8L if anybody is selling one.
 
As with a few people on this thread, I also had this decision to make originally, and went with the 17-40 as I usually shoot more landscapes than anything else. However, within a year I decided to sell and pick up the 24-105, and don't regret the decision at all. You don't lose much at all at the wide end with the 24-105, but you gain so much more at the long end. The 17-40 is just not ideal as a walkabout on a full frame. Great for landscapes, but very little else. The quality beetween the two lenses is very minimal, perhaps the 17-40 edges it yes, but it is very very close. From what you've described, I'd be leaning heavily towards the 24-105.
 
I recently purchase a 24-105mm on eBay and I can safely say it's an exceptional lens. So versatile! I, too, am interested in doing landscapes but also needed something for everyday shooting when all I had was a 50mm and 100-400mm.. and it seems the 24-105mm fitted perfectly the lenses I already own!

I have not yet tested it for its landscape capabilities but when zoomed to 105, the results are excellent. You've also got to ask yourself, how often are you going to be shooting landscapes? If you went for the 17-40mm you would only really be using it FOR landscapes but if you have already got a lens that covers focal lengths for everyday use then maybe you should go for that.

Hope this helped a little. :thumbs:
 
Niall97 said:
I’ve decided on a completely different lens now lol, I’ve decided to go for the 24-70 F2.8L, that way, when paired with my 70-200 F2.8L I’ll have 24-200 F2.8 L glass. From what I’ve read people recommend the 24-70 over the 24-105 :) This will have to be second hand with my budget so I’m on the lookout for a good condition 24-70 2.8L if anybody is selling one.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably a good decision, unless you really need the extra reach of the 105mm lens the 24-70mm is superior in most ways I believe.
 
Depends on what you are going to shoot, most of my Landscapes are using the 17-40 on a FF and only a few using the 24-105 but invaluable when I need a little bit more reach.
 
The 24-105 is my walkabout lens on my 5D3. I also have the 17-40 reserved for landscape. In other words I am currently happy having both in my bag.
 
The 24-105 and the 17-40 have the advantage of using the same sized filters.
77mm filters don't come cheap, and it's nice to be able to use my polariser and ND filters on either lens.
 
Daftpunk said:
As far as I'm aware 24mm on a full frame camera is the same as 15mm on a crop camera, so if you were happy with 15mm on your 7d, 24mm should be fine on your 6d
Click to expand...
Sorry mistake!
 
I have a 17-40, a 24-105 and a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX HSM and I'm debating whether to sell the 24-105 and Sigma 24-70 and go for a Canon 24-70 f2.8L II instead. Both the lenses are very good but I have 'overkill' in the focal range as I have a 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII as well and I think a FL of 24-200 f2.8 MkII would be more beneficial than what I have now. Between the 17-40 and 24-105 I think the 24-105 would give better optiions but I think the OP has taken the best route with the 24-70 L instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top