Lens query 17-40 or 24-105is or suggestions...

R

Richard T

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,155
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey there

I'm looking at getting a better lens to go with my 7d and 70-200. I currently have the sigma 17-70 but want to get a little bit more iq

I was thinking along the lines of a 17-40 or 24-105is. I know the 24 would only be 38ish on my 7d but I think the quality would make up for it. Thinking the 17-40 maybe a little short too but it does get me the wide end....

Was thinking of trying to get some portrait shots and a general walk around lens too. I'd like to try to earn a bit of money with this lens too

Any thoughts or suggestions??
 
For a crop body the Canon 17-55IS is usually the recommended lens, with people often quoting its not been given 'L' designation because its APS-C only.
 
24-105 is lovely as a gen lens on my 5d but we got a Sigma 50mm f1.4 which we use on a 450d for daylight portrait practice and it's sensational, buckets of full fat creamy bokeh.
 
If you're looking to use the wider end more and you're using an APS-C body then I'd also recommend the Canon EF 17-55 IS but if it's just range you're after then the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM is a cracking lens :thumbs:
 
I never see the point of these big slow lenses on APS-C bodies, they never seem to cover the right range for me. If they weren't L lenses would they still be on the list?

I'm just asking the question...

Good luch choosing.
 
build quality, image quality and weatherproofing. If folk can afford it... I can't see why not. 17-40 on a cropper is a bit oddball, mind.
 
ive herd this alot, by why not use a 17-40 on a cropper? i only ask as im new..:)
 
Would recommend the 24-105, I've had mine for about 4 years and it's never off the camera. It started on my 350, then the 30 and now it's on my 7d. Brilliant.
 
To be honest I can't see why your looking at the 24-105 at all, you already have 70-200 so why not 24-70 f2.8 for the extra stop, unless you really want the IS.

If not going FF or a 1D in the next few years then the 17-55 f2.8 IS in an absolute no brainer IMHO, better than many an L for image quality, supper sharp, ultra fast focusing and perfect length on a 1.6 crop, it just looks a lot of money because someone forgot to paint a little red ring on the end.
 
I did look at the 24-70 but its £200 more... I can only just make the 24-105is... I also fancy the IS over the extra stop
 
westley byford said:
ive herd this alot, by why not use a 17-40 on a cropper? i only ask as im new..:)
Click to expand...

Because it's really an UWA for a full frame camera hence the slow aperture of f/4. for the same money you can get a 17-55 is, which is pretty much the same IQ, has constant f/2.8 and has more range. It's only cos the 17-40 has an L that people really consider it.
 
"If folk can afford it... I can't see why not."

I can afford any "thing" that I want and I therefore know that buying "the best" is a nice feeling but why not step back and think about buying what suits us most and what's best for us actually is rather than simply buying what's thought to be best?

Focal length and aperture are very important as is optical quality and a degree of build quality that's adequate for our needs and uses. I personally think that the L choice often compromises both focal length and aperture on APS-C bodies and adds unnecessary size and weight without necessarily offering staggeringly better image quality (or any improvement at all) as compensation or to tip the balance.

As an example. I did a side by side shoot with someone using a 5Dii and an L zoom against my 20D and Siggy 50mm f1.4 and not only did I get the shots that the 5D combo couldn't but when we both got the same shot the 5D user preferred mine. Obviously in that shooting environment the show L zoom was simply the wrong choice. My point being that it's best to think about what we want to achieve and what and how we shoot and tailor kit choices accordingly.

I don't want to cause this thread to shoot off at an angle so this is my last post on the matter but I do hope that the op can begin to think about what the best specification and lens choice is for the intended use.
 
The23rdman said:
Because it's really an UWA for a full frame camera hence the slow aperture of f/4. for the same money you can get a 17-55 is, which is pretty much the same IQ, has constant f/2.8 and has more range. It's only cos the 17-40 has an L that people really consider it.
Click to expand...

When I was a cropper I was thinking about the 17-40 due to build quality, knowing full well that the 17-55 offered marginally better IQ (except for in terms of flare) - not everyone has Lust - or is it Love?! :lol:
 
woof woof said:
"If folk can afford it... I can't see why not."

I can afford any "thing" that I want and I therefore know that buying "the best" is a nice feeling but why not step back and think about buying what suits us most and what's best for us actually is rather than simply buying what's thought to be best?
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my point. I meant what was best for the individual person. If you can afford a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and want to shoot candids then why bother getting some crappy 75-300 from the bargain basement? As I said, if you can afford the best, get it.

Focal length and aperture are very important as is optical quality and a degree of build quality that's adequate for our needs and uses. I personally think that the L choice often compromises both focal length and aperture on APS-C bodies and adds unnecessary size and weight without necessarily offering staggeringly better image quality (or any improvement at all) as compensation or to tip the balance.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, but it's no secret that L lenses are heavily geared towards full framers. On a cropper, for instance, 17-40 is neither superwide nor decently long; on full frame it is clearly superwide. On a cropper the 24-105 offers good range but doesn't give a very wide end, on full frame it gives a nice wide end and a good top end of the range heading into portrait territory. On a cropper the 24-70 is again not particularly wide whereas it is on full frame. Not to mention that on full frame bodies even the heavier lenses that you can handhold, do balance very nicely. I tried a 70-200 on my 1Ds and found a nice balance - if I could afford the f/2.8 it would be a superb balance. Yes, on a 450D you'd lose the camera behind it, of course... Do I really need to keep on going...

As an example. I did a side by side shoot with someone using a 5Dii and an L zoom against my 20D and Siggy 50mm f1.4 and not only did I get the shots that the 5D combo couldn't but when we both got the same shot the 5D user preferred mine. Obviously in that shooting environment the show L zoom was simply the wrong choice. My point being that it's best to think about what we want to achieve and what and how we shoot and tailor kit choices accordingly.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how that's relevant to the discussion

I don't want to cause this thread to shoot off at an angle so this is my last post on the matter but I do hope that the op can begin to think about what the best specification and lens choice is for the intended use.
Click to expand...

Which is what I've been saying for the start. Find out what is best for you, look at some lenses in that range, and buy the best you can afford. It's not rocket science; and heck, I'd rather save money for a decent lens than suffer a crap one.
 
"I don't really see how that's relevant to the discussion"

Eh? So thinking what's right for you and how and what you shoot isn't relevant? What planet are you on mate? Or is it only relevent when you say it? :thinking::)

We each have to choose and all I'm arguing for is for people to think what's best for them and not simply go for the cheapest L lens.

Good luck choosing OP.
 
The 24-105 is a fantastic walkabout lens and pin sharp. The 17-40 is great for close in stuff and is probably the sharpest lens I own. You need to think about how often would you actually shoot at F2.8 or would IS be of more benefit.
 
woof woof said:
We each have to choose and all I'm arguing for is for people to think what's best for them and not simply go for the cheapest L lens.
Click to expand...

Yes and if you actually read what I post you would see I am also arguing for people to think what's best for them, however, in your haste to just try and find errors in my posts it seems you actually miss the entire point itself.

If a lens has an 'L' on it and happens to be the best for the purpose, superb. It seems to me as if you're almost against people buying L glass - perhaps you can't afford any yourself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top