17-40 & 24-105. How many have both.

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by tdigi, Oct 2, 2009.

  1. Thought I would ask the good ole what lens question. I have accumulated many good lenses ( probably to many ) over the past year or so and my setup is now a 5D2 with 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 2.8, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 100 2.8 macro. Probably more lenses then I need so I am considering selling 1 or maybe even 2 and getting an advanced point and click as a second camera to travel light. I mostly shoot for hobby travel, kids, a few events and product shots as well as portraits.
    I sorta feel the 17-40 is a bit of a waste since 24 is pretty wide and I feel with the F4 overlap and lack of IS I usually go with the 24-105. Any one else use the 17-40 and 24-105? I feel I have a lot of overlap going on.
    Any thoughts?
     
  2. I have both. and i don't consider overlap a problem at all. as a matter of fact, I kinda like it. saves from swapping lenses all the time. although, if all i owned was a full frame cam, I'd probably sell the 17-40....but I also own a crop cam, so I still need it.
     
  3. I used to have both but replaced both with the F2.8 lenses - the 16-35 f2.8 II and the 24-70 f2.8. I always liked the 17-40 more than the 24-105 but I like to shoot wide angle. One of the advantages of the F4 series is that the lenses overlap.
     
  4. I have a 5D and a 10D. I bought my 17-40L with the 10D, and I love the lens. I recently purchased a 24-105 L for travel. It has a versatile range, but I think the 24mm range is there to use for convenience. The 17-40 is a better wide-angle lens than the 24-105 is at its wide angle range. If I am serious about a wide angle shot, I use the 17-40. If I am traveling with the 24-105, and do not have any other lenses with me, I have the option of using the lens at 24mm, and then cleaning up the barrel distortion and chromatic aberration in post-processing. You have a great set of lenses, and lenses are a better long-term value than a body. If you don't need the macro, the 100 mm looks like your most dispensible lens (although it is a great lens). But the macro will hold its value long after that advanced point-and-click is yesterday's news.
    You should try a "point-and-click" before you buy one. Despite its weight and bulk, I prefer to use the 5D. I like the viewfinder. I like its high-ISO capaility compared to a small sensor point-and-click. I do have an S70, but it is rather large. If I were to chose a smaller camera, I would consider one that is truly small enough to fit in a pocket, such as the S90. The Lumix GF-1 is significantly larger than the S90 or Lumix LX3, but it has the larger size sensor.
     
  5. Not an over lap. If anything, I'd dump the 28 and the 85. I have the 17-40, 28-70, 70-200, and 50.
     
  6. Thanks for the responses, so it sounds like many use an ultra wide with a 24-Xx zoom.

    Phillip - I really like the 2.8 zooms but they are just more then I want to carry. I make an exception for the 70-200 its the best lens I own especially for portraits.

    Robert - I really like macro so dumping the macro lens is out of the question. I have shot with a point and click, I know the limitations and I will use the 5d2 most of the time. I considered a rebel as a second camera but I want something like the S90.

    Sheldon - the 85 is my favorite prime and the 28 is actually better then it gets credit for.

    Maybe for now I will just hang on to them. You are right about the value, I think I paid around $425 new for the macro lens and now its around $650 so I guess I can always just sell or trade down the road.
     
  7. Sheldon the 85 F1.8 is a great portrait lens on full frame - better than the 70-200 f2.8. Don't be fooled by it's low(ish) price and cheapish construction - give it a try.
     
  8. Tommy, I have a very similar set-up to yours: 5D2 (and 1V and 3) with a 17-40, 24-70, 24-105, 70-200/4 IS, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 100/2 (with plans to get a 135/2 soon, mainly to augment my 24-70 and 50/1.4 for portraiture). I'm not worried about focal length overlap, and wouldn't find IS to be very useful on wide angle lenses such as the 17-40.
    Each of my lenses (with the possible exception of the 20/2.8) has specific uses for me that the others don't. For example, I use my 24-105 for outdoor, walkabout use, and my 24-70 for indoor, available light portraiture. My 17-40 is my main landscape lens, while I use my 35/1.4 in lower light, when I want to creatively "constrain" the focal length, or just when I want better IQ.
    So if I were you, I wouldn't sell any of your lenses, except those that you never use.
     
  9. I have the 17-40 and the 24-105. Have a 5D and a T1i. I don't have any problems with having both of those lenses. If I want to go wider than 24 the 17-40 is used. Sure, it doesn't have IS, but that hasn't been a problem. It's really a pretty nice lens that works well on either camera.
     
  10. I have both. When I do backpacking landscape photography, those are my two main lenses on a 5D2.
     
  11. I own a bunch of lenses for my 5D. If I could only keep two lenses, it would be the 17-40 and the 24-105. For landscapes, those are my two most used zooms.
     
  12. There is no overlap issues for me as each has a distinct purpose. I have both the 17-40 and 24-105 plus 70-200 IS lenes in both f2.8 and f4 versions. I actually sold my 24-70 f2.8 to buy the 24-105 several years ago for the IS mainly but ended up really finding the extra focal length a big benifit to where I wasn't needing to switch to the 70-200 as much. When I bought my 5DmII last spring I sold my 16-35 originally to purchase the new mII version but after seeing the incredible images the 5DmII produced at high ISO's I opted for the 17-40 and 70-200 f4 IS instead. The 5DmII creates incredible low noise images at 3200 ISO (especially compared to my original 5D's) so I no longer need the fast glass and my back and neck are very thankful for that. I still haven't parted with my 70-200 f2.8 IS lens because the darn thing is going up in value every day plus I still use it on occassion when I want to look cool. :)
     
  13. I have both the 17-40 and the 24-70. Definitely have a use for both. I had the 24-105 before the 24-70, but opted for the faster aperture.
    The simple answer is that there are times when 24 isn't wide enough. There are a lot of shots I couldn't have gotten without the 17-40. Plus, there are lots of times when you need a general purpose zoom. 40mm isn't very long, but having the overlap is nice - less lens changes.
    Of course, I'm a firm believer that you can't have too many lenses, as long as each has a purpose. Current kit is 1Ds III, 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85L II, 135L, and 1.4x II. :)
     
  14. Hi Tommy,
    After several years of buying, trading, selling and using all makes and models of lenses, I ended up with same lens line up as you except a 24L TS-E instead of the 28 1.8 and I do have one non Canon lens (Tamron 17-50 2.8). I don't feel there is an overlap in my line up since the 24L TS-E is a specialty lens. I have a 40d, 50d and 5d mk1, so all the lenses (including the 17-50) end up in use on one camera or the another.
    The only lens I really miss is my 100-400L. I traded it for the 24L TS-E about a year ago and wish I had it back (or another long lens). I have a 1.4x Tele-converter, but it's just not the same.
    I have the 40d and 50d up for sale on Craig's list and will keep which ever doesn't sell first or sell both and get a 7d, but will stay with the current lens line up.
    I wonder how many people have same this basic lens line up? Seems to be pretty popular. I would imagine the biggest change or debate to this line up would be 24-70 2.8 and 16-35 2.8 ILO 17-40 and 24-105, if you are a real 2.8 fan.
    I too have been thinking of getting a P&S, probably a G9, G10 or G11. I recently purchased a Pano head for 360 Real Estate and Remodeling photography and think the G9, 10 or 11 might be a better fit for it ILO my bigger bodies.
     
  15. I've got something of an overlap with your lenses and I don't think the overlap in lens lengths is much of an issue, because I'll use the two lenses for different purposes, personally I'd keep both.
    I'd also been thinking about a compact for carying around with me (in particular for horseback and flying in open cockpit aircraft). The introduction of the Powershot G11 has resulted price drop for the G10, I picked one of those up last weekend. I've not had much chance to use it yet, but it looks OK. I particularly like being able to shoot RAW.
     
  16. I have both with a 5DII. If anything I find myself bumping the 17mm end of the 17-40. I think the overlap is good as I can use either lens as a walkaround. These two lenses are my most used. Keep the lens unless you need the $$, though if you *never* use the 17-40 then fair enough, get rid of it. I use a Canon A720IS as a compact. It has full manual control and can even shoot RAW with a bit of software on the SD card.
    Cheers, Bob
     
  17. My walk-around 5DII kit is 17~40, 24~105, 70~200/4IS, Extender 1.4x. Works for me, and I make extensive use of the 17~40. Although I tend to use the 24~105 quite a bit at the wide end, if I have the time to change lenses, and IS is not relevant, then I prefer the 17~40 in that range because there is less distortion to correct. If 24mm is wide enough for you then you could dispense with the 17~40, but I certainly would not wish to be without it myself. I do have some fast primes (50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2) but I don't currently use them much. The two prime lenses that I use a lot are the TS24 and the 100/2.8USM.
     
  18. Which is remarkably similar to mine... 5D (I), 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 F4L (non IS), and sometimes the 1.4X also.
    That said, the 24-105 is wide enough on full frame for the majority of what I do. I only carry the 17 if I know I'm going to need it, where I might be in close quarters - eg urban or trains or something like that.
    My previous full-frame (in fact, film!) kit was 20 F2.8 USM, 24-85 USM and 70-200 F4L. I sold the 20 and 24-85 as part of funding for my 20D and 17-40. I had the opportunity to do a comparison of the 20 F2.8 and the 17-40 and found the 17-40 to perform generally a little better, stop for stop. The F2.8 didn't do much for me with the 20.
     
  19. Well you have a lot of responses.
    I have both and all I can add is that I use it on my back up 50d so I have a close same range in focal lengths in case something goes wrong with my 5d.
    Another need will be in in small area with a group of people to photograph.
    Useful for the product shots for sure and landscapes.
    BUT, the main reason I have both is to maintain some wide angle capability on either the 5d or the 50d.
    I keep the 50 an the 85 for the same reason.
    Best Wishes
     
  20. Thanks for all the great feedback. Interesting that so many use this combo. I do not need the money so I will hang on to them all. I don't mind overlap in zooms but my primes and zooms all cover the same range so thats what I was really referring to. Again thank you all.
    M Scott, I could have used a 100-400 a few times and something like that is next on my radar. But for now I really want to improve my photography skills.
     
  21. The 100-400 is OK, but it's far from being a fave for me, even though it gets a lot of use.
     
  22. Like many above, I have the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 and use all of them on a 5D. Overlap has never really been a concern. All 3 are relatively small and light and make a good travel kit I think.
     
  23. Tommy you may want to consider the 300 F4 or 400 F5.6 as an alternative to the 100-400. Both are sharper but less versitile. I looked at the 100-400 but I have never liked two touch zooms (even the legendary FD 80-200 F4L which I own).
     
  24. Tommy if you don't need the money don't give up your primes. I have the same 28 f1.8, 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 and they are small and take up very little room in the camera bag but when you need them you need them and all the f2.8 and f4 zooms in the world can not replace them. When you are wanting to capture those private or intimate images and really want to throw your background out of focus they are priceless. Yeah the faster versions are better but the combo you have is very functional and goes very well with the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 lenses. In my opinion they don't overlap they compliment your zooms.
     
  25. sbp

    sbp

    You might consider a 40D, 50D or 7D body instead of selling glass. With the 17-40 on FF body, and 24-105 on APS-C body, you are covered from 17 to 168 without swapping lenses.
     
  26. Philip, I have considered a 400 5.6 but I am going to take my time and use what I have for now with the 21mp I can do some serious cropping if needed. I may get a 1.4 extender first, I tried one out and it was pretty good on my 70-200 2.8.

    Steve, Before My 5d2 I did have a 40D. excellent camera but I never used it once I got the 5D2. I will probably ad a crop body down the road but I may want a rebel for its much smaller size which for me would be a benefit over the fast frame rate. Again I mostly shoot for hobby and the 5D2 is so good it was hard to use the 40D once I got it. Yes I know the 40D has a fast frame rate but 3.9 on the 5D2 is usually more then enough for me. I used to turn the setting down because the 40D was to fast that I would always shoot a burst even when I did not intend to.
    Randall, I am going to keep everything.
     
  27. I've got both and end up rarely using the 17-40 for the reason you pointed out. Thinking about getting one of the new TS-E for the really wide end...
     
  28. bs

    bs

    I don't get the 2 touch zoom thing. All Canon zooms are 2 touch as far as I can see. One ring zooms and another focuses. On the 100-400 it just happens that you pull on one ring and turn the other. It's not my favorite lens in the stable either, but it mostly delivers and it's got a great working range.
    On topic...I have both the 17-40 and 24-105 as well and use them both with relative frequency. For me the most oft used walk around kit is 17-40, 50/1.4 and 70-200. If it's a 1 body/1 lens venue or day then the 24-105 is usually my choice.
    I like the overlap and I like to have a faster prime in the "mid-range" of my zooms so I also use 28/1.8, 50/1.4 & 100/2 at times where low light or shallow DOF are considerations.
     
  29. Tommy I use the 1.4 TC on both the 70-200 and 300 f2.8 and it works well. I have the 2x but never use it as it really is pretty poor (and mine is the Mark II). If you don't need 400mm the the 70-200 f2.8 (I think you have the non IS same as me) works well with the 1.4x on the 5DII.
    Bob - yes all zooms have two settings - zoom and focus. the term two touch was introduced to refer to zooms where these two controls were on seperate rings because you have to take your hand off to change control. In my earlier post i inadvertantly suggested that i don't like two touch - in fact I only like two touch which comes from my MF days. On a manual focus camera it was usually best to set the focus at the telephoto end of a zoom then adjust the zoom to frame the shot. On a one touch zoom you zoom by sliding the collar which creates the possibility of slightly refocusing. The other issue (which may be urban legend) is that one touch designs are worse for sucking dirt into the lens. The only one touch design i zoom that I have bought and kept is the Canon FD 80-200 f4L which is a remarkable lens and at most apertures outperforms the Canon FD 200 F2.8. All the other zooms I have (4 Canon, 1 Tamron, 1 Vivitar and a Panasonic M4/3) are two touch. The two designs do not cause optical differences.
    The need for the 100-400 depends on what and how you shoot. I will never take a lens above 200mm with me when I am generally shooting, conversely when I take the 300 f2.8 I will usually not take more than one short lens. When i walk around I will generally take two zooms if I shoot with my EOS system. Increasingly I find that the 16-35 F2.8 II and 70-200 F2.8 get taken while the 24-70 stays at home.
     
  30. Philip , A 1.4x is what I will get next time I travel. When I was in Galapagos someone on the trip had the 1.4 and the 2x I tried the 2X and it was pretty bad, most of the shots where not very sharp, the 1.4 worked well.
     
  31. Hi Tommy, I have both. Whereas 24 is very wide, the world as seen through a 17mm is just totally different. I use both on my film camera and soon, on my 5D2 :)
     
  32. I used to have both for my 20D, but replaced the 17-40 with the 17-55/2.8 IS USM. I found the overlap of the 17-40 and 24-105 to be a problem, but not in the way one might think: I found it wasn't enough. I was swapping lenses far more often than I wanted to. The 17-55 has gone a long way toward alleviating this problem for me.
     
  33. I have 5D2, Rebel XT (which I don't use anymore and plan to sell), 17-40, 24-105 and plan to buy 70-200 4LIS (just sold non-IS version). My walk-around lens is 24-105 but I have no plans to sell 17-40. There is a huge difference between 17 and 24 in terms of the width of the angle, and I consider 17-40 the best value among the L lenses. Personally, I value wide angle more than tele, and with 5D2 I can always crop. Whether or not you need 17-40 depends on your shooting needs and preferences, as well as how badly you need $$$. If shorter than 24 length is not important to you, sell it by all means. I just sold 70-200 4L non-IS for virtually the same amount I bought it, after 2 years of light use - I am sure you can get a good price on ebay
     
  34. I used to have the 17-40l, do presently own the 24-105L and the 24-70L. I sold the 17-40 because of the distortion at the wide end, now use primes for any thing below 24. However, in your case you are missing the wide angle view, some times that 17mm can come in very handy.
     
  35. I have both. One of my favourite walkabout combos is the 17-40 on my 5D and the 24-105 on my 450D, which fit together quite nicely in a Domke shoulder bag. With the crop factor the 24-105 is equivalent to a 38-168, so there's hardly any overlap in this scenario.
     
  36. Thats a great idea Scott. I plan to ad a rebel to my set up at some point. I had a 40D that I actually traded to get the 17-40 ( plus I got $200 cash in the deal ) I liked the 40D a lot but it was basically the same size as the 5D2 and I want something smaller for a second camera so come holiday time I may ad a t1i. Still curious about that S90.
    Its nice to know so many use these 2 lenses together. They are both really excellent lenses and I am surprised at how good the 17-40 is. Much better then I expected when it comes to close up as well as sharpness, color and contrast plus its smaller and lighter then I would have thought.
     

Share This Page

1111