Having 17-40, selling 24-105 to finance 70-200F4IS?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by alireza_r, Nov 22, 2010.

  1. Hey everybody,
    Kind of thinking aloud before making the plunge... So I'm getting myself a nice 17-40mm (up/downgrading from Sigma 12-24, depending on the point of view), and having 24-105mm, I thought I might "not" need it often. So I was wondering what do you guys think of selling the 24-105 and buying a 70-200mm F4IS instead? In another words, which combo do you prefer, 17-40 & 70-200F4IS, or 17-40 & 24-105?
    In my opinion, the former will make a great duo of landscape lenses. I'm sure I will not miss the range in between, as I use to shoot with primes for certain subjects (having CV20mm and 85mm1.8, and not missing much in between). By the way, I'm not a one-lens guy to carry the 24-105mm alone, but I don't even think of carrying around 3 lenses with me. To my experience, the third lens is always a nuisance and an excess weight.
    I've got a classic 5D, btw.
     
  2. I have the 17-40 and 70-200 IS you mentioned. They are both great lenses. Since you have a full frame camera I would think the 24-105 would be more useful. 17mm is very wide on full frame and forty is a little short. the 24-105 is a good compromise.
     
  3. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    I have, carry and use all three of the lenses you're contemplating. Personally I get more use out of the 40-70mm focal length you'd miss if you sell the 24-105 than I do from the 17-24 that you'd miss if you carried the 24-105 and 70-200. The 70-200L f4 IS is a really excellent lens and IMO superior to the other two, so no debates about getting that , though I have to be quite disciplined about changing lenses so as to use it to cover the 70-105 range rather than use the shorter zoom thats most often on the lens.
    If you're prepared to carry a 70-200 and 24-105 then you won't find a 17-40 adds much weight or bulk.
    But it does all depend on what you want to photograph. I know landscape photographers that would view a 70-200 as a real speciality lens and wouldn't carry one unless they really need it.
     
  4. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    "In another words, which combo do you prefer, 17-40 & 70-200F4IS, or 17-40 & 24-105?"​
    I would prefer 17 to 40 and 70 to 200 as a zoom pair on a 5D.

    I could manage with 40 (and cropping) for anything that required 40 to 58ish and could manage with 70 for anything requiring 60 to 70.

    Additionally I would be limited with 24 at the wide with an “all purpose zoom” I prefer wider - so assuming the TWO LENS KIT, when the 24 to 105 was mounted I would feel that I was carrying un-necessary overlap, at the expense of extra length I could have 106 to 200.

    Also the 70 to 200 has the option of the x1.4 – the 24 to 105 does not.
    What I see as the major consideration for you is the value of IS at 24 to 70.

    WW
     
  5. I think the extra range and no overlap would be the way to go. Get a 50mm f/1.8 for <$100 for a gap filler and a low light/portrait lens. I have the 17-40mm, 50mm, and 70-200mm on a 1D and love it; I don't feel I'm missing anything.
     
  6. " and having 24-105mm, I thought I might "not" need it often"
    Personally I would sell the 17-40mm. Unless you are a wide angle type of photographer, 24mm on a 5D is wide enough without getting into distortion, plus you have the reach of 105mm. This comes in handy during travel where you only want to carry one lens and reach is never enough. Sell the 17-40mm save some money and get the 70-200mm f2.8 Mk I, which is one of the best lenses Canon ever made.
     
  7. The IS on the 24-105 has proven to be EXTREMELY valuable on many occasions. I can't imagine replacing it with a non-IS lens like the 17-40. And don't discount the 40-70 mm range. It's ripe with possibilities. 45, 55, and 62 mm are three of my favorite focal lengths, but I've never been particularly keen on 50 mm prime lenses. To my eye, 50 mm is a strange focal length that seems too short and too long all at once.
    The 24-105 is a real workhorse. You have your own requirements, and I have no idea what those requirements are, but until Canon replaces it with something better, I couldn't imagine selling the 24-105.
     
  8. I'd toss the 17-40 and keep the 24-105 IS: better lens, more useful range and IS. 17mm is too wide most of the time so I'm usually stuck from 24-40...
     
  9. Sounds like you are a wide angle and a former medium telephoto user. Go with the 17-40 and think about adding the 70-200/4 IS. I replaced the former with a 16-35/2.8 II and still own the latter.
     
  10. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    "To my eye, 50 mm is a strange focal length that seems too short and too long all at once"​
    That is a great quote.
    Even though I have an EF50/1.4 and like that lens - my most favourite 135format film lenses were: 45/2 and 58/1.2.
    WW
     
  11. What David said. 17~40, 24~105, and 70~200/4IS is my usual carry-round kit with the 5DII, supplemented by an Extender 1.4× when I think I might need it. I don't find the weight of that combination to be a problem. Whatever limitations I might accept at the wide end or the long end, I certainly would not want a large gap from 40mm to 70mm. But it all depends on what you shoot and how you like to shoot it.
     
  12. I have four L lenses. 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 2.8L, 100-400. Since I got the 24-105 I use it most on a 5d. The 70-200 is second, the 100-400 third and the 17-40 last. I really prefer wide angle mostly around 20-24mm on full frame. The 17-40 has easily PS correctable distortion issues at its widest. I have used it for some very nice pictures however. The 70-200 non IS 12 years old and my sentimental favorite multiple use lens. The 100-400 is quite specialized but great at what it does. I used the 17-40 a good bit more before I got the 24-105. It is obvious they overlap. I also have a crop body where the 17-40 is a great walkaround lens. I use the crop and the 100-400 or 70-200 when I go with two bodies. If it were me I certainly would not get rid of the 24-105 even though it also suffers barrel distortion at its widest. That can be corrected if necessary. I shoot a lot of pictures in the 40-70 range that you would give up by trading. .
     
  13. I don't have the 24-105 but am using the 17-40 and occasionally a 50 f/1.8 on a 5D. For now, a 70-200 is cemented on to my 40D and this is working really well for now. Robin's point about an extender is attractive but my experience so far is in line with Nathan's suggestion. A fast 50 could be quite a complement to the two f/4 s.
     
  14. I absolutely love my 17-40 and would never get rid of it. Tested and hated the 24-105 F4L, too much distortion in the corners and bowing horizontal lines like horizons. I purchased the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 DI instead which I am very happy with. I very seldom use my Sigma 70-200 F2.8 just too big and heavy. However, I am looking to order the new Tamron 70-300 VC lens which is dirt cheap at $399 and getting rave reviews. I shoot with a 5D Mark II and actually use the 50 1.8 quite a bit as a light, fast walk around lens.
    Overall, I would agree with others 17-40, 50 1.8, 70-200 or (Tamron 70-300 VC) if you don't need the speed.
     
  15. I have the three lenses (though I have the non-IS 70-200). I a thinking of upgrading to the 70-200/4 IS. If I had to ditch one it would be the 17-40/4L.
     
  16. >> Tested and hated the 24-105 F4L, too much distortion in the corners and bowing horizontal lines like horizons.


    MP, I agree with you. The 24-105 has a lot of distortion (although I was once chastised by a lot of folks here for mentioning it). The distortion used to bother me a lot. However, since Adobe introduced lens correction presets in Lightroom 3, I am very happy with the 24-105. No more distortion problems! Plus it's a sharp and very useful lens. The IS is amazing.
     
  17. keep the 24-105 and buy the 70-200mm L f2.8 IS mark II.
    You will love that lens and especially the speed. Its a bit big but you will find that you will use it more often than not.
     
  18. My feelings are that the 17-40mm is not in the same league as the 24-105mm. Of course if you need 17-24mm then it does not matter. I was never happy with the 17-40mm in terms of sharpness. The 24-105mm is awesome! That is my 2 centt or IMHO or YMMV or any other acronym that you want to interject.
     
  19. @Dan South. I also use my lenses on a Canon ELAN 7NE (film camera) where fixing in Lightroom is not an option unless I scan which defeats teh purpose of shooting film. The whole reason I buy a L-series lens is to get images I don't have to fix to make them usable. The 17-40 has very low distortion and almost no vignetting even at 17mm and most of the best scenery shots I have seen were shot with the 17-40. If I upgrade my lenses it would be for the Canon 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8 Mark I. The money you save not getting the 70-200 IS Mark II almost buys you the 24-70 F2.8. I compensate for no IS by having a really good carbon fiber tripod with fluid head.
     
  20. good answer
     
    dcstep likes this.

Share This Page