17-40mm f/4L compared to 24mm f/2.8

[cong]

Being a Digital Rebel owner for 2 years, I am seriously looking for a zoom lens

to cover the wide end. I own a 24mm f/2.8, and am quite happy with it, except

that it's not wide enough on the Rebel.

 

One option for me is to trade the 24mm in for the 17-40mm f/4L. So how does the

17-40mm f/4L compare to the 24mm prime?

[jim_larson1]

Owners of each lens tend to say that the one they own is better.

 

I have both. Never bothered to compare the two directly against each other. I like both.

 

Don't use the 24/2.8 that much anymore -> The 17-40/4L is a fine lens across the range. I tend to grab the 24 when I *must* have the 2.8 (for low light). Or if the other half is hogging the 17-40/4L -> and I need a wide shot!

[jim_doty]

Li,

 

I agree with Jim (prior post). I bought the 24mm f/2.8 for use on a film camera. When I went digital, the field of view crop meant the 24mm lens was no longer wide enough. I bought the 17-40mm f/4L lens and use it most of the time when I need a wide angle lens.

 

The 24mm f/2.8 comes out whenever I am filming the night sky since manual infinity focus is so easy and it is one stop faster. It would also be the lens of choice (in the absence of a faster lens) for hand held, wide angle street shooting at night.

 

For everything else I go with the 17-40mm lens. It is plenty sharp and I've never had a need to do a side by side comparison. On a 5D it is even wider than on a Digital Rebel (10D, 20D etc.)

 

Jim

[jcolwell]

My experience is about the same as Jim. I have both and use them on 20D and 30D bodies. I use the 17-40L almost every day, and I only use the 24/2.8 once every few weeks when I need the extra aperture stop, or when I want to travel light with only one or two small prime lenses.

[jcolwell]

I should have said "Jims".

[icephoto]

It must be a Jim or James thing. I own both the 24 and 17-40. The 17-40 stays on the 10D pretty much all the time. It's been months since I used the 24mm but am loath to sell it because the extra stop is often worth the price of admission. Both are fine lenses. As far as quality goes, I'd never hesitate to pop on the 17-40 in place of the 28 or vice versa.

 

Warm regards-

[gdanmitchell]

One questions for pixel-peepers who are familiar with these lenses: My 17-40mm can be a

bit noticably soft in the corners. Do you see this on the 24mm f/2.8 also?

 

Thanks,

[sheldonnalos]

I own both lenses, and am actually on my second 24mm f/2.8. I've found that the 17-40mm is just as good if not better than the two 24mm primes that I've owned. My current 17-40mm lens is better in the corners at f/8 than my current 24mm (on a 1.6 crop body).

 

Both are more than capable lenses, but I find that I don't use the 24mm lens much anymore.

[phule]

As probably the only person who owns the 24mm f/2.8 and doesn't own the 17-40 (but would like to) the lens lives on my camera 50% of the time. The other 50% is the 50mm f/1.8.

 

I actually really like the field of view the 24mm lens gives on my 350D. I suspect that it has a lot to do with how much time I spent shooting with a Canon A80 before buying a DSLR.

[awindsor]

My middle name is James so I feel qualified to comment.

 

For a crop factor camera you can get numbers to compare at

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/

 

These numbers are fairly consistent with peoples actual experiences and in some cases they have tested multiple samples.

 

The 24/2.8 has sharper borders at f4 and f5.6 than the 17-40/4L. I have no problem using the 17-40/4L wide open on my 20D (on full frame the borders are more of a problem and you really need to stop down to get optimal performance - since I use this for landscapes on full frame stopping down to f8 is not a problem).

 

How wide are you looking for ? Maybe you could consider the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5. This will get you into the ultrawide territory. It is available from reputable dealers for $690 which is almost the same as the 17-40/4L.

 

They fulfil different roles. The 17-40/4L is my standard walk around lens. I feel it is neither wide enough, long enough, nor fast enough but it is optically very good. On full frame the 17-40/4L is an ultrawide. It is optically considerably worse but much more exciting to use.

[carl_weller]

Got both.

 

The only thing I'd add to the comments above is that the 24/2.8 has better flare resistance

(not surprising seeing it is a prime lense) and it is also much smaller and more discrete.

 

good luck,

[lester_wareham]

I only have the 17-40 which does seem to be very sharp on APS-C. http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/EF_17-40mm_f4L_USM/index.htm

 

Looking at the MTF data for that and the 24/2.8 they are very close. http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/24mm_Region_A/index.htm

 

I would expect the prime to have lower distortion and perhaps better flare resitance than a zoom, I can say that flare on my 17-40 seems well controlled http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Flare/EF%2017-40mm%20f4L%20at%2028mm.htm

 

I think the 17-40 is a good choice but I would hang onto the 24/2.8 for those times you want the extra stop.

[awindsor]

Actually the 17-40/4L has lower distortion at 24mm in Photozone tests. At 17mm barrel distortion is strong enough that shots of architecture require postprocessing. The 10-22 has very well controlled distortion.

[damian_tinsley]

I had the 24mm f2.8 and the 17-40L - I tested them both against each other. I still have the 17-40. nuff said.

[pieris_berreitter]

Like others here, I have both and usually choose the zoom for landscapes (f/8+). At these apertures there is no noticeable sharpness difference, only contrast and color (better,warmer with the zoom). If you have another fast prime available that you can keep (50 or 35) I would recommend trading in the 24 for the 17-40.

<P>

Also consider made-for-1.6 lenses that compare well to the 17-40, have more range, and lower f-numbers. Here's one:

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HTEs&tag=">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HTEs&tag=</A>

<P>

Bear in mind I find the weight of the zoom uncomfortable with the small grip of the Digital Rebel. It doesn't keep me from using it as my primary lens, but I get hand cramps after heavy use. And, I still feel like 17 on 1.6x is not wide enough, coming from 24mm on film.