EF 17-40 f4.0 overlapping 24-105?

[goldwyn_t]

Hi guys, just got a new 30D, it's only been a week but i'm already missing my

wide angles <35mm... Shoot mostly indoor banquets and such... do you guys think

4.0 will be fast enough? and will the focal length be too much overlap with the

24-105?

 

Thanks guys

[lovcom_photo]

No overlap since the starting and ending focal lengths are very different. One is a wide zoom the other a tele. 17mm vs 24mm may not seem like a big difference but when you try out the FOV's through the view finder, there is a very big difference.

 

Perhaps you need a faster zoom to compliment the 24-105? Consider the 16-35L F2.8?

 

On a 30D, the 17-40 is affectively a normal/standard zoom, and of course the 24-105 is still a tele...more so actually.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I currently use the 17-40 and 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM (among others) on my 20D. I quite like having some overlap; it cuts down on the number of times I need to swap lenses. I am considering replacing the 28-135 with the 24-105 so I clearly don't think that overlap is a problem :-)</p>

 

<p>I don't typically shoot what you shoot so I can't say for sure if you'd find f/4 too slow. On the assumption that part of what you're doing is shooting groups of people, you may find that even with a wide-angle lens, DOF concerns may require you to stop down somewhat beyond f/4. <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/friends_and_family/0679JudyandMatthew.jpg" target="_blank">This isn't quite what you're looking for</a> but it's about the only shot I have online that illustrates what I mean. This is the 17-40 at 40mm, f/5, on a 20D, and while the two main subjects are sharp, the people in both the foreground and the background are visibly out of focus even on this downsampled Web shot. Of course, if you're shooting in available light, a faster lens can certainly be useful, although with the good high-ISO performance of the 30D, a one-stop difference isn't always as big a deal as it was in the film days.</p>

[trothwell]

Don't worry about the overlap in focal length, but as Dan alluded to, you might want something faster. Unless I'm using flash, I find the 17-40 to often be too slow for use indoors.

[jon_austin]

I started with a 10D and a 24-85. Very quickly added a 17-40. Eventually upgraded the 10D to a 20D. Most recently upgraded the 24-85 to a 24-105.

 

Overlap is good. Reduces the need for frequent lens changes.

 

As for the speed, only you can say if f/4 is fast enough for you in this range. Works for me. And twice the speed costs twice as much.

[mark_k3]

Not to me. I have bought a 17-40, 24-105 as well as 100-400 for my brand new 30D. As the overlapped range is very useful, this has become aconvenience to me.

[dogbert]

I don't think you need to worry about the overlap, but I don't think the 17-40, 24-105 combination will be the most versatile choice either. You may do better to consider the Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 for some true wide angles on the 30D.

 

The jump from 24 to 17 is like the difference between a 35mm and a 28 mm prime. I guess most photogrpahers would take one or the other but probably not both. The 10-22 range opens up a whole lot more possibilities. FWIW I use the sigma 10-20 and am very happy with it.

[goldwyn_t]

Thanks for the quick responses guys

 

The 16-35 is tempting, but i can't justify the cost for the light.

 

Steve's example was very well taken (though most ballrooms enjoy more space =P), indeed the DOF is too shallow even at f4. i have yet to thoroughly test the 30D's image noise in my particular lightings. Having said that, i've been shooting at ISO400 last weekend and the photos were already miles beyond my 100-film scans. Use of flash is limited at best, since performers for the banquets don't appreciate being blinded... furthermore, the ceilings are usually too tall for bounces...

 

It makes sense that focal length overlap can reduce lens changes. From previous posts, there were many complaints regarding "loss of focal lengths" as a result - which certainly is true. Good to hear i'm not the only one who's considering pairing these lenses. If anything, at least i don't have to spend another $180 on a polarizer =P

[goldwyn_t]

Regarding Geoff's response,

 

i was also looking at the 10-20 but couldn't find a local shop with the lens in stock to test. I was afraid the ultra-wide might offend guests on the frame's edge, they're usually not looking for abstract barrel distortions. =)

[awindsor]

The 17-40/4 shows significantly greater barrel distortion at 17mm than the 10-22 shows at 10mm. Barrel distortion can be ameliorated during post processing. When using the 17-40/4 for architecture I find this correction necessary.

 

My suggestion would be to go with one of the ultrawides. My 17-40/4L predates my transition to a 1.6x crop factor body.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Barrel distortion is easily corrected in software. The nasty things that perspective can do to people on the edges of wide-angle shots, on the other hand, can definitely make you enemies ...</p>

[dogbert]

You can always shoot the 10-22 at 17 mm, but you can't shoot the 17-40L at 10 mm. No offence but I think it is faulty logic to say that you want to steer clear of an ultrawide because you it will cause you use it in a way that is unflattering to subjects.

 

Of course it is another issue if you are sure you don't need anything wider than 17 mm, but it sounds like you used to use a 24 mm on a FF, which is wider than 17 mm of a 1.6 cropper.

[awindsor]

The original poster specifically mentioned barrel distortion. I must admit I very rarely use very wide angles for people shots. For groups I use 28mm. The 17-40/4L will get you that but it will not get you wider for landscapes or interiors. For me 28mm is the wide end of normal. The 17-40/4L was bought precisely since my 28-135 was not wide enough. On full frame 17mm is definitely wide enough for me (actually I used the lens more in the 20-24mm range and the borders aren't that sharp at 17mm on full frame).

 

Goldwyn,

 

If you were worried about f4 not being fast enough why get the 24-105/4 ?

 

If the banquets you shoot are as dimly lit as the banquets I attend then you will need to use flash with an f4 lens (and possibly with an f2.8 too). With flash using f4 and a slightly higher ISO will often get enough background exposure though my ideal choice would be an f2.8 zoom.

 

If you liked shooting at either 20mm or 24mm on 35mm then get an ultrawide zoom (with the exception of the very expensive 14mm there are no primes to get you there).

[gdanmitchell]

I'll echo a point of view I read above. I also use the 24-105 f/4 and the 17-40 f/4 and

actually _like_ the fact that they overlap. On a crop sensor camera, the "overlap zone" is a

very useful range - and since you have it on both lenses you don't need to switch quite so

often.

 

In practice I usually put one or the other on my camera (often the 24-105 these days) and

leave it there until I need the range of the other lens. Then I put on the other lens and

leave it there until I need the opposite end of the other lens.

 

I can't answer your f/4 v. f/2.8 questions - I'm quite happy with the two f/4 lenses for the

sort of photography I do.

 

Dan

[savas_kyprianides]

I have the 24-105, love it, but want any future lenses of mine to be faster than f/4.0.

Therefore, I'll have to look hard at 16-35 or a set of even faster primes close to or at the

opposing ends of its focal lengths.

[goldwyn_t]

Thanks for more replies guys,

 

I just checked photozone.de and indeed the sigman 10-20 has less barrel distortion than 17-40... but i was curious to the actual effect of a 16mm lens (10mm on 1.6x crop) for closed quarter shooting.

 

As for my reason in purchasing a 24-105 4.0, i was using a 28-105 USM II on my old elan7 and have always wanted an IS walkaround lens, therefore this was the natural choice. (talk about over overlap!) Max aperture was low on my list of considerations when purchasing this lens. Right now however, it is painfully obvious that 24-105 is too long for group shots (eg. toasts, cheers, table full of kids, etc.)

 

My decision is biased towards focal length rather than aperture, like Alistair said, even 2.8 wouldn't be much use for indoor shots. Furthermore, going back to Steve's comment, at 2.8 over half the subjects will be out of focus. I will be submitting a series of portraits rather than group photos.

 

It's again good to read that you guys don't mind the focal length overlap at all!

 

I also have a 50mm 1.4 btw... and while i can "zoom in" with my feet, i can't "zoom out" - people, tables, and building supports =P, get in the way. Therefore the 17-40 or something equivalent.

[scott_milso]

maybe the 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24 f/4 would be a better compliment to your 24-105. Just a thought.

[awindsor]

What I said was that f2.8 is often not fast enough to shoot inside without a flash (though the high ISO performance of DSLRs helps massively). The additional stop is very useful when balancing ambient with flash.

 

For the money I would say that a 17-40/4 and a couple of flashes is much better than a 16-35/2.8. If the ceiling is high enough a single bounced flash can make a huge difference. If the ceiling is low then you need a couple of flashes to get the job done.

 

With a DSLR and a fast prime you can take pictures of people in very very low light but you can't do it with any DOF. For DOF in low light the only choice is flash.

 

If *you* don't mind the overlap then the 17-40/4 will get you through most of your small group shots. You will still need to carry a longer lens for working at a distance. Flash is probably a necessity.

[delwyn_ching]

I have both and they overlap a small bit but both have their special abilities and I use both equally. However for being lazy, the 24-105 stays on my camera most of the time.

[goldwyn_t]

Thanks for all the input guys,

 

I think the 17-40 will be my best bet. Seems many of you have this combination and infact enjoy the focal length overlap =)

 

Cheers guys!

[dogbert]

For group shots, toast etc, you will want to be shooting at f5.6 or thereabouts with flash to get sufficient DoF. F2.8 zooms or faster primes will get you better bokeh and portraits in low light, but not group shots.

 

Another alternative would be the sigma 18-50 EXf2.8 or the tamron 17-50 f2.8. Tokina are also supposed to be bringing out a 16-50 f2.8. They will go easily wide enough for group shots and are fast enough for some protrait and low light shooting.

[yakim_peled1]

>> You can always shoot the 10-22 at 17 mm, but you can't shoot the 17-40L at 10 mm.

 

I concur. If I had a EF-S body and 24-105 I'd surely buy the 10-22 USM. Not because it does not overlap but because it is wider.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.