Trading 17-40/70-200 f4 to 24-70 f2.8.. is it wise?

[jonathan_bautista]

I just wanted to get your opinion on this. As mentioned above, I

currently have 17-40 and 70-200 f4 lenses. I've been using the 17-40

a lot and I have no complains on it's quality. Recently, I did some

indoor photography and I got so bummed out by the f4 aperture. I've

been leaving my 70-200 most of the time due to it's size. Went

through shots taken in the past 6 months, 70-200mm are often used for

head shots. Nothing more than that. I am now starting to question

the equipment that I have. I am thingking of trading both lens to

get a 24-70mm f2.8 lens. This will address my speed issue and will

give me a portrait lens on the 70mm range. I will surely miss the

17mm range (as I use this often for groups shots), but I figure I can

get a 15mm f2.5 lens when I get a chance. Am I getting very

implusive on this move. Will I regret parting with my 17-40/70-200

and replacing it with a 24-70 lens. Truly, I am the only one who can

answer this question but I would appreciate if you have any thoughts

that you can offer.

 

Thanks!

[marknagel]

I have the 24-70L and love it, I haven't noticed missing the 17-23mm. I have a 10-22 and 17-85, but 24mm (on a 1.6 20D) seems to work well indoors and I almost never swap to them. I love my 17-85, but since I got my 24-70 almost 3 weeks ago, I think I've used it once. Although, I have the 70-200/2.8IS and I really like that range too. If I had to choose any 2 lenses, I would take the 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L. Probably didn't answer you question, what to do, but you won't regret the 24-70. Any chance to keep the others and sell a car or spouse instead?

 

Mark

[fernando lopez]

The 17-40 and the 70-200 are among the best affordable lenses Canon ever made. Sorry for this, but you would be really stupid to let go of these two..... . Why not use a tripod to overcome your speed issue? Every serious photographer should use a tripod, always! That's why I don't care about buying slower lenses. In general, if you're not a sports or concert photographer you don't really need very fast lenses. OK, the bokeh may a bit better but what the ....... .. .

[fernando lopez]

Don't do it! I once sold some fine glass and still regret that day. One time you may find yourself in a situation where you wish you had those lenses. Were talking high quality L- glass here. Not some cheap consumer lens.

[John Crowe]

Don't do it! One stop is not going to automatically improve your indoor photography. A tripod and a good flash for "fill" light will be much better, and if you do need a fast lens then a 50/1.4, 35/2, or one of the twenty-something f1.8s would also be much more useful. Good luck!

[kanellopoulos]

Don't do it! If 4 is too slow, then 2.8 is also slow. <br>

Get yourself the 50 f/1.4 or the 35 f/2. These are truely fast lenses!<br>

If your problem is indoors, use a flash! I don't think <br>

you would only like to shoot at 2.8 indoors... <br>

And if you find the 70-200 f/4 bulky, you will also find the

24-70 bulky: <br>it is 5mm thicker and 300 gramms heavier .

[peter_white2]

Sounds like you don't need the 70-200. And there's quite a bit of duplication between the 17-40 and the 24-70. You don't say what camera you're using though. I bought a 24-70 for the 20D along with a 10-22 and a 135 f:2 and 1.4x extender. The 24-70 is terrific. For portraits the f:2.8 isn't quite as isolating as I would like. I'll pick up a 50 for that one of these days. But they're inexpensive compared with any of the other lenses.

 

It sounds to me like you may be happier with the 24-70. For me it's what I need 80% of the time. I'll point out that it isn't a small lens though. Be prepared to haul around a big hunk of hardware. ;-)

[shawngibson]

I agree with John. I've had the opportunity for the last 2 day to be shooting with a friend's 1DmkII and the 24-70L...what a joy over a Rebel! But...the other lenses are both wonderful lenses, and to be honest, you're merely adding 1 stop (not much unless you are shooting in depserate situations, in which case, you'd be shooting fast primes) - and you'd be trading a lot of reach.

 

All 3 seem to be great lenses, but you would probably be better to wait and get either the 24-70 while keeping your other 2 zooms, or indeed get yourself a nice 50mm f/1.4:P)

 

Just my 2cents.

 

Shawn

[awindsor]

I wouldn't do it. If you find you need a fast zoom I would consider the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di ....

 

You mention leaving the 70-200/4 behind because of its size. Have you handled a 24-70/2.8 ? It is huge lens, weighing in at 950g. It is shorter than the 70-200/4 by about 5 cm but is fatter.

 

You are only gaining a stop over the f4 zooms. A 50/1.4 is two full stops faster than a 24-75/2.8, optically at least as good, an excellent portrait lens on a 1.6x crop factor body, lighter, and much cheaper. I would add a couple of fast primes and keep your f4 zooms.

[bens]

sounds like money is tight. here's what i would do. definitely go now, no stopping for dinner, and buy a 50/1.8. that will solve a lot of indoor shooting needs. keep the 17-40 cuz you have been happy with it. if you find more and more you want to shoot indoors, buy another with a shutter of 2.8 or faster when you have the cash. i have the 28-75 tamron and it is very very good. problem though is that indoors 2.8 is not terribly fast sometimes. so consider also gatting a good external flash, like the 550ex or 420ex and using it with your 17-40.

[Greg M]

If you think the 70-200 f4L is heavy.....

 

The 24-70 f2.8 is a brute of a lens. True, you get the 70mm end with the 24mm semi wide in one lens, so no more lens changing, plus you get one extra stop. I have actually gone back and looked at images shot with my 17-40 to see where I stay at most of the time because I'm just zooming away at events without really looking where I place the setting- I just use what looks "right". Turns out much of the time I am within 1-2 degrees of 28mm, so I've considered buying the 28mm f1.8 to use at events where a semi wide view and low light, no flash shots are either a must or would be preferable. That is probably where I am going. When I need the 17mm setting I really need it, and a zoom that stops at 24mm will not work- the way I work I'd rather zoom start at the wider end. If I need both I have the 17-40 on a 10D and an 85mm f1.8 I use on a Digital Rebel that's kept over my shoulder for when it's needed.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I wouldn't. I use the 17-40 at its wide end quite a bit on the 20D, and I also use it a fair bit at focal lengths in the 17-24 range. I would not be a happy camper if 24 were my widest focal length, nor would I like to have a gap from 15 to 24. But that's just me and how I use my equipment; as you say, you're the only one who can come up with the right answer <em>for you</em>.</p>

 

<p>You say you've gone through your shots looking at how you use the 70-200; have you gone through your shots looking at the focal lengths at which you typically use the 17-40? If not, you should. If you rarely use it wider than 24, then perhaps getting the 24-70 would be a good thing. If you rarely use it at anything other than its wide end or the 24-40 range, then getting a 15 and a 24-70 would perhaps be OK (though if you can't afford both immediately, would you be able to make do without the wide end until you can afford the 15, and would you be OK with having to swap lenses on and off all the time?)</p>

[j_stockton]

They are different lenses. The 17-40 is much more comparable to the 16-35. Most

people I know who have the 24-70L or 28-70L (I have one of these) use it fairly

infrequently, usually do the limited range. I was talking to a wedding photographer

last Friday who shot almost everything using a 28-135 IS, although he owns a 24-70L

and the 70-200/4L. I couldn't believe it, but then I'm not a wedding photographer. I

have the 16-35, and use it all the time. I've been using the 28-70L more, but this is a

very heavy (albeit extremely sharp) lens, so weight might be an issue. I suggest

renting or borrowing it before buying it. It may end up being a heavy paperweight.

 

Jeffrey Stockton

[jim_larson1]

Don't do it!

 

Need a portrait lens in the 70mm range? Get the 85/1.8 and the 50/1.8. SERIOUSLY. I have all three lenses. It works out great. On many days, I don't bother bringing the 70-200. . and the 85/1.8 is more than adequate for light telephoto work. Plus it is a F1.8. A full stop faster than 2.8.

 

Need a fast wide angle? Then the 24/2.8 is for you.

 

Now we are talking about my setup: A 17-40/4L and 50/1.8 is always in the bag.

If airshows or sports is in the plan. . I put in the 70-200/4L (with 1.4TC).

If an indoor house party is in the plan. . .then the 24/2.8 is in the bag and the 70-200 stays home.

 

Tourist in a city with low light. . .24/2.8 and 35/2-> heaviest setup because I still have the 17-40/4L and 50/1.8 in the bag.

 

General walkabout work. . . 85/1.8, 17-40/4L and 50/1.8.

[jonathan_bautista]

Thank you for all your responses. As always, you guys are very helpfull in keeping me in-check before any purchases. It's always good to hear from somebody else's perspective. To answer some of the questions, I have a Canon 10D. I also have a 50mm f1.4 that I use for low light photography. I don't really mind dragging the 70-200/f4. It's the use that I question as I often have it with me and not use it. But then again, I may need it and not have it. 80% of the time, I have the 17-40 mounted on my camera. I love the lens. I don't really have any complaints until my last 3 outings (b-day, christening and another indoor party). A few extra stop would have given me a better exposure of the ambient light. A few extra stop would have frozen the hand of the priest. A few extra stop would have capture a sharper image. Sometimes, carrying a tripod is not an option. That started me thinking on whether I should keep my 17-40 f4 or trade it in (together with the 70-200 f4) to get a 24-70mm. My justification behind it... I will have one lens to drag around (and the 50mm in my pocket...just in case). But then again, how many times have I said that to myself?.. that I only need a single lens. I guess I need to go back to all my images and see where I'm shooting at. If it's in the 24-70mm range, then maybe I should trade it in. I just hope that I don't miss the 17-23mm and the 71-200mm range if I do decide to part with both my lenses.

 

Thanks!

[jonathan_bautista]

Just to add more confusion to myself, I went through a couple of my images and realized that most of my shots are on the 17-30mm range. On my 70-200, 95% of my shot are on the 70mm range. I decide to keep the 17-40mm. Now, I'm not sure what to do with my 70-200mm.

[pbizarro]

So you have found out that f/4 lenses are slow. That is not a reason to trade them in. All you have to do is buy a fast prime lens, since f/2.8 is still slow. Horses for courses.

[robin_sibson1]

But Jonathan already has a fast prime lens of high optical quality - the 50/1.4. He did not tell us that in the original posting.

 

Jonathan, all the more reason to question the value of the 24~70. It might be a good addition to your present line-up if you must have the flexibility of the zoom, but it does not look like a good replacement.

 

You are quite right to back off from selling your 17~40 - the only sensible alternative would be the 16~35, if you need the extra speed. Canon do not make a 15/2.5; maybe you are talking about an off-brand lens (can't comment on that) or maybe the Canon fish-eye. OK, you can correct distortion during digital post-processing, but it doesn't sound like a good alternative to the 17~40 or 16~35.

 

As for the long end, it sounds as if you do make some use of the 70~200, and you would probably regret having sold it when you begin to feel the need for the longer part of its range. If you want an excellent portrait lens in the 70mm range, go just a fraction longer and buy the 85/1.8.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I wouldn't do it. If you find you need a fast zoom I would consider the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di ....

 

 

I second that.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[tim_kong]

Definitely not wise to sell the 2 lens. Like Yakim said, get the Tamron 28-75/2.8 instead. This is a fine lense and it is light and discrete. I find the optical quality to be very good for the price.

 

Tim

[jonathan_bautista]

Thanks a lot for all your help! I decided to hold on to both lenses.

[jim_larson1]

Jonathan: Just add a 24/2.8 to your existing lens set. I think you will do fine with that. They also make a 24/1.4; but that lens is a bit pricey (ie, more than the 24-70/2.8)

[quat_le]

Nobody mentioned the Tamron 17-35mm F2.8. That's an excellent lens, very close to the Canon 17-40mm F4 in sharpness, but is 1 full stop faster and lighter.

[awindsor]

I was looking for a wide lens to add to my kit for low light work. I like the 50/1.8 but it is a bit too long for group shots. The best option seems to be the 24/1.8. It seems to be better regarded than the Canon lens and is more than a stop faster than the Canon 24/2.8. It is also much cheaper than the 24/1.4L.