Canon 24-105/4L IS vs. 17-40/4L + 70-200/4L

[michael_duben]

Hi everyone,

I am in the process of selecting lens for Canon Rebel XT. It looks

like Canon 24-105/4L IS costs as much as 17-40/4L + 70-200/4L - the

combo having much broader range. Is image sabilization worth it? I

am an amature but I want L lenses. Please help. Thanks

[jim_larson1]

IMHO: No, the 24-105/4L is NOT worth the combined cost of the 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L.

 

IS is nice. . .the 24-105 range is nice. . .but the range of 40-70 is not as important as 17-24 and 105-200.

[phyrpowr]

I have and use extensively the 28-135 IS, a great copy, that I think is THE lens for general travel and walk-around handheld photography. That IS will save far more shots than you'd imagine, I think it's better than advertised, and the 24-105 is considered to be an improvement.

 

That said, I'm advising the 17-40 and 70-200 combo. The 24-105 IS is still a bit new, though getting some good reviews, but the other two are known and proven quantities: excellent value for money, and basically excellent period. They cover ranges that you'll soon want, and would soon get anyway.

 

You can find a way to fill in that 40-70 gap (move closer), but you can't make the 24-105 any wider, and a 2x teleconverter is expensive, and not the answer for reach out to 200mm: too much image degradation

[John Crowe]

17-40, 50/1.8, and 70-200. Good luck.

[paul -]

Having all three f4/L zooms, and <i>loving</i> the 24-105/IS, I would say start out with John's suggested 3 lens combo. Though the 24-105 gets the most use (new toy syndrome?), I still reach for the other 2 zooms often enough that I would miss them.<p>Besides, the 17-40 and 70-200 are eligible for the Triple Rebates right now, and the 24-105 will likely go down in price a bit after a while.

[thierry_fortier]

You do right starting with L lens... I spent more money switching thirdparties lens trying to get some qualities than if I had buy the 17-40 and 70-200 right at the start... I still dont have them! im a cheap primes monkey now! always doing grimaces and switching lenses...

 

for the 1.6x crop, you will need the 17-40, its obvious. but maybe you can do the trick buy adding the 10-22 (or10-20sigma) to the 24-105 for your landscape or small space needs...

 

and dont forget the 50mm 1.8 (70$) for lowlight and skinny DoF...

 

Ive played a lot with my friend's 17-40 and its a nice lens... very good color!

[kevin conville]

Forget the 24-105 on a 1.6X body. It's not wide enough and often not long enough. The

17-40 is brilliant on your XT. The 70-200 F4L is also a drop dead classic. Fill in the middle

ground with a 50mm something (or in my case, 60mm macro) and you'll have one cool kit.

[yakim_peled1]

I'm with John. I'd rather have this set-up than the 24-105. Yes, IS is VERY tempting but the broader zoom rage is a deal breaker, at least as far as I am concerned.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[pbizarro]

Before buying expensive lenses, try to learn something about photography from good books, exhibits, etc. That way, you will know if you will miss the 17mm or the 200mm ranges.

 

Buy the camera with the kit lens and learn. It will save you money in the long run.

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

24-105 is for FF/1.3x body. on 1.6x body is not a good traveling lens at all. your best travelling lens on 1.6x body is the 17-40

[grant g]

As usual on the internet...SO much advice on the 24-105 from people who HAVEN'T used it.

 

I didn't think I'd ever buy an f/4L lens until this one. I have absolutely no regrets for use on crop cameras. Even with the 24-70/2.8, 70-200IS, sigma 18-50/2.8 available...I find that I am frequntly choosing the 24-105. It is a great lens and often 'lets' me bring just one body instead of two because it is a useful focal range.

 

I originally bought the 24-105 to replace the EF-S 17-85IS, but I think it has also taken over the 24-70's previous title of 'my favorite lens' and the 'if I only had one lens' recommendation.

 

But *you* need to decide if this 4x zoom will outweigh the utility of having about 11.8x coverage in two zooms.

 

Good luck deciding.

[dk.]

I think I would get the 17-40, 50/1.8, and 70-200 also.

Play with those and get good at it. Then in time maybe 1 year later get the 24-105mm as it is supposed to be very nice and yes "IS" is a very nice thing to have and in a year the price will have come down on it most likely. But for someone new 17-40, 50/1.8, and 70-200 are a very nice thing to start with and will always be good too.

Take care and have fun.

 

DK.

[jon_austin]

Grant Gaborno: "As usual on the internet...SO much advice on the 24-105 from people who HAVEN'T used it."

 

Well said.

 

I don't have the 24-105 yet, but I have one on order.

 

I also already own the 17-40, 50, 70-200/4 combo, although my 50 is the Compact Macro, and I love it.

 

The lens(es) you should want to buy from these choices should depend on the focal length range(s) you most want to shoot. My first lens for my 10D was the 24-85. My second lens was the 17-40, because the 24-85 was too long for most of my indoor needs.

 

The 70-200 is my least-used lens. If I were starting from scratch, I would buy the 17-40 first, the 24-105 second, the fast primes next and the 70-200 last.

 

But again, it all depends on your target focal length range(s) (and your budget). You don't necessarily have to buy lenses to cover FLs you aren't going to shoot!

[michael_duben]

Thank you, it was very useful! Looks like it's going to be the combo...

[lotsawa]

> the 17-40 and 70-200 are eligible for the Triple Rebates right now

 

If you manage to get hold of a 70-200/4L ... ;-)

[kevin conville]

"As usual on the internet...SO much advice on the 24-105 from people who HAVEN'T used

it."

 

Well even though I haven't driven one I know I don't want a Hummer because it's a huge

gas guzzler. I also haven't tried wearing panty hose but I'm not inclined to try it though

some may enjoy it.

 

Oh, and I know that the 24-105 equates to a 38-168 and regardless of it's other merits

I'm not interested in having that focal range in one lens.

[yann_muzika]

It all depends on the usage. If for instance you are into travel photography, taking pictures around in villages and in the countryside in exotic countries, 24-105 will cover 90%-95% of your needs whereas you will need to switch constantly between 17-40 and 70-200, loading lots of dust in the process.

[paul -]

Gee, I <i>have</i> all the f4L zooms, use them on a 1.6x body, and I actually <i>use</i> the 24-105 the most.<p>

Why didn't someone tell me earlier that this lens wasn't a good choice for <i>me</i>, or <i>"24-105 is for FF/1.3x body. on 1.6x body is not a good traveling lens at all."</i>? That way maybe I wouldn't be deluding myself with what a wonderful lens the 24-105 is on my 1.6x body!<p>But I can only speak from experience.

[jim_larson1]

Wow. So many expert users on the 24-105/4L.

 

And to think. . .the lens was released 2 monthes ago!

[kevin conville]

To those who like the 24-105 on their 1.6 bodies, more power to you. This merely says

you like having a near normal to short tele zoom lens. This is really no more profound

than saying you like the EF 24 2.8 better than the EF 28 2.8 because it's a little wider.

There's no mythology here.

 

When I get a FF DSLR I will NO DOUBT get a 24-105 or similar as that is where I live

photographically. It may make for a much simpler and compact kit also.

[paul -]

<i>"This merely says you like having a near normal to short tele zoom lens."</i><P>Well, of course. That's why we bought ours in the first place; to fill the "normal" gap between the wide 17-40 and tele 70-200. As a bonus, the 24-105's overlap helps minimize lens changes.

[delwyn_ching]

As previous posters have replied, the 17-40 and 70-200 is the perfect combo to have. I think the 24-105 is too new and too expensive while the 17-40/70-200 combo offers more flexibility. I have the 17-40 on my 20D all the time and that said, you should add the 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4 to the combo for portrait work. I have the 50 f/1.8 and still find it amazing despite the cheaply made plastic housing but what do you expect for around $70?

[wbesz]

I agree the 17-40/4L is a good choice, and the 70-200/4L is excellent.

 

However, in my case, I find just using the 24-104/4L is the easiest option when you are on the move.

 

I use this on my 20D and 5D.

 

Cheers, William

[savas_kyprianides]

This is always a hard choice, especially for a newbie. (such as myself, by the way) My take

on this precise question, prior to discovering this thread, was to consider all the

photography I have done to date and what cameras I have been using and recall as to

whether or not I suffered not having a wide-enough lens. So far, no. My prior cameras

were an Olympus E-10 and Nikon 990. They had effective 35 and 38 mm respectively at

the widest. Professionals need to have a wide size range available to them, not knowing

what project requirements will come their way. And wide shots can be breathtaking. Given

that the thread starter has not indicated his preferred subjects, the wide and telephoto

range suggested are both wise and safe choices. I have read elsewhere about the mid-

range lens collecting dust, considering usefulness of both wide and telephoto. That writer

also introduced the factor of budget, saying that the cost savings on a decent telephoto

will help you afford the much more costly wide angle, which we know are harder to

manufacture. Nevertheless, it�s been a tough time for me finally making the choice in

getting the 24-105 L IS. I needed to get the purchase done in calendar hear 2005 and

went for the splurge, then had pause to reconsider. It�s still sitting in the box. Every time I

read about this lens or that, I go into a tailspin, although generally I feel it�s a good choice

for me. My personal considerations are product shots, portrait, portions of interiors, the

occasional distant shot from my terrace, perhaps travel (if I can finally get to go

somewhere), parties (for which I will probably opt for the $75.00 fast 50mm) and general

walk-about. I visit some dusty places in my work travels. I wanted to avoid lens changes

and not go for primes. Although I was blown away by the size of these lenses when the

first zoom I asked to see was the 24-70L. But I have reconciled the 24-105 as being only a

half pound more than the 17-85 IS Is and a mere 1/2� longer. Anyway, I am summoning

up the courage to give it a spin and sense I will be happy with it. As mentioned, I don�t

have wide needs thus far, but assume it will become exceptionally important by way of

Murphy�s law!

[savas_kyprianides]

I see that my diacritical markings have all become question marks in my post. This was not

intentional.