17-40L vs. 24-105L @24-35

[justin_nurman]

Guys, I am seriously considering to upgrade my 28-135IS with 24-105L. Maybe

it's just my copy or technique, but when I use the IS, the pics turn out less

sharp compare to without IS. It's actually quite an expensive buy for me, so I

am looking at selling it together with my 17-40. I bought the 17-40 for

landscape/group photo and found out around 85% using it at either 24mm or 35mm.

So I think I will not lose the 17-23mm. 28-135 is for walkaround and vacation.

Question to you who own/has owned both, how does the newer zoom compares to 17-

40, especially at 24 or 35 settings in terms of color, contrast, sharpness

(especially wide open)? Is the distortion worse than 17-40 at the same focal

length? I will use this for both walkaround and landscape. Btw, I use EOS30

film with intention to jump into FF digital when I can afford it. TIA.

[trekkie]

I went through this when the two lenses you are looking at wasn't an option.

 

Meaning I ended up with the 16-35mm f/2.8L and the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

 

It was a two year upgrade for me meaning I got the wide first in '02 and then replaced the 28-135IS with the 24-70 later.

 

The reason I hung onto the 16-35mm f/2.8L was for the 16 side and the hope of going full frame eventually with a 5D like body. There are many landscape opportunities out there and getting back the 16 instead of 25 of that lens has me really excited to see how that looks in the blue ridge parkway area of NC.

 

I would check the Luminous Landscape website for their lens compares they've done and you should be able to find enough out of the tests for the 24-70 vs 24 - 105 and teh 16-35 vs. 17-40 type tests to see how the softness/distortion is.

[PuppyDigs]

I think each copy varies a little. However my 24-105 L is a little sharper wide open than my

17-40 at the same focal lengths. Stopped down it hard to see a diff. Both have plenty 'o

barrel distortion at the short end.

 

Incidentally, my 24-105 L is sharper at 50mm F4 than my EF 50 1.4 USM. It's a sharp zoom.

[pjmeade]

I have both the 17-40 and the 24-105 but on a 20D, not a full frame. Although the 17-40 is a fine lens, it gets a lot less use than the 24-105.

 

On a film body, the 24-105 will still give you a very good wide option. The lens is sharp and I like it loads. It would be a shame to unload the 17-40, but you will love your new toy.

 

Regards. Pete

[savas_kyprianides]

I don't shoot exceptionally wide landscape. So I find that my 24-105 is wonderful for a varied

general subject matter. Sharpness, color and contrast are excellent. I aim the camera with

this lens mounted with confidence that it can handle what I am about to do with it. The

results please me and others.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Maybe it's just my copy or technique, but when I use the IS, the pics turn out less sharp compare to without IS.

 

That sounds like a defective copy. I never heard of IS making pictures look more blurry.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[sheldonnalos]

My 24-105mm f/4 L IS is sharper than my 17-40mm f/4 L in the 24-35mm range. Both zooms perform better on the wide end, so your comparing the good range of the 24-105mm against the weaker range of the 17-40mm.

 

This is on a crop body, but I beleive it would hold true for full frame as well.