EF 24-105mm IS or 17-40mm + 70-200L F4 for APS-C

[chinmaya]

This is one of the weird questions.

 

I have about 1100$ budget for canon lenses. This is for XTi body. I have to

choose one of the 2 bellow (this is my final shortlisted lenses)

 

1. Canon EF 24-105mm IS

 

2. Canon EF 17-40mm and Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L (non IS)

 

EF 24-105 serves much better as a walk around lens, but 17-40mm and 70-200 gives

me much more focal range. And I am sure all of the 3 lenses are very good in

clarity.

 

If you were to choose between these 2 set which one would you buy and why.

 

Thanks

 

Chinmaya

[sattler123]

For the XTI, it would be the 17-40 and the 70-200. 24mm on a crop body is not wide enough. The 17-40 is a really great lens and so is the 70-200. With the combo you achieve more reach for the same amount of money.

[don_wilkie]

I have the 17-40 and the 70-200 and highly recommend them. I think you would find the two of them to far more versitile than the 24-105, because of the extended range.

[john_bellenis]

I agree with the above responses - throw in $80 for a 50mm f1.8 and you have some low

light capability, that partially fills the focal length gap also!

[William Michael]

Limited to the constraints of the question, I would also choose the 17 to 40 and the 70 to 200.

 

My reason for that choice is I prioritize the 17 to 24 and the 105 to 200 ranges as being more valuable than 40 to 70 I loose, by choosing two lenses.

 

And I also value the wide angle, more than I value IS, in the 24 to 105 range.

 

WW

[f72]

i have 24-105Land i use it on the 20d it works good for me as walk around lens the IS works realy nice.

[g dan mitchell]

It all depends on what you are going to shoot. On backpacking trips with a FF body I

generally carry only the 17-40 and the 24-105, foregoing the longer 70-200 lens.

 

In your case I'd also consider another option at the wide end - on a crop body like your XTi

the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is arguably a more versatile performer than the 17-40

(which I have used on a crop body) and it covers a wider focal length range with quality

that will be comparable to that of the 17-40 on this body.

 

Perhaps a better pairing might be the 17-55 and the 70-200?

 

Dan

[tdigi]

I also vote 17-40 with the 70-200. You can use your feet to make up the 40-70 range.

[dan_hall4]

I have the Canon 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400 on my 40D. Works great for me. I like landscape and nature photography. Guess your needs will be the biggest factor in making your decision. I keep the 24-105 on my camera 80% of the time. Wonderful lens. I mean WONDERFUL. You may consider the 24-105 for now and later adding a 70-200 or 100-400. The new Canon 55-250 IS is getting some great reviews from what I hear. At around $300 (or so), it is a lot of lens for the money. In either case, keep in mind that many people will have the telephotos in their bag most of the time. The 24-105/17-40/etc will be on your camera. I find the Canon 10-22 to be an amazing lens that allows me to carry the 24-105 without sacrificing wide angle shots. Many ways to skin a cat. Take your time and give it some thought. Consider renting/borrowing a lens before buying.

[dan_hall4]

I forgot to mention, get the IS. I find it to be extremely valuable. Save up or wait if you have to, but get the IS.

[William Michael]

Gee, G Dan:

 

yer gotta stick to the rules, and choose between the two choices offered, its the canteen counter lunch choice, not sit down al carte.

 

:)

 

WW

[sangre_k]

"I also vote 17-40 with the 70-200. You can use your feet to make up the 40-70 range" (x2)

[dogbert]

William

 

the internet is like the wild west. There aint no rules. Chinmaya has $110O to spend. Its up to us to spend it any way we see fit (even it he has to sell his kids into slavery when we end up breaking his budget).

[ken munn]

For once, I'm with the majority. 17-40 + 70-200.

 

24-105 is a full frame focal length range, doesn't make much sense (to me) when multiplied

to 38-170.

[pjmeade]

I've got all thre of those and the one I liked best on a 1.6 crop body was the 70-200, it's a real gem. It's also light enough to be hand held at fairly slow shutter speeds. The 17-40 is a nice lens and will also give you some very fine service.

 

I like the 24-105 a lot and the IS is very useful, but of your two choises, I would go for the one that includes the 70-200.

 

My 2p

 

P

[pjmeade]

Sorry, that's of the two choices, go with the 70-200.

[William Michael]

If you extended your budget just a little bit, I think you should buy the 16 to 35MkII and the 70 to 200F2.8IS and a 5D to go with your Xti.

 

This would make the perfect dual format, dual lens, go everywhere kit.

 

It gives you an effective (135 format) FoV from 16 to 320 and all at F2.8 with just a small gap between FoV from 57mm and 69mm, which is inconsequential, IMO.

 

Yee Haa!

 

WW

[manuel barrera houston,]

best bang for the buck and great lens are the 17-40 and 70-200

[j_smith6]

What others said... second option is a lot better. You'll have covered all the focal lenths. Both 17-40 and 70-200 are great lenses.

[markonestudios]

My 17-40L lives on my XTi, so I would definitely go for that. I also own the 24-105L and <i>that</i> lives on my full-frame (film) SLR. I don't find it a useful focal range for a crop sensor SLR.

<p>Now, I bet many will come down on me like a ton o' bricks, but dare I say, I would go for the 70-300 IS. Rationale: Image stabilised, more range, great IQ (it features an ultra low dispersion element, normally only found in 'true' L lenses), smaller, more compact than 70-200, lighter weight, less conspicuous (black). Oh, and it's relatively cheap as well.

<p>My 3 cents :]

[kerry_grim]

Not a weid question, I like it. I use a 17-40 and a 70-200 2.8L at high school track meets and also for landscape on a 40D. This is an ideal combination for me. If I were to have a full frame body and did street work, I would think the 24-105 would be my first choice.

 

One slight advantage in using the first combination is the 77mm thread. One filter size for a polarizer, without a stepup ring. I bought the 2.8 version for speed. It would be hard to justify the cost just becasue of the thread size. However, the 2.8L is big and heavy. My son has the f4L non-IS and he would not want my 2.8L becasue of the size and weight.

 

Your question is which one I would buy for APS-C. Without a doubt, number 2, the two lens combination.

[jakobl]

In contrast to most of the previews posters I'd prefer the 24-105. I own all three lenses but the 24-105 is the most usefull range for travel and walk around. But it really depends on what you shoot the most. It's not wide enough for some landscape shots but you have covered the most important range.

 

My problem with the 70-200 is the size. For the 70-200 I can pack 2-3 other (small) lenses and I have never missed the range while travelling.

 

Consindering IQ I also prefer the 24-105 to the 17-40. I don't want to start the same discussion over again but I was a little disappointed with the 17-40 performance.

 

Jakob

[ronald_biggar]

Jakob-- You must have a bad copy of 17-40. Have it checked out. I have taken thousands of pictures with mine and virtually all are tack

sharp. I also have the 70-200 f4 IS. It is also great. The IS will

be a great help in low light.

 

I suggest get the 17-40 now and save up for IS 70-200.

[photo_dark]

I also own the 17-40L and the 70-200L f4 combo with a rebel XT and a 40D.

 

It's nearly the perfect combination. Nearly, as in I still ended up getting the 24-70 f2.8, but I also shoot weddings and events and needed the extra stop of light. I have a 50 1.8 to help fill in the gap as well.

 

For general, all purpose shooting, the 17-40L and 70-200L is an amazing duo, and they compliment each other really well. Great bang for your buck.

[g dan mitchell]

I'm sort of with Jakob on a couple of counts, though at least one of them may be related

more to my personal style than technical issues.

 

When I used a crop sensor camera body, the 24-105 was the lens most often on my body.

It is a fine general lens, with one exception that I'll get to in a moment. IQ is quite

excellent in most regards and it provides a great balance of size, weight, and functionality.

It provides decent reach for many purposes on a crop sensor body as well. For my

purposes, the only downside of using the lens as a main lens on a crop body was that it

only goes to 24mm at the wide end, and for many of us that is not enough.

 

So I felt that the 24-105 when paired with a wider lens made a powerful and very useful

set of lenses. If I were going down this path again (e.g. crop sensor body) I might well pair

it with the EFS 10-22, the 17-40, or possibly the EFS 17-55. In fact, I _did_ pair it with

the 17-40... which might make you wonder why that isn't my simple first choice in this

regard on a crop body now. (If you happen to have read my other posts extolling the 17-

40 for landscape on FF you might also wonder.)

 

While I love the 17-40 stopped down for landscape work on FF, I was not quite as

enthusiastic about it on my crop sensor body. Not that I didn't get some good

photographs with it - I did, indeed. But compared to the alternatives, again speaking in

terms of use on a crop sensor body, it is not the only or necessarily the best option.

 

The 10-22 provides more of a true ultra wide angle coverage, more or less like that of the

16-35 or 17-40 on a FF body. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS seems to provide extremely

high image quality but add a bit more focal length range, a f/2.8 maximum aperture, and

image stabilization.

 

While my 17-40 is a wonderful performer for landscape work on a full frame body, this is

because I can stop the lens down in virtually all cases to f/11 of f/16, even using f/22

without much hesitation. I would not shoot this lens that way on crop, however, since it

will lose sharpness to diffraction at such small apertures. Unfortunately, at f/8 and larger

apertures, even on a crop sensor body, there is an issue with corner sharpness, especially

if you shoot at 17mm. I learned to accommodate this by either intentionally using soft

corners or by planning to crop them out in the final image.

 

So, the 17-40 is indeed a fine lens (very sharp in the center, for sure) but it is not

necessarily a perfect performer for all purposes on a crop sensor body - there are good

arguments for considering some of the other options.

 

Having said _all_ of that, one lightweight setup used by a number of photographers is the

combination of the 17-40 f/4, one of the 50mm primes, and the 70-200 f/4.

 

Dan