EF 17-40mm F4L lens vs. EF 24-105mm F4 L IS Rebate

[joao_lebre]

so, having a canon 400D, a 70-200mm F4L, looking for a wide-angle that could (somehow) be a

standard zoom lens, and reviewing what's goin on here, I ended up between 17-40 and 24-105.

 

I was kinda atracted to the 17-40mm in the first place because my friend got one and I just love

wander around the city with it, as I try to center my photography in London's Life (mist of urban

landscape, portrait, social portrait)... it's a hobby so I dont have things very strict..

 

I felt the need for a telescope (that's why the 70-200mm) to try to be more discreet in some

situations but now time has come to replace the 18-55mm basic zoom kit lens.

 

I was thinkin on the 17 first because as I have a small sensor, a wide® lens would make sense,

besides, I already have the 70-105 focal lenghts covered with the 70-200 and the 50mm F1.4 USM

is on the way; I didn't think it would pay for extra 150quid for the IS as well...

 

but now there's a promotion on this store (besides the cashback and the lenses are 100quid

away...

 

 

Am I thinking right on the way I'm choosing my lens? or should this promotion be a sign that I

could end up with more with the 24-105?

 

Sorry to go back to this subject and thanks in advance for any answers

João

[jimstrutz]

I, and most others, don't find 24mm acceptably wide enough for normal use on a crop camera like the 400D, So the 24-105 just doesn't make sense for me. However, if you are one of the large minority that seldom uses the wide end of your 18-55, by all means get it. It really does come down to personal preference in focal length as the primary decision factor. However, since the 24-105 has IS, and a wider zoom range, it's also more versatile.

 

If you decide to get the wider lens, and are not planing on moving to a full frame camera any time soon, the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a better choice than the 17-40 f/4L.

[richard_crowe4]

I don't really like the 17-40L as a go-to medium range zoom lens. This doesn't directly answer your questions but does offer some alternative choices.

 

It does have the 17mm side which is very handy when using a 1.6x camera but, the 40mm side (equivalent to 64mm which is pretty anemic) is too short for my way of shooting.

 

Since you already have a 70-200mm lens, I would imagine that you are interested in how the 17-40mm would match up with that lens. I find the gap between 40 and 70mm very annoying and hard to work with. However you can determine that for yourself very easily by using your 18-55mm lens at no focal length over 40mm.

 

I also don't like the 17-40L because of the f/4 aperture which, IMO, is too slow to be used as a mid-range go-to zoom lens without the assistance of IS.

 

I agree that the 24-105mm would duplicate a lot of the focal range which you already have on your 70-200mm f/4L. It would however, provide IS which is helpful when you are working with an f/4 aperture.

 

I have shot with the 17-40L and the 70-200mm f/4L and did not like the combination; mostly for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

I absolutely love the combination of 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and 70-200mm f/4L IS. The 17-55mm is IMO the top-notch lens for a 1.6x system. It provides outstanding imagery and has the f/2.8 aperture backed up by IS which makes it extremely versatile. I have not used my 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I lens since I bought the 17-55mm because the 17-55mm lens is really a very good low light glass.

 

By the way, the 15mm extra length on the long side equates to an equivalent 88mm which is a very usable focal length and does a nice job on portraits.

 

I do not miss the 15mm gap between 55 and 70mm the way I missed the gap between 40 and 70mm.

 

As a less expensive alternate to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, I would consider the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron. It does not have IS (which is really just icing on the cake for an f/2.8 lens of this focal range) and it does have a constant f/2.8 aperture. The equivalent 80mm on the long end of the Tamron is, IMO, much more usable than the long end of the 17-40L.

[photo_dark]

The 17-40L is geared towards the ultra-wide end on a full frame camera, which makes for a good wide-standard lens on a crop sensor, although some may find it a tad limiting when considering it for an all-purpose type lens. It just isn't quite long enough for portraits etc.

 

That being said, the 24-105 is technically a more versatile option, but is again lacking, this time in the wide end. 24mm isn't really that wide on a crop sensor. I (personally) wouldn't recommend a 24+ lens unless you have something wider to back it up.

 

Honestly, unless you are planning for full frame in the near future, for the money to be spent you are better off considering the 17-55 f2.8 IS lens and perhaps the 70-200L f4 later down the road.

 

I currently own the 17-40L, 24-70L, and 70-200L with a 40D. The 24-70L stays on most of the time, but it wouldn't really be the best option overall if it was my only lens... there are times I just need something wider, which is where the 17-40L shines, and the 70-200L is really (IMHO) one of the best zoom lenses in existence.

[bobatkins]

You might think of the EF-S 17-85IS. It's not an "L" lens, but it has the range you're looking for, decent build quality, a ring USM motor and the optical quality isn't bad - plus it has IS.

[yakim_peled1]

Best: 17-55/2.8 IS. Second best: 17-40/4 or 17-50/2.8.

 

The 24-105/4 has little logic in it unless you are planning to keep your 18-55 but as you are looking for a 18-55 replacement, avoid it.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[joao_lebre]

so, to votes on the versability of the 24-105mm

Richard thanks a lot for ur feedback!... I'm watching tamron prices as we speak and

how come they'r so cheap?

 

however, I am considering the possibility of changing bodies as things go buy but to

try to mantain a set of good, usable lenses.. and I kinda considered taking the

advantage of the 24-105 IS's system and keep the 18-55mm to the 18 shots (if it

wasnt for the stupid amount of distortion that the lens presents on this side... :S)

 

so what would u think as 24-105mm with a prime lens at say 20mm?the thing is.... it

was good having this 18-55 because I tried to see my needs... I obviously needed

both extremes: the 18 was more than enough but it had extreme distortion (barrel?) -

and tge 50 was not enough :s

 

did it help?

[ben_quinn1]

The 17-40 on a crop sensor is only a shade away from the fairly standard 28-70 zoom

for ff cameras which pros seem to get along fine with for years so I don't think the

argument that its not a valid fov for you is a strong one. You have the 50 f/1.4 which

is great for portraits on a crop sensor so you already have that covered and you have

the 70-200 so I think the 17-40 is a great choice for you.

[joao_lebre]

ok thank u all for the suggestions I will try to get my hands on the 17-55 IS for a while

as I'll also try to take a look on the 24-105. Ben thank u for u answer it was kinda what

I was thinking when I tought out my "buying plan" for the lenses.

 

basically, if I ever changed to a FF body would I have to consider another standard

zoom and leave the 17-40 as a ultra-wide lens?

[jimstrutz]

Yes and yes.

[joao_lebre]

ok thank u all a lot! :)

[bjscharp]

And if you want to go really wide, there's always the EF-S 10-22mm...

[tommyinca]

One other option, Get both the 17-40/4 and a 28-105/3.5-4.5 in place of the 24-105. 28-105 is a vaule and don't under estimate its performace. All three of your lens will also fit when you change to a FF body later on.

[markonestudios]

I own a 400D, an EOS 500N film body and both these lenses. I use the 17-40L 90% of the time on the 400D and the 24-105L 90% of the time on the film body...

[chinckley]

I was dealing with this same question some months ago. Ultimately, I went back through a long history of photos I had taken to determine how often I shot wider than 24mm - and found it was very seldom. I ended up purchasing the 24-105mm F4, and it has rarely come off my 1.6-crop camera since! Reviewing your shooting history may help in your decision.

[tdigi]

I did basically the same thing as Clark. I find that most often I am cropping in to most

of my shots so 24 is wide enough for me for an all purpose lens. I decided on the 24-

105 as well. I do need to add a wide angle so a 17-40 is most likely in my future. I see

no problem having both since the 24-105 is not as good near 24 where the 17-40's

sweet spot is around 20-30. I also think having much more reach and IS is far more

important then the 17-24 range I will be missing. Again this just depends on how you

shoot.

[yakim_peled1]

>> One other option, Get both the 17-40/4 and a 28-105/3.5-4.5 in place of the 24-105.

 

One other option, Get both the 10-22/3.5-4.5 and a 28-105/3.5-4.5 in place of the 24-105.

 

:-)

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[james_fitzell]

I use a 40D and currently have the 10-22 and the 70-200/2.8IS and I'm looking to replace my 17-85. I have been through a similar thought process and it really does come down to shooting preferences.

 

In my case, when I want wide I want WIDE... so 17mm doesn't cut it anyway... the 10mm fills this need for me. What it then means is that my normal walkaround lens never goes really wide... (especially the 17-85 where I find the distortion below 24mm useless anyway) so I'm looking to purchase the 24-105 because it'll be really versatile for normal shooting, with the 10-22 when I want wide angle. The 35mm of overlap on the longer end doesn't bother me because it means I don't need to change lenses as often.

 

Hopefully this helps you consider how you'd use it because that is the decider of which lens is "best".