17-40 and 24-105 redundant on 5D?

[spotrider]

I have a 5D and use the 24-105 and like it much more than I did on my 20D. I'm considering adding the 17-40 f4.

I primarily shoot portraits of my kids and landscapes as marketing images for my landscape company. Is the

17-40 redundant with the 24-105? also have the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8.

 

Thanks

 

Martin

[PuppyDigs]

Personally I found 17mm too wide on the 5D and found myself mainly at 24-40. If you're like me, yes it would indeed be redundant. Now if you live from 17-24 it may be the cat's meow. I like the 17-40 on my crop bodies.

[thomasmckown]

I own the 17-40 solely for the wide range of the lens on my 5D. I love ultra wide angle shots for landscapes and even a new perspective on people. I plan on buying the 24-70 when I can afford it, but I will never sell my 17-40 for anything other than a 16-35. I dont think it is redundant myself. Different lenses for different purposes.

[tomwatt]

I kept finding myself wanting just a little more wide angle than I was getting on my 24-70 (on the 5D)... so I sprung for the 17-40. Added benefit is that it's a nice walk-around "semi-wide to normal zoom" lens on my newly-added 50D.

[mendel_leisk]

Overlap, yes. Redundant, I don't see it One lens goes ultrawide to near normal. The other goes moderate wide to modest long. Different ranges for different purposes, and maybe to save some lens swapping.

[david_skirmont]

There is some overlap, but I need the 17mm quite a bit.

 

If you need 17-23, then you need the lens.

[bob_osullivan]

Some overlap is a good thing. It keeps you from having to swap lenses so much.

[pjmeade]

Another reassuring "voice" here. I've not found the 17-40 redundant. I think the 17-24 range is a very useful range indeed. Also, there's also going to be less distortion around the 24mm mark on the 17-40 than the 24-105.

 

My 2p.

 

P

[robin_sibson1]

24mm is usefully much wide than 28mm, and for some photographers may well be as wide as they want to go. But if you do want to make use of the ultra-wide range, then the 17~40 is an excellent companion lens to the 24~105. The 17 to 24 range opens up completely different possibilities from the 24~105, and the overlap can be useful in reducing the need to change lenses. My own walk-around kit is 5D, 17~40, 24~105, 70~200/4IS, Extender 1.4x II, which covers a very good range of possibilities without being (for me) impossibly heavy and clumsy, as the equivalent f/2.8 set of lenses certainly would be.

[chinmaya]

On XTi, for landscape work, 17mm is must for me. I have never felt the need of wider than 17mm.

On 5D, 24mm is as wide as 17mm on XTi. For me, on 5d 17-40mm will be less used.

[david_henderson]

I have this lens with a 5D and it does get enough use to make it worth its place in the bag. This might only be 5-10% of my shots, but when I need it I need it.

[dan_hall4]

Some of the best landscape images I have seen came from a 5D and 17-40. That has got me wanting one myself. I have a 40D with the 24-105. A wonderful lens. My favorite in fact. But for wide landscapes, it is sometimes too tight. But on a 5D, you may have less problem with this. I would say it depends on what kind of landscapes you are shooting. If you are using the 24-105 and frequently wish for something wider, I think the answer is obvious. Both the 24-105 and 17-40 seem to be very highly regarded. Not sure there is a down side to having both. One nice thing for the landscape photographer is that both take 77 mm filters. By the way, B&H has the 17-40 marked down $50 due to Canon rebates that took effect 10/19.

[lester_wareham]

If you do landscape I would think an ultra wide like the 17-40 is fairly essential for quite a lot of shots.

[philip_wilson]

I own 24-70 F2.8 and have just upograded from the 17-40 to th 16-35. I still shoot film and find that for landscape etc... I use the wider lens much more often than the 24-70 lens. I also use a 14mm lens so perhaps I just like going wide. The difference between 17mm (or 16mm) and 24mm is very significant. A 24mm lens has an angle of view of 84 degrees diagonal, 74 degrees horizontal. In contrast a 17mm lens is 104 degrees and 93 degrees. This approximately 20 degree difference in angle of view is about the same difference as between a 35mm lens and a 24mm lens. Wide angle lenses allow a whole new type of photography but are difficult to use well (especially at 14mm or wider). They are very susceptible to flare (always take care and use a lens hood) and vignette easily (but a narrow filter for the 17-40 or run the risk and live without one). It is easy to catch unwanted items in a photo (fingers, feet etc...) and need to be kept level unless you want to distort. that said I would strongly reccomend the 17-40 as it will bring a whole new dimension to your photography.

[martin-s]

I find an UW zoom like the 17-40 or 16-35 essential for landscape images on a full-frame camera. The 17-40 is my preferred walk-around lens on the D5 and I mostly use it at the wide end (17-24). In fact, if Canon came out with an equivalent of Nikon's fabulous 14-24, I'd buy that in an instant.

[images_in_light_north_west]

Love the 17-40 and 24-105 on my 5D

[William Michael]

Beyond 24mm, there is a new world of Landscape, IMO.

 

WW

[William Michael]

BTW: the range 24mm to 35mm on the 17 to 40 lens will arguably be better IQ, too.

[spotrider]

<p>I do have both and use them both quite a bit. the 17 is on for landscape/landscape and 24 for people/landscape. The IQ seems better on the 17</p>