Buying my first L lens, a 17-40 f4 or 24-105 f4L?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>Yesterday I a got a super deal on a 5D (Mark I?) and I'm looking for a lens. I'm currently using the 50 f1.8 II that was included with the camera and a 20-35 f3.5-4.5 and 35-70 f3.5-4.5 lenses which are the only Canon EF lenses I own other than a 17-85 that I use with my 40D. I enjoy street, people and urban landscapes. Of the 2 which would you buy? The 17-40 gives me a ultra wide and the 24-105 gives me a wide and telephoto. Looking at pictures in LightRoom I tended to use my old Nikon 24-120 VR lens in the 24-75 range. I also used the wide end of the 17-85 a quite a bit but for many things it wasn't wide enough. I'm looking forward to your opinions, this will be my first 'L' lens and I'm quite excited.</p>

[fravin]

<p>While I'm shooting with an 70D, my opinion is about these lens in APSC sized sensors.<br>

The 24-105L is a great lens. I had one a few years ago and some of my bright pictures was shot with it. The IS works fine, you can get 3 stops while handheld. Contrast is absolutely good and sharpness is very good.<br>

The 17-40L I never had. I was planning to buy one this month. So I drove to the camera shop and the guy give me some time to try it, and then give me the new Sigma 18-35 Art. The 17-40 looks and feels like a war tank, the zoom ring runs fine and AF is quite fast. But the Sigma toke my heart.<br>

Anyway, I think you will love the 24-205L.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Mark, I had a 24-105 for several years, and was almost always underwhelmed by its performance. Its resolution and contrast were okay, but I found that the images it produced, particularly in less than optimal light, were rather tonally flat and lacklustre.</p>

<p>The images I get with my 24-70 II, on the other hand, never fail to impress; they're sharp across the frame, with superb contrast and rich colour rendition. I realize that the 24-70 costs much more than the 24-105, and lacks its IS and reach, but in my opinion it's a vastly superior lens optically.</p>

<p>I've also had a 17-40, but sold it in favour of optically superior primes. Canon doesn't seem to make an outstanding wide angle zoom, but it does make several stellar wide angle primes, and not all of them are expensive L's. For example, the bitingly sharp 40/2.8 STM will set you back a mere $150.</p>

<p>I should add that I shoot with a 5DII and 7D.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Consider the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. It is still a popular seller according to one camera store I frequent.</p>

[photodiscoveries]

<p>I have had my 24-105 since 2008. It has been on my 40D, my 7D and now on my 5Diii. It is the lens I always have with me, except when photographing birds and wildlife. I find the pictures sharp, focusing fast, the colors exceptional and the lens has been very reliable. The constant f4 is also a great benefit. I use a 16-35 for wide angle, and it is an amazing and wonderful lens for certain things, but it never gives me the reach and versatility I really want for a lens that fulfills multiple and different uses. I have several other L lenses, but the 24-105 is the one lens that is always in the kit with me. I do not think you can go wrong on that choice.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>The 24-105 gives you image stabilization too. You already have a 20-35 lens (and not a bad one) so I suggest skip the 17-40 for now. Get the image stabilized lens and at some future point you can consider the recently announced 16-35 IS lens (or at least wait for it to drive down prices of the older 17-40).</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I have both lenses with a 5D and 5dii. Whilst one can talk for days about which lens is "better" the reality is that I use the 24-105 ten times as much as I use the 17-40. And a great deal of what I shoot with the 24-105 is shot at more than 40mm. But of course that's talking about my photography, not yours. But the 24-105 if the one that's on the camera by default, and will be a lot more versatile in the city and with people than a wide angle. And you can go for hours without needing to change lenses. </p>

<p>Quality wise I don't see a huge difference between them. They're both competent lenses, they both suffer a bit from distortion, and I don't think either of them are as good IQ wise as the 70-200 f4 I use as well, but they're both good lenses for me. </p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Mark, be aware that you are standing at the top of a long slippery slope. Once you start buying L-series lenses, it is hard to find a way back. It is pretty safe to assume that your first L lens will spend a lot of time n your camera, and a general-purpose standard zoom rather than a UWA zoom is the sensible choice. The original-version 5D has quite a coarse pixel pitch, so it does not make quite the same demands on lenses as the more recent 20+ Mpixel bodies, and you are very unlikely to be disappointed with a 24~105. Distortion and vignetting at the 24mm end can be corrected with almost no downside in DPP. Compared to other 24~XX Canon alternatives, the 24~105 is reasonably priced, and since it is often sold as a kit lens with the 5D series and 6D, it is readily available s/h.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The 24-105 is the 35mm/FX/"full frame" equivalent of the 17-85 on the APS-C cameras.<br>

Its virtue is its range and utility, although I have absolutely no complaints about its image quality. Such flaws as such a lens necessarily has are easily fixed in post-production anyhow.</p>

<p>There's little point to comparing it to a 17-40; you might as well compare it to a 100-400 or a 70-200.</p>

<p>If you want a wide-angle zoom, that's one thing, of course.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>You'll need both ;)</p>

<p>Just pace yourself, get the 24-105 first, for it's utility and range. But down the road, the 17-40 gets you into very nice territory, very robust and reasonably priced.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Both are excellent lenses, and yes, there are some $$$uperb lenses that are even better in some respects. (Yes, the 24-70II is an amazing lens -- for a considerable price. But the IS isn't as good, nor is the portability or reach.) Both are well priced and are very user friendly. The 24-105 is a great general purpose lens on a FF camera, and that's the lens I use most. It feels good, handles well, carries well, has a "just right" focal length range for walk-abouts, and delivers excellent and consistent results. The 17-40 is less useful to most people, but it's one you might consider later.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>I have the 17-40 and love it, (more so on FF than 1.3/1.6) but in your case I'd get the 24-105 for versatility. Like someone else commented, though, you need both. I find myself changing lenses a fair amount, swapping out the 17-40 for the 85 or ...egads...50mm. There seem to be a fair number of 24-105s on ebay for sale when I've looked, I think a lot of people buy a Canon body in combo with the 24-105 at a discount, with the intent of selling the lens.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I never miss an opportunity to trash the Canon 24-105 F4L. In my honest opinion it is the worst of all the L-series lenses made. I owned this lens for about two weeks and returned it to the store. This is the first and only lens I have ever returned. I already had the Canon 17-40 F4L which again in my opinion is the best L-series lenses you can get at it's price level. it was the last time I checked the lowest priced L-series lens and Does not have nearly the distortion of the 24-105 at 24mm. <br>

However, For my Canon 5D2 the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is one of the best lenses I have ever used only surpassed the Canon 85 1.2L. The Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is not as good as the new Canon 24-70 F2.8 II but I put it equal to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 I and considerably better than the Canon 24-105 F4L. <br>

I would recommend the following three lenses Canon 17-40 F4L (Wide angle), Tamron 24-70 F2.8 (main lens) Tamron 70-300 F4 -5.6 VC (telephoto) dirt cheap excellent lens or The Canon 70-200 F2.8 II (if you got the money) alternate Tamron or Sigma 70-200 F2.8.<br>

There are several third party lenses like Tamron and Carl Zeiss which in my opinion in some ways exceed or match the IQ and build quality of Canon L-series lenses. Just have to do your research and don't assume ALL L-series lenses are great.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>You might want to look at the new Sigma 24-105 instead. According to all the tests it's not only sharper than the Canon but less expensive as well.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>You should read Bob Atkins article on Best EOS Lenses on his site <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com">www.bobatkins.com</a>. I'd suggest it has a broader base for comparisons written by a person with a solid scientific background.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>I never miss an opportunity to trash the Canon 24-105 F4L. In my honest opinion it is the worst of all the L-series lenses made. I owned this lens for about two weeks and returned it to the store. This is the first and only lens I have ever returned. I already had the Canon 17-40 F4L which again in my opinion is the best L-series lenses you can get at it's price level. it was the last time I checked the lowest priced L-series lens and Does not have nearly the distortion of the 24-105 at 24mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with you: You never miss an opportunity to trash this perfectly useful lens. However, I note that you feel the 17-40 is a better lens. I have both lenses and my experience has been the opposite. Sure, it's slightly better at 24mm, and I use it in preference to the 24-105 at that focal length if I don't need the IS. However, it's not my experience that it's better <em>overall</em>, although I do really like the lens. So I am wondering whether you got hold of a bad copy of the lens. It does happen. </p>

<p>I agree the 24-105 is distorted at its wide extent. It also vignettes. However, both issues can be corrected very easily, practically with the click of a mouse, and without any noticeable loss in image quality. Distortion is the least of my concerns with any lens.</p>

<p>The two lenses can be compared very soberly here:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

<p>Also I recall someone makes a lot of hay about the 24-105 having terrible bokeh. The truth is that it has somewhat harsh (not really "terrible") bokeh at 105, but that problem disappears at 70mm and below. Oh yes, and some of the earliest ones had the freakishly rare "heavenly ray" defect, which Canon fixed. Noted.</p>

<p>All in all, this lens takes more beatings than a rented mule, but I don't think it deserves them. Like many "kit" lenses, there was a lot of careful engineering that went into it, there's a lot of economy of scale in its manufacture, it is sold at a conspicuously low price point in kit form, it gets no respect, it is ubiquitous on the used market, and it's a screaming bargain.</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>24-105 is 5D's kit lens, very versertile!</p>

[matthijs]

Everyone has his own preference.

My combo of preference is a 17-40 plus a 100.

 

However I can perfectly well imagine someone who'd just have the 24-105.

 

In short, it depends.

I sincerely advice borrowing or renting both for a weekend before you decide.

[peter_rowe]

<p>Sarah Fox +1<br>

The 24-105mm is a versatile true "L" lens (it is even weather sealed) that is a really great value. </p>

[mario_gaco]

<p>I bought it and resold it after a short time. It was not a bad lens but it was definitely not worth the money. The photos lacked impact - sharpness, (micro) contrast, the bokeh wasn't as pleasing as I was expecting from an L lens, vignetting. In addition to that I found out that I didn't like the range. It was either not wide enough or not long enough for my style. The 70-200/4 L IS is way better (but a different range of course).</p>

[ed_c.1]

<p>Would recommend the 24-105 for versatility. I also got an old 17-35 2.8 L which I love, and found it more useful given its wider aperture. Great for indoors and on the street.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p> . . . got a super deal on a 5D (Mark I?) . . . using the 50 f1.8 II . . . and a 20-35 f3.5-4.5 and 35-70 f3.5-4.5 lenses . . . Of the 2 [17 to 40 or 24 to 105] which would you buy?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I’d buy the 24 to 105/4L IS USM.<br>

It is my most regularly used lens on my 5D Series for general walk around shooting and is used at least 10 times more than my 16 to 35. If I had a 20 to 35 (which I have used) although an old lens and also old design, it could do probably about 60% of what my 16 to 35 does do, whereas the newer 24 to 105 L lens could do A LOT more than the 35 to 70 that you presently have (I have not used the 35 to 70). </p>

<p><strong>However, what I suggest that you do is different:</strong><br>

Use ONLY the 20 to 35 for one month, on you newly acquired 5D: and then for the next month use ONLY the 35 to 70: and then after those eight weeks of agony keeping your excitement at bay, you will KNOW which one of the two lenses FL range that YOU want. Whilst you are making that FL choice you can think about Image Stabilization, which is very useful for most photographers. And also think about Lens Speed (maximum aperture) which might be very to you also; in which case another zoom lens might enter the equation, for example the 24 to 70/2.8L MkII. </p>

<p>Both the 17 to 40 and the 24 to 105 lenses will still be for sale, and at good price in eight weeks time. Painful, but logical.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>I tended to use my old Nikon 24-120 VR lens in the 24-75 range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have answered your question with this statement which leads into your second statement.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I'd get a 17-40. Buy one used - lots of people are selling them right now because a 16-35/4 IS has been announced. Then save up for a 70-200. Your 50/1.8 will cover the middle of the range.</p>

[johnny_wu1]

<p>In my experience with the lens, the 24-105mm was really the definition of a "jack of all trades, master of none". Exceptional versatility, decent optics, and handles as good as any L lens should behave in term of autofocus speed and accuracy and the IS function.</p>

<p>However, as I evolved into an architecture and family portraiture photographer, I found the lens lacking. It was too soft and had heavy purple fringing on the wide end on bigger prints. On the longer end, it was good, but I couldn't use the wider end to my satisfaction. I ended up selling the lens and getting a 17mm TS-e and 135mm F2 L. Both are absolutely stunning for architecture and portraiture.</p>

<p>TLDR: The 24-105mm is a good versatile lens, but depending on how seriously you scrutinize your photos and where you go on your path as a photographer, you may outgrow the lens.</p>