File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /p/, I have had my Canon 350D (Rebel XT) for several years now and want to upgrade to a full frame 5D when its price goes down once the MkII comes out.
However, I am stuck between the 24-105 f/4L and the 17-40 f/4L. Either length is ok for me (especially as it will be on a Full Frame), and it will be used mainly in well lit conditions. So basically, which one is of better quality, both pysically and in IQ?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1Ds Mark IICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:21 10:14:59RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/22.0ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/22.6Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width792Image Height574
>> Anonymous
why the f4? do you use a prime for for when you need more speed?
>> Anonymous
uh, the 5d isn't going to drop any further than it is now

$2,000-2,200, are you fucking kidding me? these things don't just randomly drop prices for the lulz

camera makers protect their market, it's like iPods. the new one comes out, the old ones are instantly pulled, they don't go on sale just because it's old. actually, some stores do it but it's not okay to do so according to policy but i digress

sometimes, you may see a good deal like the 30D at Ritz going for $699, brand new but they found a good stock of them and somehow, i don't think any one has 5Ds just laying around to go on a fire sale

with all that said, the 24-105 is a lot more useful to have than a 17-40

but it's also almost 2 times the price
>> Anonymous
17-40
>> Anonymous
pure image quality at comparable focal lengths and apertures

16-35 > 28-70 > 24-105 > 24-70 > 17-40
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
if i had to get one and only one lens for my 5D

it would be the 50mm 1.2
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>258788
the 50 f1.2L is an excellent lens.
zoom with your feet
>> Anonymous
>>258779
Well I only have a 50mm f/1.8 prime but if I do use it in low light it will be in conjunction with a speedlite. But it is a major drawback for versatility I suppose

>>258780
I agree that it won't drop massively, but a little bit it should, especially in Australia. I am in no hurry for one. Price is a consideration for the lens, but I am only going to get one L series in conjunction with my other EF's (28-135 & 70-300 non DO)

>>258783
Thank you

>>258788
Orly. Is the 1.2 worth the extra over the 1.4?
>> Anonymous
get the 24-105

no one really wants the 17-40, they only buy it because it's cheap and then regret it later on
>> Anonymous
>>258795
Depends greatly on the user and current equipment.
If you're willing to shell out so much cash on a 50 prime, you're probably going to have a full frame camera too, and don't need AF to be as fast (you're not a sports shooter, but this isnt a common sports photography focal length), and you will actually use such a high aperture, then yes, it is.

If you don't have a full frame and/or are not really going to use the high aperture, and instead just stop it down, then it's probably not worth your cash.
>> Anonymous
>>258795
op, again why would you want a f4 lens, if that was your primary? personally i could not live with that, as its pretty much limited to outdoors usage, and lacks the DOF for creative affects.
>> Anonymous
>>258801

I am starting to agree. What about the 24-70 f/2.8L?
>> Anonymous
>>258801

oh wow, because it's impossible to shoot f/4 inside?

and the visual difference in DOF between 2.8 and 4 is negligible
>> Anonymous
>>258803
Personally, I think it's heavy, expensive, and not as versatile on a 1.6 sensor as it would be on a full-frame. I bought a cheaper Tamron 28-75 2.8, which is quite sharp, but often too heavy for me.

I'm personally not too fond of the range, but this might be because I'm not used to carrying such a weight.

I might be weak, but I've grown to like primes. Fucking around with a film point and shoot has cemented this, as well.

Biased, but that is my opinion, all things considered.

(I use it for studio/product, but I wont take it for a walk.)
>> Anonymous
no one in their right mind wants to walk around with a 24-70

unless you're getting paid for it
>> Anonymous
>>258813
Yeah, I learned that the hard way. I'm not taking it out unless it's for homework or a gig.
>> Anonymous
17-40 user. Like it alot. Just got a 70-200 f4. Like that one alot too.
>> Anonymous
>>258811
OP here. I know it might seem lulzy, but looking at the 1.8 vs 1.4 MTF results, in terms of price v performance, wouldn't it be better just to get a good quality used mk1 1.8 and them combine it with a 24-105?
>> Anonymous
>>258833

uhhh you said you already have the 50/1.8, what the fuck

>>258795Well I only have a 50mm f/1.8

the image quality of the 50/1.8 I and II and 1.4 are all the same, except the 50/1.4 can go down to 1.4 and has better bokeh
>> Anonymous
>>258837
1.4 also has amazing color rendition and contrast
>> Anonymous
>>258855

lol, whatever helps you sleep at night
>> Anonymous
I have the 5D and both lenses you mention. Both are excellent for the money, and both are lightweight. The 17-40mm is great if you shoot buildings and in crowds (and these are the typical subjects when you're travelling or just shooting in a city).

The 24-105mm is fine for everything else. Someone mentioned that since it's not f2.8, you won't get much bokeh from narrow depth of field. You CAN get good bokeh; set to f4 ahd then zoom out to 105mm and step back.

Again, both are excellent for the price. In a sense, it doesn't matter which one you buy, because you're going to fall in love with L lenses and will probably end up getting both anyways.

An alternative way of thinking about it is: if you had to choose one of the upscale versions of each focal length range (the 16-35mm vs the 17-40mm, or the 24-70mm or the 24-105mm), which one would you prefer? Get the cheaper version of each pair now, and save up the upscale version of the other lens range later.
>> Anonymous
>>258837
I only mentioned getting the Mk1 because I would feel silly having such a plastic lens with the focus ring on the end on a 5D as a opposed to metal and a proper focus ring. The price to swap would be negligable. But...

>>258855
>>258864

Yeah colour rendition is really really important to me. It's almost the reason I bought a Nikon all those years ago. I could definitely justify the extra cost to upgrade to a 1.4, but the 1.2 (as nice as it would be) is a bit too much methinks.
>> Anonymous
>>258799
The 17-40 is great for landscapes.
>> Anonymous
Moron. They are completely different lenses. If you don't know what one to get and you're debating about IQ and build quality then you should stick with your 350 - or even better buy a P&S (or just kill yourself, but that would be too good to hope for).
>> Anonymous
>>258992
Let me get this right, because I am not quite sure which lens to get between a pick of two because I DONT have experience in full frames or L series, I should kill myself. Right...

I'm not an idiot, i'm just asking advice from those that DO have experience in these lenses and the 5D. You know, every professional photgrapher has progressed from being a noob at some point.

It's not like i'm coming on here and going "durrr i wanna spend a few grand on a camera, what should I get". I am being pretty god damm specific.
>> Anonymous
>>258994

No, you are not being specific. You may as well ask if you should buy a spoon or a helicopter.

You're claiming to be trying to decide between these by such idiotic criteria I hope you die before you breed.
>> Anonymous
well i can't help because i have the 24-70 f/2.8L

and i shoot on a 1.6x crop

so i don't even know why i posted
>> Anonymous
Have you ever used a 10-22 on your Rebel? If not, I'd suggest doing it before even considering the 17-40. That bitch is WIIIIDE
>> Anonymous
24-105 is better in both term, but you'll pardonably end up with getting both

17-40 on a FF will pretty much disappoint you when you see the IQ on 17 end, but the 40 end is the best 40mm i have ever seen on a zoom lens

24-105 is light and has IS?you'll get good picture with less trouble compare with those who are using 24-70, also this lens is included in the 5D kit which means it's a lot cheaper if you get it with the body, and with this lens in hand you can forget about getting a 70-200 F2.8 or F4, and put your money on a 300 F2.8 or F4 instead
>> Anonymous
>>259034
>with this lens in hand you can forget about getting a 70-200 F2.8 or F4, and put your money on a 300 F2.8 or F4 instead

wait, what
how exactly does 24-105mm + 300mm replace 24-105mm + 70-200mm or vice versa?
>> Anonymous
24-105 can cover most classic point in the normal range, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm,100mm, and can ALMOST cover the 135mm as well, beyond 135 it's already telescope range, usually you 'll only be in this range when you are shooting subjects in far distance which means the longer you can get the better, 300 F4 has far better IQ than the zoom lens in this range, even with a 1.4x teleconverter the IQ of a 300 F4 can still beat 70-200 F4 or 100-400 F4.
also the minimum focus distance of 300 is same as 70-200, but with the longer range, when you focusing at the minimum distance it can ALMOST work as a macro lens such as 100 2.8 macro

of course if you can add a 135 2.8L to this setup if you don't feel like cover the 135 point with 105
>> Anonymous
>>259076
>usually you 'll only be in this range when you are shooting subjects in far distance which means the longer you can get the better

I dunno, this depends heavily on your style of shooting. I tend to use the middle range of my 80-300mm (in 35mm equivalent) zoom way more than I use the long end. I also sold a 160-400mm lens because it was heavy and too tele for my needs.
>> Anonymous
>>259076

u mean 135 f/2 L i think
>> Anonymous
>>259076
Didn't vincent use his 300mm lens for macro-ish work?
>> Anonymous
24-105 F4L OWNER HERE - mate it's a great lens, hefty and reliable - but on your full-frame 5d it's going to have serious barrel distortion at 24mm. If it's a big problem for you, consider the 24-70 - but as others have said it's very heavy (nicknamed "the brick").

I also would love a wide-angle, but shooting with the 17-40 on my crop sensor is not worthwhile.

get the 24-105, it's a good start and you'll keep it even if you go with something else down the track as it's a good all rounder, plus IS is sweet.

IQ is high, build quality is high, and they haven't been bundling it with 5D's and now with 5D MKII's for no reason.

Don't look back!
>> Anonymous
>>259089
>>barrel distortion
lrn2ps
>> Anonymous
Oh yeah, I'm buying the 24-105 this week. I have a 40D, and I'd spring for the 17-55, but I'm going to get the mkII and don't want to go through the trouble of selling another EF-S lens so soon. Part of the reason I want a full frame is just so I can use a 24-105 like it's meant to be used! It's a great lens, but a 38mm equivalent is too tele for a walkaround =)
tl;dr: Get the 24-105.
>> Anonymous
Thank you all (almost) for your insight. I am leaning towards the 24-105 now, with the 17-40 later on, but we will see.