5D+24-105mmL,17-40L vs. 40D+17-55mm, 10-22mm

[Andreq]

i'm new here... so hope bros can kindly help me out...

Has anyone done a 1-1 comparison on the 5D equipped with 24-105 and 17-40 against the 40D (20D, 30D also can) with EF-S 17-55 and EF-S 10-22? ie

24-105L (on 5D) vs 17-55 (on 40D)
17-40L (on 5D) vs 10-22 (on 40D)

I'm thinking of changing my 20D to 5D but i wish to get feedback on the lenses. Does the 24-105 vignette and give slightly poorer images at 24mm and 105mm? Heard also that 17-40L is soft at the corners cos full frame sensors are less forgiving?

I'm kinda tired carrying so many lenses. If the 24-105L rocks on the 5D, its a combo i'm attracted to. I use f/2.8 only occasionally so think i can live without it.

Tks everyone!

 

[lkkang]

I am totally confused ...

1) You shouldn't be comparing 40D and 5D in the first place. They are of different category , one is FF while the other is APS-C sensor. Price wise is also very different. It is like comparing Japanese car with BMW ! not very fair....only conclusion is... if you can afford, go for 5D.

2) Every lens was built for a specific purpose. It is not so much as to weather 24-105mm is better or 17-40mm is better. They are designed for different situations and hence their strength and weakness are different. Perhaps you should be looking at what you are shooting , so that you should which lens. Rather than looking at which lens is better...

welcome to CS

 

[Jupiter]

5D with 24-105 really rocks. Its very sharp whether it is at 24mm or 105mm. Can shoot almost everything from portraits to landscapes. A powerful combi and its a worthy investment!

 

[Fiip]

Don't listen to critics !

I think your request is good. Am curious to know as well...

Whatever comparing Perodua with BMW thingy, I'm curious about the lens distortion at the same "equivalent" focal length.

Of course quality wise 5D is surely better, however, I 'm still curious to know how far better is the BMW...

Hope some pple have made the comparison...

 

[Kensuke]

5D with 24-105 really rocks. Its very sharp whether it is at 24mm or 105mm. Can shoot almost everything from portraits to landscapes. A powerful combi and its a worthy investment!

Ohh ... Bro , ur cam body(s) ... is :heart:

 

[Andreq]

lkkang wrote:

"I am totally confused ...

1) You shouldn't be comparing 40D and 5D in the first place. They are of different category , one is FF while the other is APS-C sensor. Price wise is also very different. It is like comparing Japanese car with BMW ! not very fair....only conclusion is... if you can afford, go for 5D.

2) Every lens was built for a specific purpose. It is not so much as to weather 24-105mm is better or 17-40mm is better. They are designed for different situations and hence their strength and weakness are different. Perhaps you should be looking at what you are shooting , so that you should which lens. Rather than looking at which lens is better..."


ermm, yes, i tink you are confused by my questions.

I dun care about the price diff cos I'm prepared to fork out the diff if the image quality is acceptable. And I don't think it's an unfair comparison even though one is full frame and the other is APC.

Basically, what I wish to know is simply the image quality, 1 against 1. My concern is 5D with 24-105 may not produce as sharp images as 40D + 17-55 at the same focal lengths. I just hope the diff is not as obvious cos I'm keen on the 24-105mm focal length Full Frame.

I shoot a lot in the 24-90 range. So suppose we have a 5D fitted with a 24-105 and it takes pictures at say 28mm, 50mm, 90mm at aperture f/x. How does it compared with 40D (or 20D, 30D) fitted with 17-55 taken at the same focal lengths (~88mm max focal length)?

Same goes with the 5D fitted with 17-40mm and images taken at say 17mm, 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, and compare against 40D + 10-22 taken at those same focal lengths and aperture(s).

My main purpose of this post is I want to do away with carrying too many lenses since I'm using a 1.6x FOV 20D. The only way to satisfy my most frequently used focal length of 24-90mm is to go full frame (5D) and use 24-105mm lens. I've been a frequent user of 20D + 10-22mm, 17-55mm and 70-300mm so I want to know how they compare.

If 24-105mm is good, I can dump the 3 lenses and need to carry only 1!

I also heard full frame are less forgiving on lenses. Even L ones may show up with soft edges or vignetting. I pixel peep so if the 5D with 24-105mm & 17-40mm (just in case I need to use it as I have this one also) is not as sharp or has flaws compared to the 20D with the 17-55 and 10-22, I'd rather stick with my 20D and carry more lenses.

Tks guys!

 

[iteach]

Hi Andreq,

If you are interested in how well these lenses perform under controlled environment as well as how EF lenses perform on Full-Frame camera and on APS-C camera, you might want to refer to SLRgear.com. It uses EOS-5D and EOS-20D to test many Canon lenses, including those that you had mentioned. In particular, the following charts found on this website could be of interest to you:

• Vignetting of Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM on Canon EOS 20D
• Vignetting of Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM on Canon EOS 5D
• Vignetting of Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM on Canon EOS 20D
• Vignetting of Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM on Canon EOS 5D

 

[tonylim]

I think the sample pictures from this link will help you in making your decision.

http://raw.fotosite.pl/

Down load the raw files and look at the corners of the pictures. Do expect some soft corners and vignetting from 5D combo.
I've tried 10-22mm on 30D and 17-40mm on 5D before. The later combo produces sharper pictures except at the very end of four corners.

 

[hazmee]

Hi there,

If you're looking for:
1. bigger viewfinder
2. slightly wider dynamic range
3. more selection for wide angle lenses and using them at their intended focal length e.g. Leica 19mm, Carl Zeiss 15mm..etc...
4. Thinner DOF (for more pleasing bokeh, subjective though)
5. Good noise control

I think the 5D will suit your needs very nicely.

If you're comparing just sharpness alone, I can safely say you won't be seeing much difference. Canon's wide angle lenses (17-40, 16-35 Mark I) has a lot to be desired. The corners are really bad when you don't stop down e.g. f/8 and above.

Most people think the 5D will give them a big jump in terms of image quality when compared with other crop cameras. I've compared prints taken from a crop camera and my 5D, other than the list I mentioned above, I really can't tell the difference. Sometimes, the price/performance ratio isn't so linear to make a comparison just by putting pictures side by side. Look at the bigger picture and see which camera suits your needs and budget then get it and don't look back.

So why did I bought the 5D? I love my 24-70 and 17-40 combo and the 5D is the perfect fit for them. That's all I can say for now. Hope that helps. Cheers!

 

[lkkang]

EF-S 17-55mm

EF 24-70mm

EF 24-105mm

EF 17-40mm

EF-S 10-20mm

 

[KangS]

Not sure what are the others experience, but so far, I find that it really depends on whether you're indoors or out. That is on a 5D FF. (Extrapolated from a 40D experience)

If you're outdoors predominantly, at least for that day, the 24-105 f4 L would be most useful in terms of optical range.

However, if you run a lot indoors, the 24-70 f2.8L would be more flexible in terms of lighting condition changes.

For ultra-wide, Sigma's 12-24 would be really handy on a FF.

 

[thw]

I also heard full frame are less forgiving on lenses. Even L ones may show up with soft edges or vignetting. I pixel peep so if the 5D with 24-105mm & 17-40mm (just in case I need to use it as I have this one also) is not as sharp or has flaws compared to the 20D with the 17-55 and 10-22, I'd rather stick with my 20D and carry more lenses.
Tks guys!

A very good question and not easy to answer. :bsmilie:

Firstly, vignetting is the last thing I'll worry about. It's ridiculously easy to overcome in pp.

I have seen images with GOOD copies of 24-105 on 5D and they are VERY sharp in the corners. But, when wide-open, the 17-55 f/2.8 is certainly sharper than the 24-105 f/4. Of course, 12 MP 5D has better per pixel sharpness than 10 MP 40D. So, difference may not be significant.

In terms of depth of field, f/4 on FF is about f/2.5 on APS-C. In terms of field of view, EF-S 17-55 is about 27-88 mm on the 40D. This means the 17-55 on 40D is nearly equivalent to 24-105 on FF except for the shortage of 3 mm (24 vs 27 mm) on the wide end. 17 mm difference on the tele end should not be significant.

I cannot comment on 17-40 on 5D vs 10-22 on 20D.

You claim you carry the 10-22, 17-55 and 70-300 lenses with the 20D and want to cut down the number of lenses to carry. Since the field of view on the 10-22 + 17-55 is comparable to 17-40 + 24-105 on the 5D, I really don't see why you want to keep the 70-300 in your bag.

 

[Andreq]

tks all bros... your response has been very useful. i might just get the 5D combo. the attraction of carrying an all-in-one lens is strong. i tink i can accept minor flaws in the 24-105. come to tink of it, no lens is perfect....

 

[binot]

i'd rather wait for the next generation of 5D since you still got your 20D.

 

[user111]

i never understand why people want to buy 17-40L and 24-105L together.
its an overlap of the wide-to-short range (the difference from 40mm to 105mm can be compansated by other means) and also have to spend more $$$
for 1.6x bodies, the only efs lens you should buy is the kit lens. so that u can use it as a spare or bring it to 3rd world country for travel incase ur main lens spoils.

for the thread starter pls keep ur 20d and just buy the 17-40L. save money, save headache. cheap, fast and direct solution.

unless u sold the 20d already :bsmilie:

 

[kiwi2]

I don't own a 5D but yes, I've read reports that say the four corners ie edges are soft even if you use L lenses. If you are a pixel peeper especially, then you may be particular about it. Some even say no L lens can even help if your camera has full frame sensor with high MP. But this tends to happen with the 1Ds series cos the lenses simply can't resolve to that high resolution. Not sure how true...

So it may be ironic. More ex cam body and lenses doesn't mean sharpest images throughout. Personally, I think the crave for FF sensor is over-hyped and those who put down the range EF-S lenses probably might not have used one, or over-worry about their being redundant too soon.

I used to use a D60 years back and for those who didn't use a DSLR then, it was a pain cos there were no good super wide angle zooms available then. With 1.6x FLM, a 24mm f.l becomes 38mm. That was just how wide you could usually go with a consumer lens! Even with 20mm it didn't help much.

But now, things are different. Ultra wide angle zooms are common, not just from Canon. You can get very wide perspective even if you don't use a FF sensor cam like the 5D.

When the 5D was released, it was in a class of its own. 20D had a small 1.8" LCD screen. But now, with the 40D, I see very little difference between the 5D and 40D. With the latter's s bigger 3" LCD, dynamic range comparable to 5D's, and high ISO noise control almost as good as, or on par with 5D's, why get the 5D?

Some reasons I can think of:

1. Users want to retain their favorite lenses, such as 24-70mmL and some "specialized" primes, and use them at their proper focal length etc.

2. Larger viewfinder more "shiok" to look thru.

3. Achieve a wee bit shallower DOF.

4. Too influenced blindly by posters from CS that one fails to question "why the heck am I pay for a full frame cam?"

5. Too much money dunno where better else to spend.

Comments:

1 is prob the most reasonable reason. If yours is such, then ok.

2 and 3, well... not very good reasons IMHO. Sure viewfinder nice... but at a price of S$2000more? Nah, I'll pass it. And, the shallower DOF is a little only.

4. Just surf less of CS and go out shoot more. :bsmilie: Seriously. Or ask yourself what you really NEED in your shooting. dun be inluenced by any Tom Dick or Harry. You buy a cam with your own money to shoot what you like, not they.

5. Nothing to say 'bout this. Money talks. Got money, go ahead, burn it! However unwise that is.

 

[thw]

2 and 3, well... not very good reasons IMHO. Sure viewfinder nice... but at a price of S$2000more? Nah, I'll pass it. And, the shallower DOF is a little only.

An f/2.8 zoom lens on FF is equivalent to f/1.8 depth of field on APS-C format. Now, where can you find a f/1.8 zoom lens for APS-C??? Or f/1.4 prime lens on FF is equivalent to f/0.9 depth of field on APS-C format.

Actually shallower DOF on FF is NOT trivial. In fact, difference is HUGE. And IMHO is probably one of the BIGGEST reasons to go FF. The other important reason is MUCH more reliable AF accuracy in Canon-land. Current xxD or xxxD can NEVER give you the same AF accuracy, especially in low light.

4. Just surf less of CS and go out shoot more. :bsmilie: Seriously. Or ask yourself what you really NEED in your shooting. dun be inluenced by any Tom Dick or Harry. You buy a cam with your own money to shoot what you like, not they.

Well said. Choose according to your own needs. :thumbsup:

 

[kiwi2]

An f/2.8 zoom lens on FF is equivalent to f/1.8 depth of field on APS-C format. Now, where can you find a f/1.8 zoom lens for APS-C??? Or f/1.4 prime lens on FF is equivalent to f/0.9 depth of field on APS-C format.

Actually shallower DOF is NOT just a little. Difference is HUGE. And IMHO is probably one of the BIGGEST reasons to go FF. The other important reason is MUCH more reliable AF accuracy in Canon-land. Current xxD or xxxD can NEVER give you the same AF accuracy, especially in low light.

Hi,

Just curious, how did you calculate the equivalence of apertures?

Ok, granted, maybe this reason varies depending on how critically you look upon Bokeh. I know some are just so meticulous about getting as blurred out background as possible. From the pictures I once saw on Canon's website (I think), I wasn't too impressed about the extra blur a FF sensor can give. ok, maybe that's just me. Even with my f/2.8 lenses, I've never been disappointed with the shallow DOF I've gotten on a 20D.

As for AF speed, I haven't encountered any probs with my 20D fixed with f/2.8 lenses in low light, dim restaurants, outdoors with little light in streets, etc. But how low is low light? Guess this could be specialized very dim shots? For me, I won't spend that extra 2 grand for this cause it hasn't affected my shooting. Again, views vary depending on how often and what a person shoots I suppose.

 

[thw]

Just curious, how did you calculate the equivalence of apertures?

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

 

[miniUltraman]

i never understand why people want to buy 17-40L and 24-105L together.
its an overlap of the wide-to-short range (the difference from 40mm to 105mm can be compansated by other means)

Agree... I will go for 16-35MII and 24-105L instead :bsmilie: