newbie need help:17-40mm f4 L USM or 24-70mm f2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM ?

[surrephoto]

i'm considering primes. but for walkabout...they aren't going to be ideal. thanks for ur advice anyway.

Certain primes are decent walk arounds if you know what you're doing.

 

[auden09]

Certain primes are decent walk arounds if you know what you're doing.

yeah but i dun tink i wanna change lenses in the middle of a typical bangkok street.

 

[icelava]

Certain primes are decent walk arounds if you know what you're doing.

that is also provided sticking to a prime is mated with one's preferred photo-taking style.

Not everybody wants to capture using only a single focal length.

 

[surrephoto]

yeah but i dun tink i wanna change lenses in the middle of a typical bangkok street.

that is also provided sticking to a prime is mated with one's preferred photo-taking style.

Not everybody wants to capture using only a single focal length.

Do agree with everyone's statement here... choice of using primes is solely one's personal style.

Though my personal take on using a prime as a general-purpose lens would be for the following reasons;

1. Good low-light ability (large aperture primes) for night photography.
2. Good subject isolation for creative effects in various types of photography.
3. I like to focus on a certain perspective whenever i'm shooting.

However, we are certainly going OT and thus would like to return to answering a few qns...

17-40L vs 17-55 for 1.6x crop, which is better?

In terms of sharpness It would be difficult to comment as I have not pixel peeped at the 17-40L before but the 17-55 is certain tact-sharp for my taste at 15 mpx (do note i am a prime user and have very, very low tolerance for weak sharpness, even the 24-70L i have dubbed as soft at many focal lengths).

If 17-55 really uses L optics then I will tell you there is no reason not to spend 1.5k on it if you are going to stick to 1.6x crop. Do rmb that it will be your main, most important or may even be your only lens.

Furthermore, i plead you not to even think that you don't need that additional 1-stop. For night photography, a 1/40 vs 1/80 difference can be heaven-and-hell. The IS helps even more especially when you're shooting at the 50 mm end with 1.6x... thus if you want to buy a f4 lens, buy one with IS. Ie. the 70-200 f2.8L/f4L was made a night-lens by the IS innovation. Prior to that it was practically useless at night without a tripod.

24-70 vs 24-105 IS

I do not wish to bash the 24-105 f4L IS but I personally feel that it's greatest weakness might be it's slight halation at f4. Though deep inside it's a decently sharp lens.

For a long time i've called the 24-70L the "canon's biggest joke" for being 2k brand new yet unjustified sharpness for the price. Don't even try the 24 mm end... though otherwise the L-build and colours make it decent together with the fact that it is a f2.8 lens and decently sharp in the mid zoom range.

Though both these lenses are going to be tight and not comfortable indoors on a 1.6x crop. You will appreciate at least 35 mm equivalent.

My recommendation would be... buy a tamron 17-50 f2.8 first. Use it and ask yourself whether you want to go full-frame or stay with crop.

 

[phatwell83]

If you didn't have a 70-200mm f4 L USM (without IS) i would suggest the 24-105... its a very versatile lens... all round lens.. though 24 is not that wide (i think its sufficient), you still get the 105mm zoom...

IQ and Build is a big + and another ++ in the IS and USM in the lens... the i'm buying 24-105 next year... (if i have the budget next year) hahahaha

good luck and keep shooting...

 

[viphoenix]

thank you guys for the suggestion

maybe i will take 17-55mm IS first, considering i don't have plan to upgrade the body soon.

 

[viperDSLR]

suggest to get the 24-105mm then save up for 70-200mm L both of this combination is great.