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

[molicka molko]

actually , f2.8 i still think not enough kekkeke , but 17-55 at least have IS

I Do Tink So..
What Do U Expect,Is A Zoom Lens..HEH..!!
Unless Dont Mind Prime..
Which I Dont..

Read Canon Rumour,Saying Canon Working On 24-60 f/2.0..
http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=24-60
Wish Its True..!!!!

 

[molicka molko]

I would advise people on 1.6x bodies to avoid the 17-40 f4L.

There is no reason to pay so much for this lens unless you're buying it just for that red ring.

Support U..!!

 

[Snapperholic]

Hi, just curious, do you plan to upgrade to FF soon? Your consideration are all L lens but you are using a crop cam. :think:

Hmm... i beg to differ.... type of glass different, weatherseal, USM, compatibility egoistic satisfaction(LOL) and ease of conversion are just some other reason why TS would choose a red rubber.... Having said that, i would reccomend canon 17 - 55 f2.8 or the tamron 17 - 50.

Cropped sensor you only need one lens, the EFS 17-55. For wide, go EFS 10-22.
With these 2 lenses plus your 70-200 you should be a happy camper for years till the FF bug bites. When it does, it bites real hard.

Totally agreeeeee to the max!!

Note: ignore the part on resale value unless you really intend to upgrade to a full frame camera in time to come. canon 17 - 55 price is quite stable(as far as i know it). By far it is one of the all rounded performers within its range...

 

[5nJOY]

Between yr 3 choices, the 17-40mm would be the best for you.

 

[icelava]

i need a lens that can cover standard focal length

the question to ask: do you take wide angle pics more often?

Yes - as others suggested the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is your bet.

No - myself i bought the EF 24-70mm to "seal" the gap before my 70-200mm. For wide angles i stick with the original kit lens.

For the "true" wide angle the EF-S 10-22mm (16-35mm eqv) will come into mind.

 

[sheldon22]

on a crop body, im a happy owner of 17-40mm f/4L....so far so good :thumbsup:


:gbounce:

 

[icelava]

I would advise people on 1.6x bodies to avoid the 17-40 f4L.

as with the EF 16-35mm, no?

 

[auden09]

Cropped sensor you only need one lens, the EFS 17-55. For wide, go EFS 10-22.
With these 2 lenses plus your 70-200 you should be a happy camper for years till the FF bug bites. When it does, it bites real hard.

lol...sounds cool. i'm actually considering going FF, but along with FF u need L lens to bring out the best of it. i was thinking, is it worth it to invest in the EF "L" lenses first and then upgrade to FF? i'm planning on the 24-70L (read that the IS version is coming out nxt year at photokina ard sept) + 135L (for street candids) combo. Well i'm on the crop body now, but i think 24-70 is good for me cuz i shoot people more than anything else. just rented it, using it now. took it for a test shoot today. and i have to say the color is great! its better than the 17-55. but if i'm not wrong the 17-55's IQ is a little bit better on the crop body. 24-70 backfocused once in the 200 over photos i took. 17-55 never misses. the IS is of course much appreciated. miss having IS when i brought it out in the evening and night. other than that 24-70.

well TS...i feel that for $600 less, you'll get a lens made for your camera, and at a focal length that is very very flexible. the only things that 17-55 lacks in comparison to 24-70 are:

-build (weather sealing/magnesium alloy body/smoother controls)
-red ring
-colour saturation (can be solved easily with photoshop)

and the things that 17-55 has and 24-70 doesnt:

-IS
-better IQ for crop bods
-very good focal range

just my 2 cents worth. i'm also in the same dilemma as u. 17-55 or 24-70? oh well.

 

[viphoenix]

Hi, just curious, do you plan to upgrade to FF soon? Your consideration are all L lens but you are using a crop cam. :think:

I havent plan to upgrade soon. I just want to invest on the lens, so when i need to upgrade to FF, i dont have to sell my old lens and buy new one.

How's your opinion?

ANyway thanks for all the recommendation and information

 

[TheStig]

I would advise people on 1.6x bodies to avoid the 17-40 f4L.

There is no reason to pay so much for this lens unless you're buying it just for that red ring.

Why not? It's a good lens with relatively low price. It's cheaper than all the other lenses the TS listed.

This is a quote from the-digital-picture.com

I frequently recommend the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens as a general purpose lens for those with a 1.6x FOVCF (field of view crop factor) camera that want the best image quality for a reasonable price. The focal length range of this lens is not dramatic, but on a 1.6x body, the full-frame equivalent 27.2-64mm lens can handle many general purpose needs. Good full-frame compatibility and performance make the 17-40 L an especially good lens for those thinking of upgrading to such a body in the future. The 17-40 L makes a great second or third lens in a full frame kit.

That guy has reviewed virtually every canon lens available on the market, so he knows what he's talking about.

 

[auden09]

Why not? It's a good lens with relatively low price. It's cheaper than all the other lenses the TS listed.

This is a quote from the-digital-picture.com


That guy has reviewed virtually every canon lens available on the market, so he knows what he's talking about.

i'm also considering this lens...but when would i be upgrading to FF? i also don't know... =(

 

[TheStig]

i'm also considering this lens...but when would i be upgrading to FF? i also don't know... =(

The guy said the 17-40 is a good general purpose lens for people with 1.6x body because of the focal length multiplier. Of course it will be wider if mounted on an FF body. Then again, the focal length range is pretty short, either for 1.6x body or FF body.

Those who recommend 17-55 EF-S for 1.6x body seems to forget that the 17-55 is very, very expensive for a non-L lens. But yes, it does take great pics. My friend owns one and I was impressed with the image quality. Build quality is not up to par with L lenses, but it's not like one will go take pictures in the dessert every day.

 

[auden09]

The guy said the 17-40 is a good general purpose lens for people with 1.6x body because of the focal length multiplier. Of course it will be wider if mounted on an FF body. Then again, the focal length range is pretty short, either for 1.6x body or FF body.

Those who recommend 17-55 EF-S for 1.6x body seems to forget that the 17-55 is very, very expensive for a non-L lens. But yes, it does take great pics. My friend owns one and I was impressed with the image quality. Build quality is not up to par with L lenses, but it's not like one will go take pictures in the dessert every day.

agree with u. the pricing for 17-55 is absurd! it's already like L lens price. zzz...but then again, there are people who don't mind paying for quality photos everyday they whip out their cameras...like me.

anyway OOT abit, the f/2.8 and f/4.0 actually isn't very much different when i tested it out. it's like bumping ur ISO up two times. i think for lowlight photography, use primes better. i need lowlight cuz the things i shoot are people in lowlight places like a wedding banquet or interior of a house. so thus i'm lookin for something that is good at lowlight conditions. dilemma dilemma dilemma.....argh.

 

[TheStig]

agree with u. the pricing for 17-55 is absurd! it's already like L lens price. zzz...but then again, there are people who don't mind paying for quality photos everyday they whip out their cameras...like me.

anyway OOT abit, the f/2.8 and f/4.0 actually isn't very much different when i tested it out. it's like bumping ur ISO up two times. i think for lowlight photography, use primes better. i need lowlight cuz the things i shoot are people in lowlight places like a wedding banquet or interior of a house. so thus i'm lookin for something that is good at lowlight conditions. dilemma dilemma dilemma.....argh.

Then 17-55 is your answer. f2.8 with IS. Or if you don't mind prime lenses, they're cheaper and faster.

 

[surrephoto]

I would advise people on 1.6x bodies to avoid the 17-40 f4L.

There is no reason to pay so much for this lens unless you're buying it just for that red ring.

A crop body was never made to utilise the remaining 60% of a full-frame lens.

Infact many such "DX" or "EF-S" lenses are optimised for the 1.6x crop such as the fantastic EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM to achieve sharpness throughout the frame.

Unless you're going to full-frame soon don't even think about 17-40L. Trust me, most people just thinking too ahead of times.

Buy the 17-50 f2.8 tamron VC/non-VC if budget is an issue.

 

[viphoenix]

A crop body was never made to utilise the remaining 60% of a full-frame lens.

Infact many such "DX" or "EF-S" lenses are optimised for the 1.6x crop such as the fantastic EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM to achieve sharpness throughout the frame.

Unless you're going to full-frame soon don't even think about 17-40L. Trust me, most people just thinking too ahead of times.

Buy the 17-50 f2.8 tamron VC/non-VC if budget is an issue.

So 17-55 f2.8 IS USM better than 17-40 f4 L?

 

[Cartman2000]

On a crop, yes IMO.

For IS and the bigger aperture

 

[icelava]

Those who recommend 17-55 EF-S for 1.6x body seems to forget that the 17-55 is very, very expensive for a non-L lens.

Isn't this model using L-quality glass despite not being marketed as L? (which seems to be reserved for EF line only)

 

[TheStig]

Isn't this model using L-quality glass despite not being marketed as L? (which seems to be reserved for EF line only)

L-quality glass but not the build quality of an L lens. I think canon may have done so deliberately. It just doesn't make sense for canon to make EF-S L lenses.

 

[auden09]

Then 17-55 is your answer. f2.8 with IS. Or if you don't mind prime lenses, they're cheaper and faster.

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