17-40 and 24-105 combo on 20D

I have the 17-40, enjoy it, but like others, find it too short as a walk around. I see on this forum that a lot of people replace the 17-40 with the 17-55. How many of you have had good success keeping the 17-40 and adding the 24-105? I have the 70-200 F4 and would like to keep my travels down to 2 lenses at a given time. Thanks for your input.

I have both lenses but only because I have the 5D - the 17-40 is an excellent standard zoom on the 20D and the 24-105 an odd but useful length .. I have to say that if I was an EFS Nut and wasn't planning on FF or a 1D3 i'd have the 17-55 F2.8 EFS IS and the 70-200 F4L IS ..

those three Ful frame F4L lenses are the perfect Trifecta of bargain FF glass for the 5D but a trifle odd on an EFS Biody, with strange swapping points.. the 17-40 is fine if the 20D is your second body to FF as it's decently wide and making uise of a lens which otherwise would be idle but it's not ideal like the 17-55 EFS is

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Hi,

I've just made the same ! I've a 30D with a 17-40L and i've just bought a 24-105 to complete. I have to say that i have a 70-200 f4L too.

regards.

17-40 L Canon
28-75 f2.8 Tamron or 24- 105 L Canon
70-200 L F4 Canon (IS if funds permit)

Adam-T said:

I have both lenses but only because I have the 5D - the 17-40 is an
excellent standard zoom on the 20D and the 24-105 an odd but useful
length .. I have to say that if I was an EFS Nut and wasn't
planning on FF or a 1D3 i'd have the 17-55 F2.8 EFS IS and the
70-200 F4L IS ..
those three Ful frame F4L lenses are the perfect Trifecta of
bargain FF glass for the 5D but a trifle odd on an EFS Biody, with
strange swapping points.. the 17-40 is fine if the 20D is your
second body to FF as it's decently wide and making uise of a lens
which otherwise would be idle but it's not ideal like the 17-55 EFS
is

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...

Are you satisfied with your 24-105L?

Here is what I have EFS17-85,Sigma 15-30,Tamrom SP90, 28-135IS, Sigma 70-200mm, Sigma 50-500mm. for an 20D.
Now I am not sure what I have to buy because I am getting 1D MK III

First I have to see is the 15-30 okay for that camera otherwise I have decided to get the 16-35 II. I do not belive the 28-135 IS is good enough for MK III , then I do not know how the 24-70 or the 24-105 with IS.

Still hoping the 70-200 2.8 is okay, then the 50-500mm it backfocus, but this problem is to deal with on the MK III.
24-70 or 24-105 thats my problem right now.
Jens Ritzlau

http://www.pbase.com/ritzlau/image/78718564/original

I have a several lenses in that range, but my favorite has always been the 17-40 L. I like to travel light too, as most people who know me on the forum can attest to ! I only take the 17-40 L when I go to Italy. I feel the need of no other lens there. But it is a little short for some other places, and recently I added the 24-105 L to upgrade the other lenses I have in that range. I am going to take both the 17-40 L and the 24-105 L to Greece next week. When I want to travel lighter to places like Paris, I might just take the 24-105, because "things" aren't so tight and in-your-face there, necessitating a wider angle apporach.

I think these two lenses make a good mid-range zoom pair . With those two lenses and my 70-300 DO IS, I'm covered for almost anythng. I thought I wanted to upgrade the latter lens to the 100-400 L till I held one in hands ! That little excercise made my decision to stick with what I have easier !

I'm happy with two good quality mid range zooms and think they compliment each other nicely.

carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'

And me too. Of course, I eventually want to get the next gen 5D or perhaps the MarkIII once the price insanity settles down in about a year.

For right now, the 17-40 and 70-200 would probably meet most all your needs on a 1.6X judging from my experience but I love my 24-105. Love it even more that I'm learning the subtleties of using the IS to extend the usable range of the lens. And there isn't anything I don't like about my 70-200 F/4 IS.

Since my eventual path was to get at least to 1.3X and perhaps FF, the 24-105 is naturally a better fit in those environments so I took advantage of the double rebate earlier this year to save $190 on the 17-40 and 24-105 and I'm glad I did.

All I need now is a 300 F/4 IS for a little more reach and I'll be done until I get my next DSLR next year sometime. I then hope to see and updated 100-400 or an IS version of the 400 prime. $$$$$$!

good luck,
Garth

I am guessing that the smaller sensors are here to stay and that folks who have invested in the 1.6x equipment are not going to be stuck with obsolete equipment.

I can make prints as large as I wish with my 1.6x crop cameras so I don't feel the need for a FF version.

The primary problem, as I see it, with the 1.6x crop format was that the images were not wide enough at the 16-17mm range and certainly not wide enough if 24-28mm was your widest focal length.

Again, IMO, that problem has been solved with the introduction of some really good wide angles designed for the 1.6x format. I am extremely pleased with the results from my 12-24mm f/4 Tokina ATX. Of course, the Canon and Sigma lenses in this approximate focal range are also good. I just happened to have fallen in love with the Tokina.

Using 1.6x crop cameras, you can "almost" buy a 350D and a 30D at the price of a full frame camera. That way, you would have a pair of lightweight bodies and, if you matched them with a great W/A like the Tokina, a medium range tele like the 28-70L or 24-70L or one of the Sigma or Tamron lenses in that approximate range, along with a great tele zoom like the 70-200mm f/4L IS - you would have a versatile outfit that could do just about anything you needed with a few exceptions (birding, extreme low light and macro for example). Throw in a 1.4x TC for the long lens and you would increase the versatility of your outfit at a reasonable cost.

IMO 17mm is not wide enough for to be the widest focal length available in a 1.6x kit. It is fine for full-frame but, IMO not for 1.6x. Since I like to use two bodies, I will always have a pair of lenses mounted that will give me the best chance of achieving the images I need or want. I can usually make a pretty accurate guestimate which two of my three lenses I will need for any given occasion.
--

Retired Navy Master Chief Photographer's Mate. I was a Combat Cameraman, Motion Picture Director, and a Naval Aircrewman. I also had experience in reconaissance and intelligence photography. I have had considerable commercial photo experience in weddings and advertising photography. I am fully retired now although I dabble occasionally in dog portraiture. I presently use Canon DSLR cameras.

Thanks for the input. I plan on sticking with the smaller sensor. I'll just have to think about my style a little more.

I'd think 17-55 + 70-200 is all around much better combo than 17-40 + 24-105. I'd even go a little further and say 17-55 alone will work much better than the 17-40 + 24-105 combo, except the slight disadvantage of long end coverage. However that long end coverage can be easily made up by some foot zoom and crop if necessary.

Rickshot said:

I have the 17-40, enjoy it, but like others, find it too short as a
walk around. I see on this forum that a lot of people replace the
17-40 with the 17-55. How many of you have had good success
keeping the 17-40 and adding the 24-105? I have the 70-200 F4 and
would like to keep my travels down to 2 lenses at a given time.
Thanks for your input.

Click to expand...

ritz said:

Are you satisfied with your 24-105L?

Click to expand...

Yep, I cherry picked it from three and got one which was sharp at 105mm wide open - for the record, they were all great at 24..

ritz said:

have decided to get the 16-35 II. I do not belive the 28-135 IS is
good enough for MK III

Click to expand...

the 28-135IS is good enough for the 5D in most cases if it's a good enough copy and the 5D resolves higher than the 1D3 (13 of the sharpest megapixels out there versus 10 unknown ones).. I changed to the 24-105L because the 28-135 does vig worse at the long end (FF remember), it's a lot slower (gets to F5.6 pretty fast, though not as fast as the 17-85) and the 24-105's IS system is way better (though the 28-135s is great) ..

With these cameras having such amazing high ISO performance and Canon's F4L series being so damn good / well priced / just as well made / light , the only reason I can see why anyone would want to lug big heavy clumsy F2.8 zooms about is because they're shooting in extreme conditions where even a 5D or 1D3 is pushed to the wire for ISO .. also the 24-105 is better at the edges at 24mm F4 than the 24-105 is and there is FAR less sample variance..

As for the Sigmas, the 15-30 may end up in the trash, I've seen too many copies which are OK on APS_C but are blurry edged so badly on 1.3 or FF that even F8 won't reduce it

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Adam-T said:

Adam-T said:

Are you satisfied with your 24-105L?

Click to expand...

Yep, I cherry picked it from three and got one which was sharp at
105mm wide open - for the record, they were all great at 24..

Adam-T said:

have decided to get the 16-35 II. I do not belive the 28-135 IS is
good enough for MK III

Click to expand...

the 28-135IS is good enough for the 5D in most cases if it's a good
enough copy and the 5D resolves higher than the 1D3 (13 of the
sharpest megapixels out there versus 10 unknown ones).. I changed
to the 24-105L because the 28-135 does vig worse at the long end
(FF remember), it's a lot slower (gets to F5.6 pretty fast, though
not as fast as the 17-85) and the 24-105's IS system is way better
(though the 28-135s is great) ..

With these cameras having such amazing high ISO performance and
Canon's F4L series being so damn good / well priced / just as well
made / light , the only reason I can see why anyone would want to
lug big heavy clumsy F2.8 zooms about is because they're shooting
in extreme conditions where even a 5D or 1D3 is pushed to the wire
for ISO .. also the 24-105 is better at the edges at 24mm F4 than
the 24-105 is and there is FAR less sample variance..
As for the Sigmas, the 15-30 may end up in the trash, I've seen too
many copies which are OK on APS_C but are blurry edged so badly on
1.3 or FF that even F8 won't reduce it

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...

Thanks Adam, thats mean I have to get the big vallet up for buying 16-35 II and 24-105L.
I was afraid for the 15-30mm allready, it is not to good on the 10 or 20D.
I am very pleased with my EF-S17-85mm.
I better sell the 28-135IS together with the 10D.
The 28-135IS is not bad, but it is like day and night when I talk about my
EF-S17-85 IS wich is much better.
The Sigma 70-200/f:2.8 may be clumsy but it is a dam good lens.
Jens Ritzlau
http://www.pbase.com/ritzlau/fast_and_furiuos_carshow
This photo is taken with the 17-85

Adam-T said:

Adam-T said:

Are you satisfied with your 24-105L?

Click to expand...

Yep, I cherry picked it from three and got one which was sharp at
105mm wide open - for the record, they were all great at 24..

Click to expand...

Which store did you cherry pick from? That way I can avoid shopping there for that lens. Thx.

--
My latest pic:
http://www.camerablognetwork.com/Imageland.htm