Reading mode: Light Dark

17-40 4L vs. 24-70 2.8L

Go to last post
J

Josh189637

Active member
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I'm trying to decide between the two lenses above to complement a 70-200 4L for my 300D. I don't mind paying more for the 24-70 if it truly is of a different class, but I can't afford both the 17-40 and the 24-70 and their focal lengths overlap quite a bit in any case.

What else can I tell you...let's assume that this lens will be on my camera most of the time. I don't have a particular specialty, but shoot whatever strikes me, usually though not exclusively outdoors. I do like candids, environmental photos, I travel a lot, and spend a lot of time in cities. I own a nice 50 prime already. My current walk-around is the 28-135 IS--I like this lens, but want to upgrade to an L.

I realize there's no easy answer here, and a lot of variables to consider, but I'd appreciate any gut feelings out there backed up by personal experience. Thanks for any help you can offer.
 
I just purchased all 3 of these lenses. So far I think the 7-200 f4L and the 17-40L are fantastic. I had soft focus problems with both of my 24-70L's. I ordered a 3rd, which hopefully will be the charm. Based on my experience, I would get the 17-40L first and see if you miss the gap of 40-70. Plus you save some money in the interim. You could add the 50mm 1.8 for $70 to close the gap or add the Tamron with the 17-40L for about the same price as the 24-70L, which is a huge and heavy lense. It's weighs more than the 70-200 F4L. Good luck with your decision.

The 24-70L borders on being a little too huge to be a comfortable walk around lense for many people.
Josh said:
I'm trying to decide between the two lenses above to complement a
70-200 4L for my 300D. I don't mind paying more for the 24-70 if it
truly is of a different class, but I can't afford both the 17-40
and the 24-70 and their focal lengths overlap quite a bit in any
case.

What else can I tell you...let's assume that this lens will be on
my camera most of the time. I don't have a particular specialty,
but shoot whatever strikes me, usually though not exclusively
outdoors. I do like candids, environmental photos, I travel a lot,
and spend a lot of time in cities. I own a nice 50 prime already.
My current walk-around is the 28-135 IS--I like this lens, but want
to upgrade to an L.

I realize there's no easy answer here, and a lot of variables to
consider, but I'd appreciate any gut feelings out there backed up
by personal experience. Thanks for any help you can offer.
Click to expand...
 
What do you want to shoot?

17-40 is:
1. wider
2. lighter (weight)
3. less expensive
4. shorter (physically)

24-70 is:
1. faster (2.8 vs 4.0)
2. longer (optically and physically)

both are great L lens. Even if I had all 50-some Canon lens, I woud never use all of them. You eventually only use the ones you need. Figure out your needs and buy the lens that fit.
Josh said:
I'm trying to decide between the two lenses above to complement a
70-200 4L for my 300D. I don't mind paying more for the 24-70 if it
truly is of a different class, but I can't afford both the 17-40
and the 24-70 and their focal lengths overlap quite a bit in any
case.

What else can I tell you...let's assume that this lens will be on
my camera most of the time. I don't have a particular specialty,
but shoot whatever strikes me, usually though not exclusively
outdoors. I do like candids, environmental photos, I travel a lot,
and spend a lot of time in cities. I own a nice 50 prime already.
My current walk-around is the 28-135 IS--I like this lens, but want
to upgrade to an L.

I realize there's no easy answer here, and a lot of variables to
consider, but I'd appreciate any gut feelings out there backed up
by personal experience. Thanks for any help you can offer.
Click to expand...
 
I've had all three of these lenses for over a year. Finally sold the 24-70 just because the 17-40 was a far more useful range for me and the sheer bulk of the 24-70 just got tiresome. Also, I wanted the $1,200 to spend on something else.

My advice: the 17-40, the 70-200 f4 and the 50 f1.8. In that order.
Sage said:
Josh said:
I'm trying to decide between the two lenses above to complement a
70-200 4L for my 300D. I don't mind paying more for the 24-70 if it
truly is of a different class, but I can't afford both the 17-40
and the 24-70 and their focal lengths overlap quite a bit in any
case.

What else can I tell you...let's assume that this lens will be on
my camera most of the time. I don't have a particular specialty,
but shoot whatever strikes me, usually though not exclusively
outdoors. I do like candids, environmental photos, I travel a lot,
and spend a lot of time in cities. I own a nice 50 prime already.
My current walk-around is the 28-135 IS--I like this lens, but want
to upgrade to an L.

I realize there's no easy answer here, and a lot of variables to
consider, but I'd appreciate any gut feelings out there backed up
by personal experience. Thanks for any help you can offer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/davek/
 
The fact that you two agree so definitively certainly helps. I appreciate the advice. Cheers.
Dave Knadler said:
My advice: the 17-40, the 70-200 f4 and the 50 f1.8. In that order.
Sage said:
Josh said:
I'm trying to decide between the two lenses above to complement a
70-200 4L for my 300D. I don't mind paying more for the 24-70 if it
truly is of a different class, but I can't afford both the 17-40
and the 24-70 and their focal lengths overlap quite a bit in any
case.

What else can I tell you...let's assume that this lens will be on
my camera most of the time. I don't have a particular specialty,
but shoot whatever strikes me, usually though not exclusively
outdoors. I do like candids, environmental photos, I travel a lot,
and spend a lot of time in cities. I own a nice 50 prime already.
My current walk-around is the 28-135 IS--I like this lens, but want
to upgrade to an L.

I realize there's no easy answer here, and a lot of variables to
consider, but I'd appreciate any gut feelings out there backed up
by personal experience. Thanks for any help you can offer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/davek/
Click to expand...
 
I had both, but the 24-70L is definatly the sharper lens over the range. The 17-40 is best at 17mm and gets worse as it gets closer to 40mm, not to mention its a stop slower.

With that knowledge, anytime I needed to shot past 24mm, i would always prefer the 24-70L.

For my type of shooting, I found I was often shooting at 70mm for a nice portrait or zooming out to 35mm range or wider for a more full body shot.

it just really depends what your shooting needs are. Both lens are in fact good, but they sorta overlap to where it doesnt make sense to have both.

17mm isnt wide enough for when I want wide angle, so that meant i needed something else anyways, so the 24-70L was the way to go for me.

id consider a sigma 12-24mm, canon 24-70L and then your 70-200L and you've got the entire focal length covered with some excellent glass
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
Frankly, I couldn't live without my 24-70L. For one thing, the F2.8 all the way through is invaluable. It beats the pants of of an F4 indoors or out.

I think 17-40 has such a limited amount of zoom, I don't understand why more people don't buy 2 primes and save 1/2 the money, get better sharpness, and faster lenses. Buy a wide angle prime, and a 50mm, and you've saved 1/2 the cost of the 17-40 F4L.

The 24-70L is a good portrait lens, yet it's wide enough to take indoors to an autoshow, get up close, and still get a decent wide angle shot. Outdoors, wide open, it's got fabulous bokeh.

Yes, it's a bit heavy at 1.5 lbs, but after carrying one around every day for the past few months, I don't mind it. And, after carrying around a 70-200 F2.8 IS L, I really don't notice the 24-70 weight at all.

You put an F4 lens, and an F2.8 lens, and I'll always take the F2.8. That's the difference between shooting noisy ISO 1600 and a clearer ISO 800.

--
10D, 24-70L, 70-200 F2.8L IS, 50mm F1.4, 550EX. Bogen 680B w/ 486RC2.
Nikon FE + collection of lenses.
 
Here's the deal -- buy both if you can. J&R (www.jandr.com) has a liberal thirty day return policy. See which, if either, of the lenses you end up using. If you're like me, you'll opt for neither. Outside, I found the 28-135 IS a great lens since I don't shoot below f 4 in well lit areas -- if you want a shallow depth of field, back up a little and zoom. Plus, the IS really helps at night. If you need wide, I've been very happy with the kit lens, and it's great as an indoor snapshot flash lens, too.

But, when you want the shallow DOF or a fast lens, then f 2.8 is not fast enough -- so I use primes. So far I love and use the Sigma 20mm f 1.8 and the Canon 50mm f 1.4 and anticipate loving the 35mm f 1.4L.

So, if I were you, and I sound similar enough from what you've said, I'd skip the zooms, and get some primes.

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. This is what I need: a 20-50 f/2L IS 1:1 Macro ring USM. Now that I think about it, make it 18-55 f 1.4 (with all the other goodies, too)! Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Bueller? : )

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )
 
the price of Sigma 12-24 + Sigma 28-70 ex DF is less than the
price of a 24-70L2.8

the Quality is very much the same.
The Big Bad said:
definatly is, very nice build on it. Sigma's EX line has some
really good lens.

The 12-24 does need to be stopped down a bit for best sharpness but
thats just really an aspect of ultra wide angle.

12mm is ALOT wider FOV than 17mm as well
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
Click to expand...
 
I agree with all the above post, they all prefer the lens that fits in where they shoot the most. Not a bad choice listed.

I went with the 17-40L and matched it with a Sigma 28-70EX DF F2.8.

I felt the 17-40L was less prone to lens flare, had better color than the Sigma 15-30, although maybe not as good for CA. But the Canon cost $200 more.

The Sigma 28-70EX DF (not the Sigma 24-70EX) I have was sharper than my 24-70L on the long end wide open, but the Canon had slightly better color and contrast over all. Unfortunately it also was 1/2 lb heavier and cost 4 times as much.

--
Good luck and good shooting.

Regards Rusty
 
It appears that the autofocus mechanism of the 10D and 300D has problems with the 24-70 which is one of the best lenses Canon has. You always here 10D and 300D owners complaining about getting soft shots with the 24-70.

On the 1D/1Ds the 24-70 is a dream and works almost universally well. I've used it on a 1Ds and it was fantastic.

As I understand it the issue is the DOF. There is mugh tighter tolerance in the 1D/1Ds than the 10D/300D. The 10D/300D actually have an easier time focusing with an f4 lens like the 17-40 which is a very sharp lens.

With more DOF there is better contrast and it makes it easier for a focusing system to get into focus quicker. When small DOF keeps things blurry until you are really close it takes the AF system longer to find where it should be and that is when you hear of cameras hunting around.

A 300D will actually have an easier time focusing a 28-135 3.5-5.6 than a 24-70 f2.8.
 
That's great info--thanks a lot.
waterskier said:
It appears that the autofocus mechanism of the 10D and 300D has
problems with the 24-70 which is one of the best lenses Canon has.
You always here 10D and 300D owners complaining about getting soft
shots with the 24-70.

On the 1D/1Ds the 24-70 is a dream and works almost universally
well. I've used it on a 1Ds and it was fantastic.

As I understand it the issue is the DOF. There is mugh tighter
tolerance in the 1D/1Ds than the 10D/300D. The 10D/300D actually
have an easier time focusing with an f4 lens like the 17-40 which
is a very sharp lens.

With more DOF there is better contrast and it makes it easier for a
focusing system to get into focus quicker. When small DOF keeps
things blurry until you are really close it takes the AF system
longer to find where it should be and that is when you hear of
cameras hunting around.

A 300D will actually have an easier time focusing a 28-135 3.5-5.6
than a 24-70 f2.8.
Click to expand...
 
waterskier said:
It appears that the autofocus mechanism of the 10D and 300D has
problems with the 24-70 which is one of the best lenses Canon has.
You always here 10D and 300D owners complaining about getting soft
shots with the 24-70.

On the 1D/1Ds the 24-70 is a dream and works almost universally
well. I've used it on a 1Ds and it was fantastic.

As I understand it the issue is the DOF. There is mugh tighter
tolerance in the 1D/1Ds than the 10D/300D. The 10D/300D actually
have an easier time focusing with an f4 lens like the 17-40 which
is a very sharp lens.

With more DOF there is better contrast and it makes it easier for a
focusing system to get into focus quicker. When small DOF keeps
things blurry until you are really close it takes the AF system
longer to find where it should be and that is when you hear of
cameras hunting around.

A 300D will actually have an easier time focusing a 28-135 3.5-5.6
than a 24-70 f2.8.
Click to expand...
--
RappWizard

Very helpful info indeed. Just don't give me any more reasons to go out and buy the 1D, especially after buying all these lenses.
 
So far, I haven't experienced that problem with my 24-70 on the 10D. It has focused fast and precise for me, even in low light (which is why I went with a 2.8 in the first place).
waterskier said:
It appears that the autofocus mechanism of the 10D and 300D has
problems with the 24-70 which is one of the best lenses Canon has.
You always here 10D and 300D owners complaining about getting soft
shots with the 24-70.

On the 1D/1Ds the 24-70 is a dream and works almost universally
well. I've used it on a 1Ds and it was fantastic.

As I understand it the issue is the DOF. There is mugh tighter
tolerance in the 1D/1Ds than the 10D/300D. The 10D/300D actually
have an easier time focusing with an f4 lens like the 17-40 which
is a very sharp lens.

With more DOF there is better contrast and it makes it easier for a
focusing system to get into focus quicker. When small DOF keeps
things blurry until you are really close it takes the AF system
longer to find where it should be and that is when you hear of
cameras hunting around.

A 300D will actually have an easier time focusing a 28-135 3.5-5.6
than a 24-70 f2.8.
Click to expand...
--
Tom
 
24-70 is probably my fastest and most accurate lens on my 10D. Its such a popular lens that your bound to hear more complaints about it just due to the fact that so many lens are out there.

you know, 1000 people have a lens and 1% complains, you dont hear about it, 100,000 have a lens and 1% has issues with it, well thats alot more complains, some of which make their way back to you
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
Josh said:
I'm trying to decide between the two lenses above to complement a
70-200 4L for my 300D. I don't mind paying more for the 24-70 if it
truly is of a different class, but I can't afford both the 17-40
and the 24-70 and their focal lengths overlap quite a bit in any
case.

What else can I tell you...let's assume that this lens will be on
my camera most of the time. I don't have a particular specialty,
but shoot whatever strikes me, usually though not exclusively
outdoors. I do like candids, environmental photos, I travel a lot,
and spend a lot of time in cities. I own a nice 50 prime already.
My current walk-around is the 28-135 IS--I like this lens, but want
to upgrade to an L.

I realize there's no easy answer here, and a lot of variables to
consider, but I'd appreciate any gut feelings out there backed up
by personal experience. Thanks for any help you can offer.
Click to expand...
--I have both the 28-135 IS and the 17-40 L. (as well as the 50 mm 1.4 and a 75-300 IS). We travel a LOT and the 28-135 IS was always my favorite walk around travel lens. UNTIL I got the 17-40 L this fall. In Italy in November, it never came off my camera, even though I had taken the 28=135 IS also. It is inconspicuous, the internal zoom makes it easy to handle even in low light, and it is very well balanced, not to mention SHARP. I can't say enough about this great lens. Go to my gallery (link below) and check out the Rome, Florence, Venice, and Italy small towns galleries and almost all the pictures were taken with the 17=40 L. For the few that were not, it is noted.

Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top