Lens 'overlap'

I'm new to the forum and hoping for some good advice.  I currently have a T3i and I'm about to upgrade to a 6D which will require I also upgrade my 'everyday' lenses.  The lenses I will need to replace are my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II 'kit' lens and my 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II zoom.  I have already decided on the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lenses.  I'm concerned I won't be satisfied with 24mm for wide-angle shots, so I'm considering also purchasing a wider angle lens and have my eye on the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM.  My question is: how much difference will I notice between 17mm and 24mm at the wide end?  I realize these lenses overlap some, but my concern is gaining a wider angle.  I've looked online at the various wide-angle lenses - both fixed and zoom - and the price difference is huge!  Still, I don't want to drop $700 on the 17-40 if there isn't a noticeable advantage over the 24-105 for landscape shots.

Thank you!

KOsey wrote:

I'm new to the forum and hoping for some good advice. I currently have a T3i and I'm about to upgrade to a 6D which will require I also upgrade my 'everyday' lenses. The lenses I will need to replace are my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II 'kit' lens and my 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II zoom. I have already decided on the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lenses. I'm concerned I won't be satisfied with 24mm for wide-angle shots, so I'm considering also purchasing a wider angle lens and have my eye on the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. My question is: how much difference will I notice between 17mm and 24mm at the wide end? I realize these lenses overlap some, but my concern is gaining a wider angle. I've looked online at the various wide-angle lenses - both fixed and zoom - and the price difference is huge! Still, I don't want to drop $700 on the 17-40 if there isn't a noticeable advantage over the 24-105 for landscape shots.

Thank you!

First, the difference between 17 & 24 is ENORMOUS!! enough said! I am a huge fan of the 15-85 IS USM. It has great IQ that is almost on par with my 70-200f/4 IS L. Excellent IS & fast whisper quiet AF. The FL fits in great with a 70-XXX lens. If you have not yet bought a long zoom, have a look at the Tamron 70-300VC. An outstanding lens at a great price. I believe your US sellers have some money back deals on, which means it is going for $350 after rebate. Well worth a look.

The difference between 17 and 24 is significant. There are various comparison examples online. I would suggest you shoot with 24 on the full frame for a while and then decide. I already had the 17-40 for use on 1.6 and 1.3 sensor cams when I went to FF. It is a partly a matter of personal style, but I do not use it very often on FF. It is also 1 less lens to carry. So you may want to get a feel for 24 on a FF before getting anything wider.

KOsey wrote:

I'm new to the forum and hoping for some good advice. I currently have a T3i and I'm about to upgrade to a 6D which will require I also upgrade my 'everyday' lenses. The lenses I will need to replace are my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II 'kit' lens and my 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II zoom. I have already decided on the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lenses. I'm concerned I won't be satisfied with 24mm for wide-angle shots, so I'm considering also purchasing a wider angle lens and have my eye on the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. My question is: how much difference will I notice between 17mm and 24mm at the wide end? I realize these lenses overlap some, but my concern is gaining a wider angle. I've looked online at the various wide-angle lenses - both fixed and zoom - and the price difference is huge! Still, I don't want to drop $700 on the 17-40 if there isn't a noticeable advantage over the 24-105 for landscape shots.

Thank you!

I guess you already know that the 24-105 will be wider on the FF 6D than your 18-55 was on your rebel; the 24 on FF being like a 15 on crop, so you will pick up some additional "wide angle" just going this route.  So I would say if you always felt like you needed the 10-22 for your T3i, and you feel you need considerably wider than what you had before then go for it, you will definitely see a difference between a 17 and a 24 FL on the FF.  Nothing at all wrong with the overlap in the 24-40 range, I would prefer some as it might cut down on some lens changing.

KOsey wrote:

happysnapper64 wrote:

First, the difference between 17 & 24 is ENORMOUS!! enough said! I am a huge fan of the 15-85 IS USM. It has great IQ that is almost on par with my 70-200f/4 IS L. Excellent IS & fast whisper quiet AF. The FL fits in great with a 70-XXX lens. If you have not yet bought a long zoom, have a look at the Tamron 70-300VC. An outstanding lens at a great price. I believe your US sellers have some money back deals on, which means it is going for $350 after rebate. Well worth a look.

Thanks for the quick reply! I was hoping to hear there would be a 'huge difference' because I know I won't be happy with 24 on the wide end! Regarding the 15-85 you mentioned, the 6D doesn't accept EF-S lenses, so that isn't an option.

Yes I am sorry, I read your post quickly & thought you had a 60D. In that case, I think the 24-105 is the FF equivalent of the 15-85?? Again, appologies if I am wrong.

KOsey wrote:

how much difference will I notice between 17mm and 24mm at the wide end?

about 103 degrees compared to about 84 degrees ... see for yourself ... make sure you change the camera body/lens to "FX" for full-frame ...

nikkor lens simulator

good luck ...

I didn't read the other replies, but I have 40D & 7D and use 17-55 80% of the time. I have an old 5D1 that I do not use and just bought 6D so I can use my 24-105 and I also have 17-40 and Sigma 12-24. If money is tight you may want to go with the 12-24 rather than 17-40 if you're going to get 24-105. When I used the 5D, I only changed to 17-40 when I needed wider than 24mm.

Also, I'm not familiar with optics of 70-300 you mentioned, but you may want to consider 70-200L f4 IS or 100-400L.

Remember that with Canon crop 18mm = 27mm with FF, so you'll be gaining a good bit with 17-40 or 12-24.

Remember that none of Canon's FF's have built in flash.

Happy shooting.

Kent

KOsey wrote:

Buchanan wrote:

I guess you already know that the 24-105 will be wider on the FF 6D than your 18-55 was on your rebel; the 24 on FF being like a 15 on crop, so you will pick up some additional "wide angle" just going this route. So I would say if you always felt like you needed the 10-22 for your T3i, and you feel you need considerably wider than what you had before then go for it, you will definitely see a difference between a 17 and a 24 FL on the FF. Nothing at all wrong with the overlap in the 24-40 range, I would prefer some as it might cut down on some lens changing.

I did know there would be a difference in effective focal length with the FF but didn't know how to convert so you may have just saved me $739 (at least in the short term)....thank you!! I'm pretty happy with the wide end of my 18-55 now, so I'll probably be happy with the 24 if it's effectively even wider. Thank you for what sounds like good advice.

The cropfactor (1.6 for Canon) is a sensor (body) related figure, the focallenght OF THE LENS is a lens related figure, the two combined (multiplied) give you the focallenght FF equivalent.

So If a 15-85 (EF-S) lens says 15-85 on it it technically is correct (even if it will not fit on a FF camera).

OT 24-105 imo looks like a fantastic lens for walkaround on 6D, though I never had either.

I use a 15-85 on 7D (makes it 24-136 ff eq.) I really love that lens.

Excellent choice in the 24-105 L and the 70-300 L. I have them both with a 5DIII and am very happy with them. The 70-300 L is a stellar lens. For wide angle shots I have a 12-24 Sigma. It's not as sharp as the other two, but is still very satisfactory. I believe it's as wide as you can go, and I have taken some incredible shots at 12 mm. You'll definitely see a big difference between 24 and 17, but consider going a step further and getting the Sigma. Here's a shot taken with it ...



Some people will tell you there's a significant difference at the wide end between the 17-40f4L and the 16-35f2.8L II. Don't know I have only the latter but I can tell you there's a big difference between the 16-35 and the Samyang 14f2.8 and again with the Canon 15f2.8 fisheye. I have all 3. The Samyang is an acquired taste being a manual lens but it would be a good starting point to see if you like that end of the focal range. I was going to get rid of the Samyang and took it out on both fullframe and crop to give it one last run. Nope, can't part with it, its a keeper as are the other 2 ultrawides. Definite overlap but they have different characteristics that I enjoy.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff

At the other end I have read good things about the 70-300 but for me 300 isn't long enough so I purchased the 100-400 which has taken over from the 70-200f4L IS as my walkaround lens, and even its not long enough some of the time.

If you have the time check out this book of mine, which has several ultra wide shots with the Sigma.

KOsey wrote:

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

Some people will tell you there's a significant difference at the wide end between the 17-40f4L and the 16-35f2.8L II. Don't know I have only the latter but I can tell you there's a big difference between the 16-35 and the Samyang 14f2.8 and again with the Canon 15f2.8 fisheye. I have all 3. The Samyang is an acquired taste being a manual lens but it would be a good starting point to see if you like that end of the focal range. I was going to get rid of the Samyang and took it out on both fullframe and crop to give it one last run. Nope, can't part with it, its a keeper as are the other 2 ultrawides. Definite overlap but they have different characteristics that I enjoy.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff

At the other end I have read good things about the 70-300 but for me 300 isn't long enough so I purchased the 100-400 which has taken over from the 70-200f4L IS as my walkaround lens, and even its not long enough some of the time.

I've read reviews and articles that say the 16-35 is a fantastic lens, but it is - unfortunately - out of my price range. I am trying to get the best possible combination of lenses within my budget. Based on the responses I've received here and some googling, I finally understand how the different focal lengths will compare on a FF body vs. my T3i. I'm still leaning towards getting something wide angle, just not sure what!

That said, on the long end I've done some hemming and hawing between the 70-300 and the 100-400. My concern with the 300 is it won't be long enough and my concern with the 400 is it will be too heavy for me . I already have a Sigma 120-400 that I rarely use because it's such a monster and I plan on trading it in toward the upgrades. Even though the Canon 100-400 is 12 oz. lighter, I'm still afraid it will be too heavy at over 3 pounds...but that extra length is very tempting at only a couple hundred $$ more. Decisions, decisions....what to do??

The 24-105 is not negotiable as Adorama has a great deal on that lens bundled with the 6D body. I also have a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens that I will be keeping as it is my *baby*.

''I've read reviews and articles that say the 16-35 is a fantastic lens, but it is - unfortunately - out of my price range.''

But the Samyang isn't and you may be pleasantly surprised by this lens on both full frame and crop. I think when it comes to zooms buy the very best you can afford. I was going to trade my 8 month old 24-105 in on the 24-70f2.8L II but its too good a lens to give away at current prices, I'll keep both.

Myself in your place would skip the 24-105mm and simply walk around with 17-40mm (or 16-35mm, or 16-28mm) + 70-300mm. Unless your primary subject is people and you can't keep switching lenses. There isn't much of a gap between 40mm and 70mm if you do landscapes.