Canon general zooms

[tomberkley]

Thinking of getting another zoom to add to my 70-200mm.

The main two I am looking at are the Canon EF 17-40mm L and the 24-70mm L, I would think the 24-70 will be the most used lens if i buy it but it is quite alot more $$ than the 17-40,

I dont really want to go third party, the EF L lenses are better

Has anyone used both and can give me some into on the pros cons apart from the normal f4 vs f2.8. etc

I will be using on a 1.6 crop body, and shooting landscape, portrait, and general photos. ( havent decided which style I enjoy shooting the most)

Hence the reason a general focal lenth is what I am looking for.

I want to buy once and buy right the first time instead of having to sell and upgrade after buying a cheaper alternative.

[Redal]

Thinking of getting another zoom to add to my 70-200mm.

The main two I am looking at are the Canon EF 17-40mm L and the 24-70mm L, I would think the 24-70 will be the most used lens if i buy it but it is quite alot more $$ than the 17-40,

I dont really want to go third party, the EF L lenses are better

Has anyone used both and can give me some into on the pros cons apart from the normal f4 vs f2.8. etc

I will be using on a 1.6 crop body, and shooting landscape, portrait, and general photos. ( havent decided which style I enjoy shooting the most)

Hence the reason a general focal lenth is what I am looking for.

I want to buy once and buy right the first time instead of having to sell and upgrade after buying a cheaper alternative.

I have used both, both are great lenses. Auto focus is similar on both, with 24-70 just taking it out. Build quality is what you expect, the 24-70 extends when zooms, where the 17-40 doesnt.

Take this from a point of view of someone using FF camera.

I find the 17-40 a great lens for landscapes and great for full body portraits where im trying to include the environment.
When doing portraits i sometimes have to be careful of distortion of body parts, but seeing you use a 1.6x camera that should be an issue, maybe at 17mm .
I can get closer and communicate with the subject easier, although with kids , i find it better to shoot from more distance.

The 24-70 would be a great portrait lens on your camera body, if you are after tight shots, head and shoulder, 3/4 length . I normally shoot these with a 85mm lens.
Depending on landscapes you are tiring to capture this might not be wide enough.

I returned my 24-70 as i didnt feel i needed it for what i was shooting.
But i picked up a Tamron 28-75 for 1/3 the price of a Canon 24-70 and the image quality is hard to beat. The Tammy focus is slow , but i can live with that.

I guess it comes down to how wide you need to go.
If you go for the 17-40 you could get a 50f1.8 to fill in the grab between 40-70 that you would be missing.

[jackinavox]

in a perfect world, get both :) me, i would get the 24-70mm

but, i have found how difficult it is to go wide with a 24-105mm using a 1.6x crop sensor. maybe not so much a problem for landscapes, but for portraits it gets a bit difficult.

when will canon do a 18-200mm 'L' ?

[talan]

If you're wanting to shoot landscape, architecture, etc then go for 17-40mm.

I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L and it's a great sharp lens -- awesome walkaround. I chose this over the 24-105mm as i was prepared to sacrifice some zoom (add to the fact I have crop sensor) and IS with a wider apeture -- which i think outweighs IS by far. I've shot with a 24-105 f/4 and although it's still a nice L lens, I'd take the 24-70mm any day. I just think f/4 doesn't quite cut it. The 24-70mm is a heavy lens though.


In a perfect world I would have:

Full frame camera
17-40mm f/4 L
24-70mm f2.8 L
70-200mm f2.8 L II
135mm L
But unfortunately my world isn't so perfect :td:

when will canon do a 18-200mm 'L' ?
Probably never, as the zoom range crosses pathes with too many 'L' lenses. They'd lose all their revenue haha

[jackinavox]

i find that the 24-105 L on a 1.6x body is not wide enough, and not zoom-y enough.

so in a perfect world for me, my kit bag would resemble yours, with the addition of a 50mm 1.2 L and replace the 17-40 with a 16-35 - since we're dreaming here :P

[fokker]

I've used the 24-70mm on a 40d, and to be honest it didn't really live up to my expectations so i sold it. It was pretty big and heavy but you probably already know that. I found 24mm to not be wide enough a lot of the time on a 1.6 body.

i have not tried the 17-40mm, but I feel that the zoom range on this wouldn't be enough for me - 40mm is pretty short a lot of the time. I think the lens you should be looking at is a 17-55 f2.8. Most reviews agree that the image quality is on par with other L zooms and the only reason it isn't designated an L lens is because of its EF-S mount. Unless you are planning to go FF in the future (in which case the 24-70 makes more sense) I think this is the perfect lens for you. It also has the advantage of IS, the only thing you lose compared to a true L lens is the weather sealing.

[Wellzy6]

I have a 17-40 and while I like it I agree with Fokker that it is a bit short in the zoom dept. Although I have not used the 17-55 I would tend to agree with Fokker on this also. Also another thought, an EFS 15-85 would give you a pretty good range and I have read that these are a really good lens too

[fokker]

Ef-s 18-55 are rubbish, they are about the worst lens that canon makes! The 17-55 is on a way different level - you can pick up an 18-55 for about $100 used, whereas the 17-55 will still sting you around $1400 used.

[tomberkley]

hmmmm cheers guys this helps,

I have kind of thought about the 17-55 it is the best efs made by canon and the most pricy and does seem the be on par with the 24-70 image quality wise.
In regards to the FF i can see myself upgrading in the future but prob not for quite awile, the 40d does everything I need and more, the only thing is the lack of high iso setting, ( cant really go above 1600 without some sweet noise) which would be very handy when using my non is 70-200 at f4.
How will the 17-55 hold us in the resell value afew years down the track?
In all fairness with canon releacing the 7d it doesnt seem likley that the 1.6 crop sensors are going to lie down and die so the 17-55 may be a good bet in that regard.
Cheers Fokker for the info on the 24-70. just under 1kg semms prity heafty weight considering my body weighs 750g. and may feel unbalanced. image wise it cant be faulted tho.
maybe the 17-40 isnt the best choice for me i may not use it as i thought.

I guess the lure of the red ring around the end of the lens just seems very tempting ....

[Wellzy6]

Hi Tomberkley

Here is a link to a 15-85mm 3.5-5.6 review. You will also find a review of the 17-55mm 2.8 as well as a lot of other lenses, cameras etc
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Cheers Tony

[fokker]

Ah I see Wellyz, you mixed up 18-55 and 15-85, lol easy enough to do.

Tom; I have a 17-55 f2.8 for sale at the moment, PM me if you are interested in buying. (At this point it probably seems like I was trying to talk up the 17-55 so I could sell you mine, but it really is a fantastic lens and seems to be perfect for your needs).
Also in regards to future resale value - It may not be quite the same as an L lens which hold their value extremely well, but given the quality of the lens and the fact that there isn't much else that compares it should keep its value pretty well, especially if you buy it second hand.

[jackinavox]

didn't even know that there was a 15-85mm IS USM, i assumed it was a typo for 18-55mm!

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 AM ----------

fokker, i could be keen too if the price is right. i'm in the same boat as tom, i think it's a good lens, but with the probability of going FF soon, don't want to commit to EF-s and then lose money when i resell it later on to get a EF replacement.

[tomberkley]

Hi Tomberkley

Here is a link to a 15-85mm 3.5-5.6 review. You will also find a review of the 17-55mm 2.8 as well as a lot of other lenses, cameras etc
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Cheers Tony

cheers mate
This site is where i get most info on lenses. the guy knows his stuff.

---------- Post added at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------

Ah I see Wellyz, you mixed up 18-55 and 15-85, lol easy enough to do.

Tom; I have a 17-55 f2.8 for sale at the moment, PM me if you are interested in buying. (At this point it probably seems like I was trying to talk up the 17-55 so I could sell you mine, but it really is a fantastic lens and seems to be perfect for your needs).
Also in regards to future resale value - It may not be quite the same as an L lens which hold their value extremely well, but given the quality of the lens and the fact that there isn't much else that compares it should keep its value pretty well, especially if you buy it second hand.

true yea it does seem that itl suit what i need.

[fokker]

fokker, i could be keen too if the price is right. i'm in the same boat as tom, i think it's a good lens, but with the probability of going FF soon, don't want to commit to EF-s and then lose money when i resell it later on to get a EF replacement.


Hey, I'll let you know about it.

Chances are it will hold its value pretty well. It's the best available ef-s lens so will always be in demand.