#1  
Old 25-09-2009, 05:01 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
Canon 17-40, 10-22 or 24-105?

Hi guys

Was wondering whether I should get a Canon 17-40L or a 10-22, or a 24-105?

I'll be using on a 20D and 350D, for landscapes and widefields.

If i got the 24-105, I'd also use for family portraits etc.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 25-09-2009, 05:27 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,827
On a crop sensor I don't think the 17-40 goes wide enough for landscapes. Not for my taste anyway. I have the 10-22 and the 17-55 and find the latter isn't wide enough sometimes. Without knowing what other lenses you have, I'd be looking at the Canon 10-22 or one of the Sigma or Tokina ones in the same range.

The 24-105 is definitely not wide enough for landscapes. What other lenses do you have?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 25-09-2009, 05:41 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
I've currently got the Sigma 17-70, which I use for all my landscapes and widefield work.

I've also got the nifty 50, 50mm f/1.8 which I use occassionally for milkyway stuff.

I've also got the stock Canon 70-300, which doesn't see much use.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25-09-2009, 07:52 AM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,867
Hi Mike

I’ve got the 17-40L and it is a nice lens. However, I saw some landscape work posted a while ago by Robert_T using a 10-22mm which looked stunning and was much wider (obviously!) than the 17-40.

Just going from memory, when I used to shoot through my 35mm film Pentax KM SLR with a 28mm wide angle lens, on the 40D the 17-40L at the 17mm end seems to cover the same field in the viewfinder.

On the Pentax KM, I found a 24mm wide angle to be very useable with minimum distortion and this would be around 15mm on a x1.6 crop body so if you already have 17mm covered with the Sigma 17-70, I’d probably go for the 10-22, or even the Tamron 11-16 which has a good write up.

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25-09-2009, 07:59 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
I don't know about others, but, I find anything below 17mm just too wide for landscapes. It's almost like as if you're sacrificing image quality and resolution for real estate. That's just me, though.

10-20mm would be great for sweeping indoors or architecture.

The 24-105mm you have used Mike, and know how awesome it is.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25-09-2009, 08:01 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,827
I forgot to mention the Tammy 11-16. Haven't used it but good reviews IIUC.

Looks like you've got 17mm and up covered. As mentioned previously, I'd go with something like those ultra-wides 10-20mm ballpark.

@Humayun Re: wider than 17mm too wide - do you mean on your 5D (full frame) camera, or on a crop? 10-12mm on a crop is around 17mm on a FF as I'm sure you'd know.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25-09-2009, 08:45 AM
Waxing_Gibbous's Avatar
Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)
Grumpy Old Man-Child

Waxing_Gibbous is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Gippsland
Posts: 1,768
Mike,
If you are planning on staying with 1.6 sensors, I'd go for the 10-22. Its next on my list as it produces near 'L' results.
I've had both the 17-40 & the 24-105 and can't say I was really impressed by either. Both were too soft wide open. The 17-40 was OK but could show an alarming amount of CA if not pointed just right (the 16-35 is much better).
I found the 24-105 soft as a very soft thing and also prone to CA though not as badly as the 17-40. Mine was an early example and the problem has supposedly been sorted long since.
Depending on how you like your landscapes, I wouldn't worry too much - I happily use my 300 2.8L sometimes. Even one a local award for "Best Landscape" with it!
But as always, if you can, "Try before you buy"! Any reputable dealer should alow you to take comparrison shots.
Good luck,
Peter
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25-09-2009, 08:50 AM
rogerg's Avatar
rogerg (Roger)
Registered User

rogerg is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 4,540
I have the 17-40 and Christine has the 24-105. If I were to buy one lens I would definitely go the 24-105. The zoom range is very nice and very suitable to "every day" type shooting. It suits almost any situation for family gatherings, general photography, landscape photography. The 17-40 is excellent also, but lacks that zoom range and so doesn't end up working as well for many situations. My combination is 17-40 and 70-200, and I'm often switching between them to get the zoom I want.

With a full frame camera the 17-40 provides a stunning wide perspective which allows some nice unique shots. That's actually what I bought it for, back when I had my 35mm film EOS camera.

When buying the 24-105 we were concerned it would not be wide enough. So far it's been quite sufficient for indoor shots etc, the situations where we thought it would need to be wider.

Both those lenses are excellent in terms of build quality so no difference there really. My 17-40 has been in many wet and sandy situations on beaches as storms have come in, etc.

Roger.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 25-09-2009, 01:44 PM
beren's Avatar
beren
hominī lupus est

beren is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: WA
Posts: 2,764
Go to the dark side, get this and run a Nikon 14-24mm awesome lens
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Nikon1.jpg)
86.9 KB21 views
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25-09-2009, 02:16 PM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
I really like my 17-40, though when shooting the MW I keep wishing i could shoot horizon to horizon. Unfortunately the 10 - 22 won't do it either, quite. But at around 123 deg FOV it aint far off.


but it is really tempting.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 25-09-2009, 03:31 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
I really liked H's 24-105 when I used it for the wedding I shot back in February.

It's got the great zoom range, and is useful for some landscape situations and great for widefields and conjunctions etc, which I love to shoot. It's also great for portrait and family shots too. I'm leaning towards it...

Eventually, I would also look at the 10-22 for widefield landscapes, and the 100-400 for telephoto stuff
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25-09-2009, 04:43 PM
Phil's Avatar
Phil
Phil H

Phil is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 1,497
Hi iceman i have been using the 17-40mm for about 2years now and love it. It is the most used lens out of my 10-20mm and 70-200mm. It is one very nice lens.
Phil
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 25-09-2009, 06:39 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 21,911
Mike get the 24-105.
I know you're gonna love it.
It's my most used lens, stays on my camera ready to go, perfect for family occasions (but I can barely squeeze everyone in ).

Keep the 10-22 on the back burner - another nice lens but not a must have.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 25-09-2009, 07:22 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,985
I used the 24-105 on my 20D for quite a while with good results and, after buying the 24-105, my 17-70 Siggy was never used again. The 24-105 is my most used lens.

If you're prepared to stitch images (which will give you a higher res image) together then you could get by nicely with the 24mm wide end.

I found the CA at the 24mm end to be higher than I would like but easily rectified with DPP

What you won't get with the 24-105 is the perspective effects that only a really wide lens can give.

Last edited by acropolite; 25-09-2009 at 07:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 26-09-2009, 01:53 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,392
Mike get a 2.8 lens with a view to going full frame one day. I have the 14-24 Nikon and it is a sweet lens. Very sharp and fast. Buying DX lenses tends to limit your choices later on. Using the smallest zoom range is better too. It will mean the lens is going to work a lot better.

Edit changed from 12-24 to 14-24.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 28-09-2009, 03:54 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
Thanks for all your feedback.

I've bought the 24-105. My first L glass!! I'm excited.

The 10-22, and the 100-400, can come later.. years later.. once the budget recovers
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 28-09-2009, 04:58 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Mike,

Congratulations.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 28-09-2009, 07:03 PM
rogerg's Avatar
rogerg (Roger)
Registered User

rogerg is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 4,540
Congrats Mike, it's a nice lens, you won't be disapointed
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement