Canon 17-40, 10-22 or 24-105?

[iceman]

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?

[troypiggo]

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?

[iceman]

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.

[Dennis]

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

[Octane]

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

[troypiggo]

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.

[Waxing_Gibbous]

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

[rogerg]

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.

[beren]

;) Go to the dark side, get this (http://http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/) and run a Nikon 14-24mm awesome lens

[[1ponders]]

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. :D

[iceman]

I really liked H's 24-105 when I used it for the wedding I shot (http://www.mikesalway.com.au/2009/04/08/results-from-my-first-wedding-shoot-tanya-and-marvin) 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 ;)

[Phil]

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

[RB]

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 :P ).

Keep the 10-22 on the back burner - another nice lens but not a must have. :thumbsup:

[acropolite]

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.

[Paul Haese]

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.

[iceman]

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 :)

[Octane]

Mike,

Congratulations. :)

Regards,
Humayun

[rogerg]

Congrats Mike, it's a nice lens, you won't be disapointed :thumbsup: