Okay guys.. I need your help and quick! I own an XT with the kit lens.. I know lame.. and 70-200 f/4L and nifty fifty and as of this moment I'm on BHPhotoVideo about to pick up the 5D as an upgrade... but the dilemma is... 17-40? or 24-105? The kit with 24-105 and buying the 17-40 alone are about the same price... so it's not price.. which is better.. for me? I've been shooting and the widest I get with the XT is 18mm.. which is a little less than the 24mm at FF... so.. will I like going even wider? I've played with it and love the effects. I shoot landscape and I shoot portraits.. so will the 17-40 be more beneficial with that? I'm planning on getting a 35L and 85L later down the line, but that's not the problem... it's just... really wide? or an all around lens? Convenience isn't everything to me. I could carry around a bunch of lenses or just shoot with the nifty fifty all day for all I care. Which will do me more justice?
The jump from 18 on 1.6 to 24 on ff is quite a bit. Four mm doesn't sound like much, but you will be able to get pretty darn wide! I have been using 5d with 24-105, and got rid of 17-40 for the Tamron. I got it for 200 dollars, and it is a faster, lighter, and SHARPER lens! Anyway, 24-105 is incredible on 5d!
Hmm.. thank you... but I mean.. comparably.. on the wide end.. the 24 on FF is about the same as 18 on the 1.6 crop (the 24 being a few degrees wider). The question was more like, would I like the super wide more and would it be more useful to me than the 24-105L being an all around lens.
I use the 17-40L and 24-105L (and 24-70L) on 30D and 5D bodies. The 24-105L is definitely the best choice for a general purpose walkabout lens. Your your appreciation of the difference between 18mm on an XT and 24mm on a 5D is slightly off: for the 18mm, it's 18 x 1.6 = 28.8mm; and for the 17mm, it's 27.2mm. So, both the 17mm and 18mm on an XT are pretty similar to 28mm on a 5D, and that's very different from 24mm. That's is why so many photographers have both 24mm and 28mm lenses.
Edited by jcolwell on Mar 28, 2008 at 02:02 PM GMT
If you will go for FF on the 5D, the 24-105 would provide much better general purpose use. The additional wideness of the 24mm compared to ca. 29mm of your current crop combo will also be noticeable. Only you can decide if this is wide enough. However, is you really want to go wide very (!) often, 17-40 might be your way to go, missing out on the longer range.
If time is not of the essence, take some sample shots with both lenses at your local dealer. Eventually you may end up with both lenses though.
I would definitely recommend the 24-105L especially if you are about to upgrade to 5D.
24mm on FF is equivalent of a 15 mm on your crop body so I guess it is wide enough.
Both are f4.
24-105 has IS and you may like to have this extra-tool.
17-40 for portrait, not the best focal length...
I use the 24-105 with a XTi and it is already a great lense and I'd love to use it on a 5D... lucky you!
I'd get the 24-105 too. I picked one up this week to replace the 17-40mm and aside from the loss of 7mm at the wide end, the lens seems slighly sharper than the 17-40 and works better for me as a walk-around.
On a FF, the 24mm provides a very nice FOV, and I think would work well for landscapes although you may have to do some distortion correction in PS.
I'm curious on your price reference....if B&H is selling the 5d/24-105 kit for the same price as a 5D and 17-40 as seperate components, if you decide to go the 17-40 route then buy the 5d/24-105 kit, sell the lens here on the B/S forum for $900+, buy the 17-40 and pocket the difference.........
The 24-105 in sweet on both the XT and the 5D, but so is the 17-40. I'd get the kit 5d and the 24-105, then pick up a 17-40 later. It's not going anyplace!
The question is whether you find the current 18mm wide enough. Do you find yourself backing up against a wall often to get a shot that you want? Are most of your landscapes shot at 18mm?
If you are primarily doing landscapes, it might be more useful to get the 17-40, as you have the flexibility of the ultra-wide when you need it. The 50/1.8 at f8 is quite sharp, and fills the 40-70mm gap nicely.
I love to use this set up: 20D w/17-40 & 5D w/70-200 (2.8 IS)
If I need to go wider or longer, I swap the lenses. It's an awesome combo. You could do the same with your xt. I hope to upgrade my 20D to a 40D at some point, but I'll still have the same advantage of one full frame sensor and one crop.
Bring along a 1.4 TC and a fast prime (50 1.4 or 24 1.4, etc.) and you have a world class kit, IMHO
Mark Peters wrote:
I'm curious on your price reference....if B&H is selling the 5d/24-105 kit for the same price as a 5D and 17-40 as seperate components, if you decide to go the 17-40 route then buy the 5d/24-105 kit, sell the lens here on the B/S forum for $900+, buy the 17-40 and pocket the difference.........
Ditto on this.
If you get the 5D kit your getting the 24-105 for about $650! If you decide you want the 17-40 instead, then sell the 24-105 here.
17mm is really WIDE. And 24mm is wide enough for most situation, but that's just for me.
I would go with 24-105 and if you don't like it, you can trade 24-105 with 17-40, and you will get some $$ in your pocket...
Go for the 24-105. I had a 17-40. Just sold it, because I do not shoot 17mm on the 5D. It does not have a use in my bag anymore, since I don't use 1.6x bodies. The 24mm is more than wide enough on the 5D. Unless you shoot crowds in tight spaces or have a thing for the Super Wide spectrum of photography, go for the 24-105. It is a better investment, and is an awesome walk-around lens on the 5D, and works well on crop bodies too.
