# 24-70II or 17-40+5DMARK II



## joaopedroglm (Oct 30, 2012)

Hi Guys,

I want to gear up but i`m in a dilemma, and i m not a professional but photography is my hobbie.

MY current gear is:
Canon 7D
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Filters: Polarizer b+w 77mm, gnd 0.6 lee

I shoot mainly landscapes with lots of times a human element to give the final touch  and portraits.

My dilemma is to buy the new canon 24-70 II or make and keep the current gear or buy another body (5d mark ii) sell the tokina and buy the 17-40,

I would like very mucho to have them both but i don`t have the money to the this investment at the same time. 

Any thoughts? 
Thanks


----------



## SteenerMe (Oct 30, 2012)

That thar is a tough dilema...in the end though id go with the 24-70 II. It is truely an amazing lens. The 5d2 makes great photos but is old. Id hold out for the 5d3 or wait on the 6d....that lens though is the s&@t!


----------



## dave (Oct 30, 2012)

Hi,

I don't like the 17-40 on full frame.

What about the 5d2 and 24-105L. This is almost the best value going around at the moment.

With what you currently have you would get great flexibility.

Cheers


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 30, 2012)

Hello, practically speaking, it's up to you to know what focal range you like best.

For landscapes, if you do not need a combat AF, the 5D2 is a very good camera, at a very good price. I shoot 90% of my pictures low ISO on a tripod, and I gave up upgrading to the 5D3, for the simple reason it doesn't bring me enough to justify the switch. The main advantage (in my case) would be the integrated horizon, the 100% viewfinder and the extra build quality, but IQ would not improve (at least with the ISOs (100-400) I am using. Plus for not so fast moving subjects, the AF is decent.

The 24-70mm is a good lens, but way overpriced IMO. Unlike many others, I do not feel the need to have exactly matching focal zoom lenses (14-24, 24-70, 70-200), I use zooms only for what they are: several lenses in one. Primes force you to think a bit more about the framing.

My opinion : buy a 5D2, it's a tried and proven camera, this will increase your IQ from a 7D. You can wait for the 6D, but I doubt the sensor tech will be much better than the 5D2, and it you will likely get a cheaper built than the 5D and 7D.

I would get the 17-40, since it allows you a wider view. With the 24-70, you'll end with a 38mm as your shortest focal on your 7D, for 3 times the price.

I guess you already did the the financial balance :

24-70mm : 2299$, 17-40mm : 729$ + 5D2 :1699$ = 2428$

Add later a 50mm 1.4, and this is all you need. Assuming you keep your 70-200mm of course.

Forget about the slight sharpness differences, this is for pixel counters, have the gear that cover your needs, and use it to make nice pictures.....


----------



## K-amps (Oct 30, 2012)

If you are a landscape person, then get the 5D2 and a WA EF lens. No 2 ways about it.

The 24-70ii is good but nothing like the 70-200ii in the amazing images it can take. The subject isolation is not as much, there is distortion on 24mm and there is no IS. plus it is over priced... wait for it or wait for the IS version whenever it comes.

I really think going to full frame will take your IQ to a whole new level.


----------



## well_dunno (Oct 30, 2012)

+1 for 5D mk2 and a 17-40.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 30, 2012)

I think that is a LOT of money to spend on a lens where you will only be using a portion of it's optics. I believe the new 24-70 is so expensive because of the quality of it's glass- beyond the center. Using that lens on a crop is a waste IMO.


----------



## joaopedroglm (Oct 30, 2012)

Thanks for the help. So i will not benefit of the 24-70 on a crop body...

The 17-40 is also good option for urban shooting?

Thanks


----------



## SJTstudios (Oct 30, 2012)

I know it's not what ur asking, but get the 24-70 mark 1 used, a 17-40, and a sigma 30mm 1.4. Lenses are the best way to improve you photography. The 24-70 is a great portrait lens and doesn't change that much in the update. The 17-40 is great for landscape, and pick up after your 11-16, which is a great lens by the way. The 30mm is a makeshift 50mm. 

And I the future, when you have a greater budget for a better camera, buy a ff (5d iii, 6d, 1ds iii, 1dx, etc.), sell the 11-16 for some teleconverters, sell the 30 for a 50mm 1.4 ii if it's out, and then your set. 

Also, having the best lens doesn't make you the best photographer, so don't worry about a 24-70 ii.


----------



## joaopedroglm (Oct 30, 2012)

I think i will go for the 17-40+5DMARK II


----------



## K-amps (Oct 30, 2012)

joaopedroglm said:


> Thanks for the help. So i will not benefit of the 24-70 on a crop body...
> 
> The 17-40 is also good option for urban shooting?
> 
> Thanks



It is the "only" option at that price range form Canon. It has it's issues, has to be stopped down (F8-F11) for sharp across the frame images , but does fairly well in urban environments with a bit of PP.... if you want to go wider than 24mm in EF, then this is it.


----------



## Ryan708 (Oct 30, 2012)

Im leaning toward a 5dII and 17-40 myself. 17-40 first, ditch my 17-70(even though I love it) and then get a 5dII


----------

