# 24-105mm vs 17-40mm on crop



## Eugene (Feb 11, 2012)

I currently own the 18-200mm, 18-55mm IS II, and the 50mm 1.8.
The body I'm using is a 450D, but I plan to upgrade to a 60D or wait for the 70D
My question is, which one would complement my current set of lenses the most?
I chose these 2 because they were in my budget, and obviously, I wanted L...... 

I shoot events, sports, streets, presentations, trips, etc.


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 11, 2012)

24-105 seems to be better. IS on long end an seems to better suit your needs. 17-40 would be good for street or landscape but in my opinion 24-105 has better optics. 
If you plan to shoot movies then on the other way 17-40 maybe better - although it lacks IS, it is perfocal and lightweight.


----------



## Eugene (Feb 11, 2012)

Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
And for video, which I do plan to take from time to time, I've seen people's example videos of how important IS is for videos.......


----------



## RC (Feb 11, 2012)

Based on what you currently have and since you didn't mention landscape photog, I'd go with the 24-105. That way if you decide you need something wider, you can add the 10-22 which compliments the 24-105 very nicely as opposed to the 17-40.


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 11, 2012)

Eugene said:


> Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
> And for video, which I do plan to take from time to time, I've seen people's example videos of how important IS is for videos.......



17 is also not wide enough on crop (from my experiece). IS is very important for videos. But it is also important not to be forced to adjust focus each time you zoom in or out (which means perfocal). On 17-40 IS is not so much important for stills, for video a little more important.

Both lens are fine. You already own two lens which cover the short end of 17-40.


----------



## akiskev (Feb 11, 2012)

Eugene said:


> Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
> And for video, which I do plan to take from time to time, I've seen people's example videos of how important IS is for videos.......


For me 24mm on aps-c is not wide enough. Although 24-105 is great for full frame, for crop sensors it's just not right. I know it because my dad has a 24-70, and every time I try to use it on my aps-c body, I find its zoom range very awkward and go back to my 17-55.
There is a small possibility that 24-105 will suit you, if you *TOTALLY FORGET* wide angle that is.


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 11, 2012)

akiskev said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> > Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
> ...






Eugene said:


> I currently own the *18-200*mm, *18-55*mm IS II, and the 50mm 1.8.
> (...)
> My question is, which one would *complement *my current set of lenses the most?
> (...)



In my opinion - complement doesn't mean adding the third zoom covered by the other two...


----------



## Eugene (Feb 11, 2012)

I suppose 70% of the time I would be using it for photos and 30% for videos.....

True... I shouldn't really notice the difference between 18mm and 17mm...
24mm really isn't wide enough? I've read some articles saying it'd still to the job considering anything below 50mm (35mm equ) is considered wide...

One more question, I WILL notice the difference shooting with either one of these lens compared to my current set, correct?

Complement... Ok, let's say I'm aiming for better image and build quality


----------



## RC (Feb 11, 2012)

akiskev said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> > Is 24 wide enough on a crop... That's what I'm mainly worried about.
> ...



Agree. 24 is not wide at all on a crop. I have a crop and the 24-105 plus the 16-35 which is barely wide enough for me. I use the two as my walk around lens when I don't mind carrying a second lens-- the 24-105 being the second lens. Both lens are fantastic.


----------



## Eugene (Feb 11, 2012)

So the 24-105mm wouldn't be as ideal as the 17-40mm as a walk around lens on a cropped sensor?


----------



## Tijn (Feb 11, 2012)

The 17-40 is lost on a crop camera. It's great for ultra wide angles on a fullframe camera (which are hard to get right). As a crop camera "standard" lens however, it just lacks usefulness. Zoom range less than the standard kit lenses, no IS... There are better (EF-S) lenses to get for crop cameras.

The 24-105 is a great allround lens for fullframe cameras. 24mm on fullframe is framing-wise equivalent to a 15mm focal length on a crop camera. Unfortunately, if you put this lens on a crop camera, it's 24mm. You lack the range between 17-24mm and that is a MAJOR thing. Just go on a shoot now, and force yourself not to use any focal length under 24mm from your kit zoom. What do you see? No more wide shots at all.

For a crop camera, the best lens to get in the main zoom range is the *EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM*. Its build quality is ok (but not L quality), but its image quality is impressive and L-grade. Having a useful zoom range ánd IS ánd a very large f/2.8 aperture on the entire zoom range, this is just a great lens for a crop camera. None of the L zooms can do this for a crop camera - because they're primarily made for fullframe cameras. The disadvantage to this lens is that it's expensive (for a non-L build quality lens) and it will not work on fullframe cameras because it's an EF-S lens, not an EF lens (which is relevant for if you ever were to upgrade your body to full-frame).


----------



## akiskev (Feb 11, 2012)

Eugene said:


> So the 24-105mm wouldn't be as ideal as the 17-40mm as a walk around lens on a cropped sensor?


Yes, BUT
If you need better IQ and a more useful zoom range + IS, get a 17-55.
17-40 is very nice, but it's kinda waste on a crop body. I'm saying that after having used it for over 2 years on my 400d. 
Now I have a 17-55 which makes a lot more sense for me(constant 2.8, IS, better IQ). 
I didn't sell the 17-40 because my dad uses it on his FF camera.. 

edit: I TOTALLY AGREE with Tijn!!!!


----------



## elflord (Feb 11, 2012)

Eugene said:


> I currently own the 18-200mm, 18-55mm IS II, and the 50mm 1.8.
> The body I'm using is a 450D, but I plan to upgrade to a 60D or wait for the 70D
> My question is, which one would complement my current set of lenses the most?
> I chose these 2 because they were in my budget, and obviously, I wanted L......
> ...



Since you already have two walkaround lenses, an additional one would not complement them so much as it would replace the 18-55mm. 

Getting an L for the sake of getting an L is a mistake. These lenses are made for full frame bodies and aren't really optimal as APS-C walkaround lenses. The 17-40mm f/4 lacks range and speed. The 24-105mm is slow and lacks wide angle coverage.

I'd say go with Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 or one of the third party equivalents. The only reason the 17-55mm doesn't get the L label is that it's APS-C only. But it's a constant f/2.8 zoom that performs well across its range. There's no way it wouldn't be an L if it worked on full frame.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2012)

Eugene said:


> ...obviously, I wanted L......



Ok, but...why?

The lenses you currently have don't offer the best IQ, so presumably you want better IQ in that focal range? I think the best general purpose zoom for APS-C is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Same price as the 24-105mm, but delivers better optical quality on the same APS-C camera, and gives both wide angle and short tele. FYI, wide angle is 35mm and wider (FF equivalent), so 24mm on APS-C isn't wide angle). 

For the uses you indicate, the 17-55mm is ideal in its range; you obviously get more reach with the 24-105, but f/4 is slow for sports/street. The 17-55 also delivers better IQ than the 17-40, is longer, faster, and has IS. 

For longer shots, given the uses you mention and the constraints of budget, I'd consider a fast prime. Not considering cost, I'd recommend the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, but it's quite expensive. So, for the lens after the 17-55mm, I'd look at your shots with the 18-200, and see what focal length would suit you best. Lenses I'd consider are the 85 mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8L II, and 135mm f/2L. FWIW, the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are two of the best values in the Canob lineup, great IQ for relatively low cost, and the 200/2.8 isn't far behind.


----------



## jwong (Feb 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> > ...obviously, I wanted L......
> ...



Agreed. L for the sake of L is not a good enough reason. You plan on staying with the APS-C format, so the 17-55 is a great choice. Got that one 4 years ago to replace my kit 18-55. Felt kinda dumb replicating the entire range of my lineup (only had 1 lens at the time), but that was the best decision I made. Lenses have greater effect on IQ than bodies.


----------



## Eugene (Feb 12, 2012)

I'm saying L lenses because I do require the weather sealing due to the weather I'm living in (surprise rain, and upgrading body soon too).
Also to add to that, I've checked my last few hundred photos and around 6 out of then would be in the range of 24-105, 2 would be the range of 17-40, and the others would be 105+. M(These shots are from a trip, shots from my events will require longer lens)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2012)

I'd plan on upgrading to the 7D, then. The 60D has only modest weather sealing. The rank order of sealing is 1-series >> 7D > 5DII = 60D/50D.


----------



## Eugene (Feb 12, 2012)

Getting the 7D would mean I won't have enough budget the afford the any lens for a period of time...
Having said that... I'm still struggling to pick between these two lenses....


----------



## Tijn (Feb 12, 2012)

Option 1: 17-40L. Get improved sharpness on your wide/standard zoom range (from the 17-40L) but miss out on IS, miss out on that extra quality for the short tele range (from the 24-105L), and end up with a superwide angle lens if you go fullframe.

Option 2: 24-105L. Get improved sharpness with IS on a wide short tele range (from the 24-105L) but miss out on wide angles (you'll have to revert to your kit lens for those, or buy a 17-40L *as well* which is not really economically friendly nor particularly efficient for what you intend to do), and end up with a great allround lens if you go fullframe.

Option 3: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. Get better sharpness on the whole zoom range than the L lenses in these range offer, with a faster lens. Sell it when you go fullframe (or keep it on the old body). Miss out on weather sealing *or look for alternative methods of achieving it*.

Personally I'd look into finding alternatives for weather proofing if that's a breaking point for you. There are raincovers for DSLR's that will provide more waterproofing than 'weathersealing' on lenses. With the benefits of a 17-55 versus the L ones, this should be given a thought. If option 3 is out of the question for you, and you're going to have to pick between those two lenses, above is the list of pros and cons. Pick what would most suit your wants. If it's any help, out of option 1 and 2 it'd be a definate 2 for me personally, because my style doesn't tend to wide shots and more to closeups/portraits. I'd kick myself a couple of times for not being able to get the wide shots with that lens, but it'll be great for the range I prefer most (I use the far end of my standard 17-50 tamron zoom much more than the wide end) and it'd do great on a future fullframe body.


----------



## Eugene (Feb 12, 2012)

Thanks the pros and cons!!
Now, if I do decide to go with the 24-105mm, I'm not REALLY missing out on TOO much wide angle (I've tried shooting around at 24 today)
So, let's say I'd have just about enough cash by the end of the year (after assuming I've already bought the 24-105), and sell my 18-55 kit lens, and have enough cash for either a sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or the one from Tamron when I REALLY need it in some situation.
Would this plan be efficient? And are the sigmas and tamrons as good in image quality (I wouldn't care too much about the build quality, due to the fact that it wouldn't be my primary lens, I suppose)


----------



## 00Q (Feb 12, 2012)

24-105


----------



## Tijn (Feb 12, 2012)

The tamron 17-50 f/2.8 *without* VC (the NON-stabilized version) is generally considered to be very sharp. I find that it indeed is very sharp, and useful in low light because of the constant f/2.8 aperture. Zoom ring turns the other way than Canon lenses, its autofocus is noisy but decently fast. I do get some halo-ish glow on high contrast edges with my 17-50 wide open (f/2.8 ) at 50mm (i.e. white-black vertical edges), but I do not have enough experience with it yet to tell whether this is a major problem or not (how often/if I'd "lose" shots because of it). Sharpness is otherwise very decent for a lens that cheap. Where I live, it's 500eu cheaper than the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, which has greater image quality and IS. On my budget it was the best choice for me.

I've no experience with the Sigma. I only know that this particular Tamron lens stands out because of its high sharpness, big aperture yet so low price. The same Tamron lens _with_ image stabilization (VC) is said to lack this sharpness.


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 12, 2012)

Tijn said:


> The tamron 17-50 f/2.8 *without* VC (the NON-stabilized version) is generally considered to be very sharp. I find that it indeed is very sharp, and useful in low light because of the constant f/2.8 aperture. Zoom ring turns the other way than Canon lenses, its autofocus is noisy but decently fast. I do get some halo-ish glow on high contrast edges with my 17-50 wide open (f/2.8) at 50mm (i.e. white-black vertical edges), but I do not have enough experience with it yet to tell whether this is a major problem or not (how often/if I'd "lose" shots because of it). Sharpness is otherwise very decent for a lens that cheap.
> 
> I've no experience with the Sigma. I only know that this particular Tamron lens stands out because of its high sharpness, big aperture yet so low price. The same Tamron lens _with_ image stabilization (VC) is said to lack this sharpness.



Comparable to 17-40. I tested it vs 17-40 and at some settings it was better than canon. And 2.8.


----------



## RC (Feb 12, 2012)

Eugene said:


> Thanks the pros and cons!!
> Now, if I do decide to go with the 24-105mm, I'm not REALLY missing out on TOO much wide angle (I've tried shooting around at 24 today)
> So, let's say I'd have just about enough cash by the end of the year (after assuming I've already bought the 24-105), and sell my 18-55 kit lens, and have enough cash for either a sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or the one from Tamron when I REALLY need it in some situation.
> Would this plan be efficient? And are the sigmas and tamrons as good in image quality (I wouldn't care too much about the build quality, due to the fact that it wouldn't be my primary lens, I suppose)



So with the assumption you have the 24-105 and sell the 18-55, and then you find yourself needing to go wider, then pick up a 10-22. If the need for wide is infrequent consider used or rental. Now you have a very nice set of lens which do compliment each other. (BTW, the 10-22 has a good resale value if you ever switch to FF.) Not sure what the resell on the 18-200 is but you might dump it too to help fund your lens upgrade. Work on your lens first then your body.


----------



## AmbientLight (Feb 13, 2012)

Actually I have been using both 24-105 and 17-40 for several years now using only crop bodies (40D, 50D and 7D). Originally I used a 24-105 and then I added the 17-40 for wider angle shots. Although the 24-105 is no longer my primarily used lens, I still use it far more often compared to the 17-40, which as noted before by others is really a wide angle zoom lens for full frame. It just makes less sense on a crop body. You would be better off going for a 14mm 2.8 prime later on to cover wide angle shots in L quality. This lens is just fabulous.


----------



## Mendolera (Feb 13, 2012)

You may have already eliminated this as an option because you said weather sealing but if you wanted a little longer reach then the 17-55 IS the 15-85 is a possibility saving you a few hundred to get a 7D over a 60D. Never used it but its optically as good as the 17-55 and probably the 24-105 from what I hear.


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 13, 2012)

Eugene said:


> I currently own the 18-200mm, 18-55mm IS II, and the 50mm 1.8.
> The body I'm using is a 450D, but I plan to upgrade to a 60D or wait for the 70D
> My question is, which one would complement my current set of lenses the most?
> I chose these 2 because they were in my budget, and obviously, I wanted L......
> ...




It's a matter of taste and your specific needs. If you ask me: neither of them. And this is one of the reasons I did not buy a 7D and went full-frame instead. f/4 on crop doesn't leave enough options for shallow DOF in my book. So with a crop camera I would have wanted the 24-70 for the zoom and the rest primes (kind of where I'm going anyway but that's a different story). So the savings in the end are marginal. I've never used the 17-40 and it doesn't appeal to me. I have the 24-105. It's pretty good and the range is useful but I'm not thrilled about the f/4 and don't like IS.

I'd go find a 24-70 while they're still available. It's roughly the equivalent of 35-100 and at 2.8 should be quite versatile even on crop.


----------

