DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 24-70L or 17-40L?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/04/2005 01:47:10 PM · #1
I'm seriously craving an L lens, and I'm will to save up.

Things I like about the 24-70L
1. Makes people say wow
2. Twice as fast as 17-40
3. Will never wish I'd gone for something better
4. Very useful range
Don't like
1. Price is scary, but I wouldn't regret it...or would I?
2. Have heard reports of softness at F2.8. True?

Things I like about the 17-40L
1. A gigantic upgrade from the 18-55
2. Costs about 1/2 as much as 24-70
Don't like
1. Takes in 1/2 as much light as I'd like
2. Not long enough

Half as much light, $450 less. If you had $1200 would you still buy the 17-40 over the 24-70 or do you really get $450 worth more lens with the 24-70? Anything else you like better about one than the other?
 05/04/2005 01:51:42 PM · #2
Depends what your style of shooting is. The 17-40 will give you a wider angle on the 300D while the 24-70 will not. As a walk-around lens for a 1.6x crop camera the 17-40 is better, but that's me.
 05/04/2005 01:52:29 PM · #3
One thing I regret about my 24-70:
It's going to take me longer after buying the 24-70 to save up for the 70-200 L IS

One thing I'm not sure of about my 24-70:
I'm still not sure my skills are worth the lens.
 05/04/2005 02:04:55 PM · #4
Originally posted by robgo:
I'm still not sure my skills are worth of the lens.


This is huge consideration. I love portrait photography and make money off it from time to time, so I've looked hard at these lenses myself. But if I had to be honest, I've seen entire portrait portfolio's made using only the $70.00 50mm 1.8 that are way better than anything I've done so far. In the right hands, you'd be hard pressed to see a difference between the 50mm 1.8 and 24-70mm 2.8L.

Needless to say, I've opted to wait a while and find out what I really want to spend my money on.
 05/04/2005 03:11:17 PM · #5
I've done a lot of lens homework over the last week so ignore the fact that i don't have a DSLR.

Neither of these lens will be good for portraits. The 50mm 1.8 is much better for portraits then either of them and only cost about $70. However, the 50mm 1.8 will not be crisp on the edges of the photo, but that's not a bad thing in portraits unless you have a large group shot. The 50mm 1.4 eliminates the edge problem, is quieter, and is an even better portrait lens but it's $400.

17-40L is a great lens from what I've heard, but not intended for portraits. This is more of a landscape lens because of the constant f4 aperture and should probably be used off a tripod on all but very bright lighting if you want crisp results. It would not do good for portraits.

If I were you... buy the 50mm 1.8 for portraits and studio shooting. Anyone that does not have this lens should get it considering the price. Then the 17-40L only if you are planning on shooting landscapes, and then save up for the 100-400L w/IS (truly the lens to have if you want to look bad ass!).

Also consider the 28-135 with IS, which can be had for under $400. It's not L glass, but with the IS and it's range it's a great walk around - general purpose lens.


05/04/2005 03:31:14 PM · #6
The 24-70 is an awesome lens. It is big, it is heavy, but I don't feel is is a drag to use as an everyday lens. It's the lens that stays affixed to my camera in the bag, because it will meet a wide range of needs. The 17-40 is a really nice lens, but for different purposes. If you shoot a lot of landscape, or cityscape/street photography, on a 1.6-crop cam it's nice.
The 24-70, by contrast, "feels like" 38-112, so it is a great "people" lens. It is very sharp, with just noticeable softness at f/2.8, most noticeably at 70mm. Colors are accurate and saturated, bokeh is very nice. Focuses quite close as well, not macro but very useful indeed. If the focal length range matches your needs, you can't do better.
 05/04/2005 03:32:12 PM · #7
Thanks, louddog. Already own the 50 1.8, am looking to buy the 1.4. Definitely a worthy step up.

Also, the 17-40 does fine portraits, F4 is fast enough for most things, not quite as bad as you think. I'd be worried about distortion on head-shots, though. Agreed, not ideal for portraits, but for all around, it's pretty darn good.

Regarding the 100-400, I'd buy the 70-200 F2.8L IS over 100-400 so fast you'd be left in my dust wondering what just happened. It's the pro's favorite for a reason! It's friggin' fast, what am I gonna do with 4.5-5.6? Unfortunately, telephoto is not my current priority...I drool over that lens...*oops*

28-135 IS looks nice. Not especially sharp, nor fast, nor professional, not even wide. Good range, and IS is nice, but no thanks anyways.

Thanks for the other info, anyways. Still waiting for someone to tell me "Get ____!" and list some reasons I hadn't thought of. Anyone? Is the 24-70 truley worth $450 more than the 17-40?

05/04/2005 03:37:12 PM · #8
Get the 17-40.
 05/04/2005 03:40:02 PM · #9
If I could only have one of the two I would choose the 17-40, simply because I would rather have the flexibility of shooting wider than 24mm and would be willing to sacrafice the extra 30mm reach and 1-stop advantage of the 24-70mm.

But truthfully I never really thought of these two lenses in terms of being competitors to one another, they seem more complementary to me.

Message edited by author 2005-05-04 15:40:16.
 05/04/2005 03:48:42 PM · #10
Is the 50 f/1.8 better or worse at portraits compared to 100 f/2.8 macro?

I'm considering the latter for both portraits and macro.
 05/04/2005 03:56:34 PM · #11
if you have the space (working distance), the 100mm macro is much sharper ... but getting even a child full in the frame would most likely require you to be 20 feet away (just a guess)

Originally posted by vfwlkr:
Is the 50 f/1.8 better or worse at portraits compared to 100 f/2.8 macro?

I'm considering the latter for both portraits and macro.
05/04/2005 03:59:51 PM · #12
I've heard the 24-70L is not as consistant and you might need to try a few before you get a 'good' copy. The 17-40L i've heard a lot less about sharpness issues. If you get a good copy of the 24-70L it's a superb lens indeed.
 05/04/2005 04:18:25 PM · #13
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
Is the 50 f/1.8 better or worse at portraits compared to 100 f/2.8 macro?

The 100 can do decent head shots. Anything more requires a lot of space. The 50 1.8 is so cheap, why not just get it and see? But if you want better bokeh and sharpness wide open, go for the 50 1.4. They're both very sharp.

Originally posted by kyebosh:
I've heard the 24-70L is not as consistant and you might need to try a few before you get a 'good' copy. The 17-40L i've heard a lot less about sharpness issues. If you get a good copy of the 24-70L it's a superb lens indeed.

I'm a bit worried about this also. Canon should have better quality control if that's the case.

Originally posted by rich:
If I could only have one of the two I would choose the 17-40, simply because I would rather have the flexibility of shooting wider than 24mm and would be willing to sacrafice the extra 30mm reach and 1-stop advantage of the 24-70mm.

30mm and an entire stop is quite a sacrifice. One stop is twice as much light which means twice the shutter speed or half the ISO, both are significant improvements in low-light.

I really feel like I'm defending the 24-70, now. Egad that's a lot of money...
 05/04/2005 04:23:11 PM · #14
Originally posted by Plexxoid:

Originally posted by rich:
If I could only have one of the two I would choose the 17-40, simply because I would rather have the flexibility of shooting wider than 24mm and would be willing to sacrafice the extra 30mm reach and 1-stop advantage of the 24-70mm.

30mm and an entire stop is quite a sacrifice. One stop is twice as much light which means twice the shutter speed or half the ISO, both are significant improvements in low-light.


You're right. The differences between the lenses are significant in focal length and speed. That is why I mentioned earlier that I really don't understand choosing between them; I would see these lenses as suited for different purposes.
 05/04/2005 04:23:36 PM · #15
keep saving and go for the 16-35 L
 05/04/2005 04:31:28 PM · #16
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Still waiting for someone to tell me "Get ____!" and list some reasons I hadn't thought of.


Okey dokey... Get a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di and a Canon 70-200 f/4L then use the change to buy a plane ticket to someplace scenic. The Tamron is very nearly the equal of Canon's 24-70 in terms of image quality, but it's only $370. The 70-200 f/4L isn't as fast as the f/2.8, but it's only $600 and useless indoors anyway because of the range. Outdoors you'll generally have plenty of light, so unless you need really short DOF or extreme shutter speeds, it's a winner. It's also smaller and lighter than the f/2.8.
 05/04/2005 04:34:13 PM · #17
Personally, I went with the 17-40L, after considering both, and not really having the money issue holding me back. It's a better fit to the work I'm currently doing, and I can make better money from landscapes and environmental PJ type work at the moment, which requires the wide end.

You've not got many entries in your portfolio here , and no website link to your other work, so it's hard to make a recommendation for a lens without knowing what you like to shoot.

If you've got the kit lens for your 300D, have a look through your photos and see which end of the lens you tend to work with most. Are you in the 17-30 end, or up around 40-55? If you're shooting at the wider end you'd probably find you'll always he wanting a bit wider than the 24-70 can go. There's a big difference between 17 and 24mm in terms of field of view.

With either lens you wont regret the purchase, they are really nice bits of glass.

Cheers, Me.
 05/04/2005 04:47:01 PM · #18
Originally posted by louddog:
Neither of these lens will be good for portraits.


I have to disagree with you there.. The 24-70 is _the_ portrait lens for Canon EOS if you prefer zoom lenses and have a 1.6 crop camera. Yes, the 50 F/1.8 is great, but not everyone is prepared to zoom with their feet, and the FOV is quite narrow (Equiv to 80mm) on the 1.6 crop bodies.

Originally posted by louddog:
17-40L is a great lens from what I've heard, but not intended for portraits. This is more of a landscape lens because of the constant f4 aperture and should probably be used off a tripod on all but very bright lighting if you want crisp results.


Ummmm, The quivalent focal length is 27-64mm on the 300D. Using the rule of thumb for hand holding you should be able to get away with 1/30th to 1/60th of a second shutter speeds hand held, and I certainly have had very good results below those speeds with my 17-40. At ISO200-400 you can work in ambient 'house' lighting at those speeds, and noise isn't a really problem with a dSLR in that area.

You are correct in that the 17-40 isn't really meant for portraits, but only if you take portraits in the formal sitting context. It's a great lens for 'environmental' portraiture, and at the 40mm end works well for headshots.

Just my 2c worth, as always.
 05/04/2005 05:36:45 PM · #19
Originally posted by KiwiChris:
With either lens you wont regret the purchase, they are really nice bits of glass.

Or hunks as the case may be ;)

Thanks Chris, very helpful post. I don't shoot wide-angle all that often, in fact I barely ever use my kit lens since I bought the 50 1.8. I've decided I don't take enough wide angle photos for it to be necessary, though the occasional wide-angle does make my kit lens handy.

Gah, I still don't know...
 05/04/2005 06:07:47 PM · #20
I'd buy the 17-40 over the 24-70 because you're going to really want that wide angle....and the 17 is a lot better than the 24 -- 24 times 1.6 (crop factor) isn't the greatest.
 05/04/2005 06:21:39 PM · #21
I have the 17-40 L. It's BY FAR my favorite lens.

I'm looking to replace my 28-135 IS. It'll will probably be done by the Tamron 28-75 XR Di. That lens rivals the 24-70 L, and at a fraction of the cost.

That's the winning combo. Just do it!

(how's that for assertive....)
 05/09/2005 06:13:16 PM · #22
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Still waiting for someone to tell me "Get ____!" and list some reasons I hadn't thought of.


Okey dokey... Get a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di and a Canon 70-200 f/4L then use the change to buy a plane ticket to someplace scenic. The Tamron is very nearly the equal of Canon's 24-70 in terms of image quality, but it's only $370. The 70-200 f/4L isn't as fast as the f/2.8, but it's only $600 and useless indoors anyway because of the range. Outdoors you'll generally have plenty of light, so unless you need really short DOF or extreme shutter speeds, it's a winner. It's also smaller and lighter than the f/2.8.


I bought the 28-75 this weekened basically because of this post. I put a lot of stock in your track record. I have to say this lens is awesome, especially for the money. I took photos at an event this weekend at a church and the images are very sharp and the colors are awesome. Big step up from the crappy kit lens that was collecting dust anyhow.
 05/09/2005 06:16:11 PM · #23
The Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 is my recommendation over either as well. Get that, save the $ and put it towards the 70-200 IS L 2.8
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 07:45:20 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 07:45:20 AM EDT.