Different question on Should I get the Canon 24-70

09/23/2010 05:40:12 PM · #1

OK I know the 24-70 is a workhorse and it has an extra f-stop. My question comes down to pairing them with a camera. I have the 7D and I have a 5DMII on order and my best glass is the 70-200 2.8L IS. I am thinking I will want to mainly use my 70-200 on the 5DMII since I mainly am doing location portraits and 200 is a bit long on the crop sensor for that (It is most useful with sports though) So since I will be doing that do you think the 24-70 or the 17-40 will pair better with the 7D body?

I think the 17-40 will be better on the crop sensor for portraits and will go nicely with the 5DMII with the 70-200 on it. What are your thoughts/opinions? As I said I am mainly doing location shoots with off camera flash but I do have one wedding booked but not sure if I will want to do many weddings.

09/23/2010 05:41:07 PM · #2

oops, my title should be "Different question on Should I get the Canon 24-70 or 17-40" SC would you mind fixing that?

09/23/2010 05:58:47 PM · #3

Well, for portraiture, I would never use anything as wide as 24mm on FF (unless for group shots, and then I would be keeping folks away from the edge of the frame). The 24-70 on APS-C is equivalent in angle of view to 38mm on FF, and that's even a little wide for flattering portraits, so I'd say that the 24-70 is a great pairing with the 7D for portraiture, since most of the range is right in the ballpark.

09/23/2010 06:02:42 PM · #4

Originally posted by kirbic:

Well I have the 70-200 for most of the portraits so I thought the 17-40 on the 7D would make a nice second setup for when I want to shoot groups or environmental portraits.

09/23/2010 06:07:25 PM · #5

Originally posted by jminso:

Well I have the 70-200 for most of the portraits so I thought the 17-40 on the 7D would make a nice second setup for when I want to shoot groups or environmental portraits.

If you really need a 24mm equivalent on APS-C, then yes, the 17-40 is a pretty good choice, certainly more economical than the 16-35, and for groups or environmental portraits, you are not always after narrow DoF. When you *do* want the combination of narrow DoF and WA, the pickin' becomes really slim!

ETA: the 17-40's worst attribute is softness of the far corners of FF; you will never see this on APS-C.

Message edited by author 2010-09-23 18:08:16.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/23/2010 07:02:21 PM · #6

Thanks

kirbic

Anyone else want to jump in?

LVicari

Canon EOS-50D

09/23/2010 08:19:20 PM · #7

I had the 17-40 and loved it!! I regret selling it. I might get another copy. I also had the 24-70. Not for long though. Not long enough to give it a real test. So I can't give you enough feedback on that lens. The 17-40 gives you that lil extra width but are you worried about the gap in your focal lengths between lenses?
17-40 excellent all round in terms of bang for your buck. Much cheaper than the 16-35 as mentioned.
Too many factors involved in making a decision. You know the pros and cons.
Can someone tell me if you can really notice a difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 to warrant all that extra money?
The 24-70 is also much more expensive than the 17-40
I am just rambling now :)

Rent them both and give them a whirl. See which one suits you best.

Message edited by author 2010-09-23 20:21:05.

09/24/2010 06:17:04 AM · #8

How is the sharpness and build quality for the 17-40?

david_c

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/24/2010 07:12:58 AM · #9

Originally posted by jminso:

I think the 17-40 will be better on the crop sensor for portraits

mmmm...I dunno. There's some fairly significant barrel distortion at the wide end. Might make your model look nose-heavy. Personally, I'd be looking at the 24-70 for portraits on a 7D.

Originally posted by jminso:

How is the sharpness and build quality for the 17-40?

About what you can expect from L-glass...it's the lower end, though, and F/4 with no IS means it's a bit lighter than you'd think.

09/24/2010 07:22:03 AM · #10

Originally posted by david_c:

Personally, I'd be looking at the 24-70 for portraits on a 7D.

Is 24mm on a crop sensor wide enough for environmental or group shots?

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

09/24/2010 07:54:35 AM · #11

Originally posted by jminso:

I am mainly doing location shoots with off camera flash

Are you sure you need the 7D? Seems like a pretty expensive back-up camera. You could sell that, then pick up a lightly used 50D, then have enough money to pick up both the 24-70 and the 17-40. Or better yet, you could get a killer portable lighting system (Elinchrom Ranger Quadra) which is WAY, WAY more important than whether or not you have every focal length covered.

09/24/2010 08:02:09 AM · #12

I want to have a solid 2 Camera setup. So for portrait work it would look like this:

Canon 7D with 17-40
Canon 5DMII with 70-200

That will give me a 35mm equivalent of 27-64 and 70-200 or basically full coverage from 27-200. If I went with the 24-70 I would have 38mm-112mm and 70-200.

When I go out for nature/wildlife/landscape shots or sports I would simply swap the lenses so it would look like this:

Canon 7D with 70-200 (would also carry my 2x)
Canon 5DMII with 17-40

That will give me 35mm equivalent of 17-40 and 112-320 (224-640 with the 2x) So I would have a nice wide end for landscapes or environmental for sports and I would have a nice telephoto range for wildlife and sports action. Here the 24-70 may be a bit better in the sports area but wouldnâ��t be as wide for landscapes. But I do more landscape then sports anyway.

So with all of this what do you think? Note this is just my initial 2 camera setup, I do plan on getting the 24-70 in the future but I feel as though the 17-40 would give me the better range setup for starting out.

09/24/2010 08:06:00 AM · #13

Originally posted by hopper:

Originally posted by jminso:
I am mainly doing location shoots with off camera flash

Are you sure you need the 7D? Seems like a pretty expensive back-up camera. You could sell that, then pick up a lightly used 50D, then have enough money to pick up both the 24-70 and the 17-40. Or better yet, you could get a killer portable lighting system (Elinchrom Ranger Quadra) which is WAY, WAY more important than whether or not you have every focal length covered.

It may be overkill but I like the option of the 7D for when I do sports or wildlife. I want a high quality backup for whenever I need to send in one for repairs or cleaning or just if something happens. The killer lighting system will come next. I'm just putting earnings from my sessions back into the business right now so that will be next.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

09/24/2010 08:30:47 AM · #14

ok ... then yes ... I agree, the 17-40 seems like the smarter choice :)

Originally posted by jminso:

Originally posted by hopper:

Originally posted by jminso:
I am mainly doing location shoots with off camera flash

Are you sure you need the 7D? Seems like a pretty expensive back-up camera. You could sell that, then pick up a lightly used 50D, then have enough money to pick up both the 24-70 and the 17-40. Or better yet, you could get a killer portable lighting system (Elinchrom Ranger Quadra) which is WAY, WAY more important than whether or not you have every focal length covered.

It may be overkill but I like the option of the 7D for when I do sports or wildlife. I want a high quality backup for whenever I need to send in one for repairs or cleaning or just if something happens. The killer lighting system will come next. I'm just putting earnings from my sessions back into the business right now so that will be next.

09/27/2010 03:03:43 PM · #15

I think I am going to just completely change up now. I am thinking of the 100mm macro and the 85mm 1.8 for now. I don't do many wide angle portrait shots and the ones I have done I used my sigma 10-20 for, just had to watch the distortion. I have been wanting a macro for a bit and the 85 1.8 would make a nice prime on the 5D.

09/27/2010 03:41:34 PM · #16

Originally posted by jminso:

You will love the 100 macro as a portrait lens. I do wonder whether the 85 is different enough in focal length, or whether you'd be better off with, perhaps, the 50/1.4?

09/27/2010 05:25:56 PM · #17

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by jminso:
I think I am going to just completely change up now. I am thinking of the 100mm macro and the 85mm 1.8 for now. I don't do many wide angle portrait shots and the ones I have done I used my sigma 10-20 for, just had to watch the distortion. I have been wanting a macro for a bit and the 85 1.8 would make a nice prime on the 5D.

You will love the 100 macro as a portrait lens. I do wonder whether the 85 is different enough in focal length, or whether you'd be better off with, perhaps, the 50/1.4?

How does the 100mm macro compare as a portrait lens to the 70-200 2.8? The 24-70 and 17-40 both look great but I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't look more at primes as my main portrait lenses.

09/27/2010 05:40:53 PM · #18

Originally posted by jminso:

How does the 100mm macro compare as a portrait lens to the 70-200 2.8? The 24-70 and 17-40 both look great but I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't look more at primes as my main portrait lenses.

Honestly they are both very good portrait lenses. I feel that at 100mm, the 100 Macro has a small edge in IQ, but of course the 70-200 has the flexibility of the zoom range. The zoom aspect has little value where you are controlling the set-up, however for candids, the 70-200 has a great advantage.