canon 17-40 vs 24-105 - DPChallenge Forums

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

08/26/2008 10:51:37 AM · #1

A quickie - from those of you that have both lenses, how do they compare with regards to sharpness and contrast in the 24-40mm range! I've currently got the 17-40 but since getting the 5D, i'm always found wanting for more pulling power! I'm not too bothered about losing the wide end as 24mm is plenty wide for me. If sharpness is just as good as my current lens, then the 24-105 will be my next purchase.

thanks in advance.

scarbrd

Leica M10

08/26/2008 11:11:46 AM · #2

both are amazingly good performers. On the 5D, the 24-105 will be a bit more versitile.

I had the 17-40, I got when I was shooting the 20D. I upgraded to the 5D but kept the 17-40 for quite a while. I found I had to carry the 17-40 and 70-200 all the times to make sure I had a decent range. I recently sold the 17-40 and bought the 24-105 so I can, at times, carry just one lens. I miss the 17 sometimes, but not that much. And for the times I want a really wide angle, I picked up a Sigma 12-14.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

08/26/2008 12:47:15 PM · #3

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Thanks for your reply david. Have you noticed any difference whatsover between the two with regards to sharpness at the wide end? Also, I keep reading a lot of reviews which mention softness at the long end - is it really anything to worry about?

scarbrd

Leica M10

08/26/2008 12:52:45 PM · #4

Originally posted by Caravela:

Originally posted by scarbrd:
both are amazingly good performers. On the 5D, the 24-105 will be a bit more versitile.

I had the 17-40, I got when I was shooting the 20D. I upgraded to the 5D but kept the 17-40 for quite a while. I found I had to carry the 17-40 and 70-200 all the times to make sure I had a decent range. I recently sold the 17-40 and bought the 24-105 so I can, at times, carry just one lens. I miss the 17 sometimes, but not that much. And for the times I want a really wide angle, I picked up a Sigma 12-14.

Thanks for your reply david. Have you noticed any difference whatsover between the two with regards to sharpness at the wide end? Also, I keep reading a lot of reviews which mention softness at the long end - is it really anything to worry about?

I think these 2 lenses are as good as it gets for wide angle zooms. Nothing will surpass a high quality prime lens, but the loss of quality is very minor especially when compared to the versatiltiy of the zooms.

I haven't noticed any lack of critical sharpness on the longer end of either lens. I'm sure if you did a critical test by photographing those charts to measure relative sharpness you will find some deviation, but not much.

Good post processing can usually overcome any sharpness or contrast issues.

MAK

Leica CL

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

08/26/2008 01:04:22 PM · #5

I own both lenses and have had no probs with the 24-105 i the sharpness area at all, in fact its really nice. I too do not use the 17-40 very much these days but the day I decide to sell it is the day I will need it. As SCARBRD says, if some professor decided to test it out to the max he may find some issues but for us mortals both lenses are brilliant all round, especially on the FF sensor. I find the times I need to grab 1 lens only my hand reaches out for the 24-105, I have been totally impressed with mine even though I was ripped on the price from some cowboy on ebay who sold me a new lens with warranty but delivered a used lens without a lens hood... Im still happy with it.

08/26/2008 01:04:25 PM · #6

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Good post processing can usually overcome any sharpness or contrast issues.

True, but its alway's a bonus to get as much resolution and detail out of the lens pre-processing. My 17-40 is a fantasticaly sharp lens and I'm really happy using it for landscapes, but since I only have the one lens, I'm missing out on a lot of photography by not having a longer reach, hence my preference for the 24-105. I'm just going to have to hope that lens is as sharp - if it is I'll be more than happy!

thanks again.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/26/2008 01:13:43 PM · #7

Originally posted by MAK:

Thanks marac. Well, if two respected and experienced photogs endorse the lens, I can't go wrong. I believe DrAchoo praises the lens also, so I must be onto a winner!

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

08/26/2008 01:47:33 PM · #8

Originally posted by MAK:

Ditto, mainly. Both lenses will show chroma aberrations in the extreme image corners on FF cams, at wide open. The 24-105 reveals fringe defects, particularly cyan, something easily corrected in PS.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/26/2008 02:03:43 PM · #9

Originally posted by Caravela:

Originally posted by MAK:
I own both lenses and have had no probs with the 24-105 i the sharpness area at all, in fact its really nice. I too do not use the 17-40 very much these days but the day I decide to sell it is the day I will need it. As SCARBRD says, if some professor decided to test it out to the max he may find some issues but for us mortals both lenses are brilliant all round, especially on the FF sensor. I find the times I need to grab 1 lens only my hand reaches out for the 24-105, I have been totally impressed with mine even though I was ripped on the price from some cowboy on ebay who sold me a new lens with warranty but delivered a used lens without a lens hood... Im still happy with it.

Thanks marac. Well, if two respected and experienced photogs endorse the lens, I can't go wrong. I believe DrAchoo praises the lens also, so I must be onto a winner!

Scrbrd is one, trying to work out who the other one is.. ;)

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

08/26/2008 02:09:13 PM · #10

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Caravela:

Originally posted by MAK:
I own both lenses and have had no probs with the 24-105 i the sharpness area at all, in fact its really nice. I too do not use the 17-40 very much these days but the day I decide to sell it is the day I will need it. As SCARBRD says, if some professor decided to test it out to the max he may find some issues but for us mortals both lenses are brilliant all round, especially on the FF sensor. I find the times I need to grab 1 lens only my hand reaches out for the 24-105, I have been totally impressed with mine even though I was ripped on the price from some cowboy on ebay who sold me a new lens with warranty but delivered a used lens without a lens hood... Im still happy with it.

Thanks marac. Well, if two respected and experienced photogs endorse the lens, I can't go wrong. I believe DrAchoo praises the lens also, so I must be onto a winner!

Scrbrd is one, trying to work out who the other one is.. ;)

Lol.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

08/26/2008 02:10:51 PM · #11

Ditto!! No need to repeat all that's been said. Sadly my 17-40 sits alot also but I won't get rid of it.

MAK

Leica CL

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

08/26/2008 02:12:25 PM · #12

Originally posted by Simms:

Scrbrd is one, trying to work out who the other one is.. ;)

Shouldn't you be in the free membership thread?.....

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/26/2008 02:45:17 PM · #13

Originally posted by MAK:

Originally posted by Simms:

Scrbrd is one, trying to work out who the other one is.. ;)

Shouldn't you be in the free membership thread?.....

lol

just been there, not much happening. Just waiting for my free membership.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/26/2008 03:17:21 PM · #14

I've used both lenses and they are both excellent. I believe the testing I've seen shows the 24-105 performs worst in its range at about 32mm. They both have issues with some CA at the wide end, but ALL wide angle lenses will deal with CA to some extent. It's not too difficult to fix and it's limited to the edges.

You'd be fine with either at the wide end.

You can goof around with comparing the 17-40 and 24-105 lens sharpness here.