Canon 24-105 vs 17-40 + 70-200

hiphopopotamus

hiphopopotamus

Messages
321
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I currently have the canon 17-40f4L and 70-200f4L with a 5Dc. I'm very happy with the pairing, but I'm just not getting to use my camera too much at the moment, and probably won't for a good few months, am a bit strapped for cash, and would quite like to be able to just use a single walkabout lens (ie the 24-105) that would cover most of the range I shoot at while I don't really have much time to dedicate to photography (I have never shot professionally). From recent sales, selling the two lenses I have would mean I think I could get a 24-105 and be left with around a couple of hundred £ in pocket, which would be great news at the moment.

My question is, will I be happy with the quality of images from the 24-105 having shot with the two I have currently? I have heard that there is significant barrel distortion at the 24mm end of the 24-105 lens, but I'm not too worried about that and am happy to correct in post-processing should I feel like I need to. Are there any other issues to worry about? And would anyone strongly recommend against going for the 24-105? Ideally I'm not looking to lose any image quality, just a bit of range.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I own 17-40 and 24-105. The 24-105 is sharper most of the time, it's also my walk about lens if I only want to take 1 lens.

Not sure about compared to 70-200, I'd guess it won't be as sharp as 70-200.
 
Thanks Wuyan, that sharpness comment vs the 17-40 is certainly good to know and sways me further towards the 24-105
 
Putting aside the focal lengths, because only you can decide whether 24-105 will do for your needs, I'd say the 24-105 would give superior sharpness across the image compared to the 17-40, and mine is very compatible to my 70-200 2.8 (at f4, obviously). On my 5d2, mine is sharp enough to shave with wide open, and if I had to have just one lens that it's the one I'd keep.
 
Thanks Paul, although I am sure I would miss the extra range some days, I am just not shooting it at the moment and think I would prefer the simplicity of 1 lens+ the extra cash, so the 24-105 would be all I need I think for now. I'm very surprised and happy to hear it seems to hold its own against a 70-200 f2.8, so I think this may be the right step for me. Thanks for the input
 
I'd concur with the other comments on this (I'm fortunate to own all three). One thing to note is that the 24-105 feels significantly heavier than the 17-40, and closer to the 70-200/4 in weight. I find the balance on a 5D with the 17-40 is much better, but the 24-105 is a very good all-round lens.
 
Thanks Simon, I will take that weight into consideration. How do images compare between the 70-200f4 and 24-105 at say 100mm ish and wide open? Do you find the speed of the AF on either is any different?
 
Thanks Paul, some cracking shots in that collection thanks, seems very sharp. This thread has certainly helped put my mind at ease about this decision so thanks for your input.
 
hiphopopotamus said:
Thanks Simon, I will take that weight into consideration. How do images compare between the 70-200f4 and 24-105 at say 100mm ish and wide open? Do you find the speed of the AF on either is any different?
Click to expand...

I've never compared results from them directly as I don't generally carry both together (17-40 with the 70-200, or 24-105 on its own). I've not had cause for complaint with either of them though. Both are very quick focus as you'd expect from L-series lenses with USM motors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top