Is the 17-40mm better than a 24mm prime?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 60651
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 60651

Guest
Hi,

Just considering getting a wide angle lens landscapes and am thinking of these two. The prime is a bit cheaper so I've been weighing them up. Can anyone give their opinion? Why would you want to use the range that 17-40gives you? Is it worth paying extra for? The prime will be smaller and lighter and easier to take out and about. TIA.
 
If you want to shoot at 24mm then the prime will be a bit better. If you want to shoot at any other focal length, then the zoom will be immeasurably better. The 17-40 isn't a big heavy lens by any means.

Zooms are very useful for landscapes because the position you shoot from sets your perspective, then you can zoom to frame the image as you want. With a prime, you have no choice over the framing once you've chosen your perspective.
 
I'm not a Canon shooter, but I think my 24-70 2.8 is every bit as sharp at 2.8, 50mm, as any 50mm prime is at 2.8. I think it actually focuses better, and gives a brighter images than a 50 - not sure about the 24mm Nikkor at 2.8, I'm sure the prime will have much less distortion. But some of these fancier zooms are incredible in low light and are extremely sharp. So i wouldn't be surprised if your L lens[?] is almost as good at 24mm. You'd want to borrow one to directly compare for yourself though.
 
Are you talking about the old 24/2.8, or the new one with IS? Both are very different lenses, and priced very differently too. Only the IS one is worth getting (if you can justify the cost!). You can also get 24mm TSE II and 24/1.4L II, both expensive but brilliant.
17-40mm has the range, and this is what most people want. IQ is a bit of a compromise. 24-70mm has better 24mm than 17-40. Mk2 is even sharper.
 
Cagey75 said:
I'm not a Canon shooter, but I think my 24-70 2.8 is every bit as sharp at 2.8, 50mm, as any 50mm prime is at 2.8. I think it actually focuses better, and gives a brighter images than a 50 - not sure about the 24mm Nikkor at 2.8, I'm sure the prime will have much less distortion. But some of these fancier zooms are incredible in low light and are extremely sharp. So i wouldn't be surprised if your L lens[?] is almost as good at 24mm. You'd want to borrow one to directly compare for yourself though.
Click to expand...

Now then, this is quite a statement or your 50mm has some issues. It's a zoom wide open vs stopped down prime.
 
I don't have the 50mm anymore. But it didn't have issues, nor did any of the many 50mm lenses I've had through the years. The Nikon 24-70 is as good in most conditions at 50mm, 2.8, in my experience. Now, I'm talking to the naked eye, at full view, not pixel peeping at 100%. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference under the right conditions.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
Are you talking about the old 24/2.8, or the new one with IS? Both are very different lenses, and priced very differently too. Only the IS one is worth getting (if you can justify the cost!). You can also get 24mm TSE II and 24/1.4L II, both expensive but brilliant.
17-40mm has the range, and this is what most people want. IQ is a bit of a compromise. 24-70mm has better 24mm than 17-40. Mk2 is even sharper.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the older, cheaper one. Don't understand your second to last sentence.
 
Cagey75 said:
I'm not a Canon shooter, but I think my 24-70 2.8 is every bit as sharp at 2.8, 50mm, as any 50mm prime is at 2.8. I think it actually focuses better, and gives a brighter images than a 50 - not sure about the 24mm Nikkor at 2.8, I'm sure the prime will have much less distortion. But some of these fancier zooms are incredible in low light and are extremely sharp. So i wouldn't be surprised if your L lens[?] is almost as good at 24mm. You'd want to borrow one to directly compare for yourself though.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 24-70 won't be as sharp wide open as a stopped down 50mm f/1.8. The new Canon 24-70 isn't even as sharp as the nifty fifty @ f/2.8.

Doodlydoo said:
I'm talking about the older, cheaper one. Don't understand your second to last sentence.
Click to expand...

Zooms usually compromise the IQ for the sake of convenience. However if you plan on stopping the zoom down to say f/8 or f/11 for landscapes then it doesn't matter as much. Have you a budget in mind for the lens?
 
Laudrup said:
The Nikon 24-70 won't be as sharp wide open as a stopped down 50mm f/1.8. The new Canon 24-70 isn't even as sharp as the nifty fifty @ f/2.8.



Zooms usually compromise the IQ for the sake of convenience. However if you plan on stopping the zoom down to say f/8 or f/11 for landscapes then it doesn't matter as much. Have you a budget in mind for the lens?
Click to expand...

In the centre the 24-70 wide open will come *close* to a prime. The corners will obviously show a very different picture. 24-70 does have better colours and nice contrast than any of canon's cheap 50 though.

Doodlydoo said:
I'm talking about the older, cheaper one. Don't understand your second to last sentence.
Click to expand...

24-70mm is sharper than 17-40mm at all comparable settings
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
The Nikon 24-70 won't be as sharp wide open as a stopped down 50mm f/1.8. The new Canon 24-70 isn't even as sharp as the nifty fifty @ f/2.8.



Zooms usually compromise the IQ for the sake of convenience. However if you plan on stopping the zoom down to say f/8 or f/11 for landscapes then it doesn't matter as much. Have you a budget in mind for the lens?
Click to expand...

Hi, I was attracted to the 24mm prime as I can get it for around £300. The canon 24-70 would cost nearer £550 which I could save up for, but wouldn't want to spend more.
 
Doodlydoo said:
Hi, I was attracted to the 24mm prime as I can get it for around £300. The canon 24-70 would cost nearer £550 which I could save up for, but wouldn't want to spend more.
Click to expand...

£550 for a 24-70 is good value, but they can be cumbersome to walk about with. Really with a prime if you're stopping it down to f/8 etc for landscapes you can match a £1000 zoom. In your position I'd go with a nice light, affordable prime like the 24mm and see how you get on.
 
Doodlydoo said:
The canon 24-70 would cost nearer £550
Click to expand...

Little chance of that happening any time soon in UK unless it is properly treated with water and rocks. 24-105 f/4 on the other hand costs around that mark.
 
Cagey75 said:
As I said, you would be hard pressed notice the difference. I don't doubt that any prime will be a little sharper, but not so much you'll notice right off, one glance ...

Others seem to agree on quick google comparisons:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...24-70mm-f-2-8g-vs-50mm-f-1-4g-50mm-2-8-a.html
Click to expand...

That's the 1.4 not the 1.8 and the comparisons are at 24/40/70 mm not 50mm. The 50mm is about the most well understood optical design we have today, the 24-70 won't beat it wide open.
 
Laudrup said:
The new Canon 24-70 isn't even as sharp as the nifty fifty @ f/2.8.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the 50mm f/1.8 II? If so, my 24-70 f/2.8L MKI is sharper at 2.8 than my mine. Mine does start to getting sharp until around 6.3/7.1.
Saying that...I've not run it through Focal since getting the 7D so I might try that first and try it again
 
daugirdas said:
Little chance of that happening any time soon in UK unless it is properly treated with water and rocks. 24-105 f/4 on the other hand costs around that mark.
Click to expand...

God sorry I got mixed up, I meant the 17-40 was around £550, nearer £580 actually.
 
Laudrup said:
That's the 1.4 not the 1.8 and the comparisons are at 24/40/70 mm not 50mm. The 50mm is about the most well understood optical design we have today, the 24-70 won't beat it wide open.
Click to expand...

I bet any money you'd have a hard time choosing between them at 50mm.
 
Cagey75 said:
I bet any money you'd have a hard time choosing between them at 50mm.
Click to expand...

You must realise though that this is the internet so instead of taking a realistic approach to asses a lens/camera we must argue endlessly over a few numbers on dxo or photozone?
 
PistolPeteUK said:
Are you talking about the 50mm f/1.8 II? If so, my 24-70 f/2.8L MKI is sharper at 2.8 than my mine. Mine does start to getting sharp until around 6.3/7.1.
Saying that...I've not run it through Focal since getting the 7D so I might try that first and try it again
Click to expand...

I'd try it again, that doesn't sound correct.
 
PistolPeteUK said:
Are you talking about the 50mm f/1.8 II? If so, my 24-70 f/2.8L MKI is sharper at 2.8 than my mine. Mine does start to getting sharp until around 6.3/7.1.
Click to expand...

I strongly suggest you dispose of it in an appropriate manner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top