17-40 F4 L or 24-70 F2.8L

srisaro · 16th June 2005

Hello Canon users, could someone advise as which of the two lenses would be more used commonly.. Which of these would be put into more use for indoor and street walkaround photography?

xl1 · 16th June 2005

Originally Posted by srisaro

Hello Canon users, could someone advise as which of the two lenses would be more used commonly.. Which of these would be put into more use for indoor and street walkaround photography?

what cam r u using?
IMHO using 1.6X crop factor, 17-40 is better i think, but if use 1.3X or fullframe, 24-70 is the perfect choice.

CLQ · 16th June 2005

Originally Posted by srisaro

Hello Canon users, could someone advise as which of the two lenses would be more used commonly.. Which of these would be put into more use for indoor and street walkaround photography?

Yeah as mentioned. What camera are you using coz of the crop factor.
IMO the 24-70 F/2.8 is good for indoor low light situation coz of F/2.8, it is also a better walkaround lens in the sense that it has more reach.
But 17-40 F/4 is good if you need wider lens for both indoor and street. As for the diff in aperture in street, i feel it has no diff coz normally in street or scenery you will use smaller aperature (e.g 5.6 or more)

I have not used the 24-70 F/2.8 before, i am now using 17-40 and i love the color and the sharpness.

Similar lens to consider and is a cheaper option and quality is just as good is the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 (cost only abt S$600, 17-40 is abt S$1150 and 24-70 is >1800? not too sure on the 24-70...)

hope this helps

Kit · 16th June 2005

Not that there's anything wrong but just curious, why do people automatically think that he is using DSLR??

drumma · 16th June 2005

if u are considering the 17-40, why not the 17-35 also? at F2.8, i find it quite useful in shooting indoor..

holeinone · 16th June 2005

Originally Posted by Kit

Not that there's anything wrong but just curious, why do people automatically think that he is using DSLR??

That's bcos if you click on his profile, it says 350D...

RossChang · 17th June 2005

Originally Posted by srisaro

Hello Canon users, could someone advise as which of the two lenses would be more used commonly.. Which of these would be put into more use for indoor and street walkaround photography?

Funny question. You should ask yourself what do you prefer instead of asking opinions of others... how often do you need a 17 wide?... or how often do you go to 70 max? I have both lens, and I personally find that I prefer the 24-70 more as a walk around... reason? I use the range more often than anything lesser than 24.

data1ore · 17th June 2005

Also, don't just think of lenses one by one. Try planning for your lenses. I did that, and ended up with a 10-22 and a 24-70 to solve the wide angle area. It also depends on your style of photography. Some people don't do wide much, so 24-70 is DEFINITELY better in that sense, not necessarily $-sense tho

srisaro · 17th June 2005

Thanks Guys, lots of valuable info from all of you whilst I was asleep.

Yes, I use 350D and building up my lenses.. I was contemplating very much when I wanted to buy 2 lenses, from a choice of 3 canon L lenses..

16-25, 17-40 and 24-70.

This primarily to bridge the gap from my current 20-700 F4L. I thought that 17-40 and 24-70 would be good enough than the more expensive 16-35 & 24-70 combination. What do you all feel? Does it make sense to pump money into 16-35 compared against 17-40?

Then when I wanted to settle for 1 lens this month, I was also contemplating, which one to go for first, as I could buy the 2nd one only a few months later. So from a usability point of view which one is more useful?

Russ · 17th June 2005

If you already have a 70-200, then I would go for the 17-40. If cropping is not an issue, then you can always crop the 40mm shots.

Or get a 50 1.8 II or 50 1.4 as a gap filler.

However, if you hardly even shoot wide angle, then the 24-70 will suit.

If you shoots lots of wides, maybe a 10-22 and a 24-70??

It depends on your needs at the end of the day.

I love my 17-40 except I wish it was 15-40!! Other people never use anything wider than 24mm on a 1.6 cropper like the 350D.

megaweb · 17th June 2005

24-70L is a very heavy lens (1 kg++) and I think it will not balance with your 350D.

+evenstar · 17th June 2005

17-40 should suffice on a 350D, a 24-70 will be 不三不四, not wide, not tele...

Just my 2¢

USM · 17th June 2005

There is not much of a difference between the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm other than the f-stop and the price.

Check out the review on http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

If you need to use fast lens or situations where using of flash is not permissible, then the 16-35mm f2.8 might come in handy, else go for the 17-40.

In fact, you can save quite a lot by buying the 17-40 and invest in another lens, say the EFS 10-22mm.

Just for info :

Canon Singapore Warrantied set with GST
EFS 10-22mm ----- $1,150
EF 17-40mm f4L -- $1,250

Grey set with GST
EFS 10-22mm ----- $1,023
EF 17-40mm f4L -- $1,050

As you can see, buying both lenses is equivalent of buying the 16-35mm f2.8 ($2,450).

Last but not least, know what are you shooting or what do you like/want to shoot? If you are a wide angle fan, then consider the 10-22mm or 17-40mm. 24-70 is just too heavy to be mounted onto your 350D. Furthermore, you will tend to bring this lens out less often due to its weight unless you are only bringing just this lens.

srisaro · 17th June 2005

Originally Posted by USM

There is not much of a difference between the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm other than the f-stop and the price.

Check out the review on http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

Thanks, this reference is an excellent comparison.. So finally it makes sense for me to go in for the 17-40 F4 L and then have provision for the 10-22. Later when there is a need and when I could carry and when I could afford, then I will think of the 24-70 F2.8L.

Excellent Suggestions !

Is there any way we could make these comparisons "Sticky" - so it becomes a ready reconer for other Canon'ners..?

USM · 17th June 2005

Originally Posted by srisaro

Thanks, this reference is an excellent comparison.. So finally it makes sense for me to go in for the 17-40 F4 L and then have provision for the 10-22. Later when there is a need and when I could carry and when I could afford, then I will think of the 24-70 F2.8L.

Excellent Suggestions !

Is there any way we could make these comparisons "Sticky" - so it becomes a ready reconer for other Canon'ners..?

Alteratively, join the CanonGraphers outing. You can test the lens(es) and see for yourself which one to buy.

billpepsi · 17th June 2005

Weight is also one of the consideration for street photography, if interested in 24-70 range, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is not bad, price is ~$600+ and I've one myself.

user111 · 17th June 2005

efs lens can also consider

RossChang · 17th June 2005

Originally Posted by user111

efs lens can also consider

Provided they are not overpriced like the EFS 10-22 and the EFS 17-85 IS...

RossChang · 17th June 2005

Originally Posted by megaweb

24-70L is a very heavy lens (1 kg++) and I think it will not balance with your 350D.

Oh, it's just 0.9kg only lar... 350D + a grip, it should balance pretty well... I've got that with me 300D + grip... pretty allright

srisaro · 17th June 2005

I did settle for a 17-40 F4L this afternoon. I bought it from CP @ 1250.. feel very happy. Hopefully I wll put it into good use and will enjoy the quality of shots. It does fit very well on my 350+Grip...Thanks Guys again !

16th June 2005	#1
srisaro Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Hougang Posts: 360	17-40 F4 L or 24-70 F2.8L Hello Canon users, could someone advise as which of the two lenses would be more used commonly.. Which of these would be put into more use for indoor and street walkaround photography?

16th June 2005	#4
Kit Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bukit Timah / Melbourne CBD Posts: 6,534	Not that there's anything wrong but just curious, why do people automatically think that he is using DSLR?? __________________ arkitectural photography http://arkitecturalphoto.1x.com/

16th June 2005	#5
drumma Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,849	if u are considering the 17-40, why not the 17-35 also? at F2.8, i find it quite useful in shooting indoor.. __________________ weddings photography

17th June 2005	#9
srisaro Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Hougang Posts: 360	Thanks Guys, lots of valuable info from all of you whilst I was asleep. Yes, I use 350D and building up my lenses.. I was contemplating very much when I wanted to buy 2 lenses, from a choice of 3 canon L lenses.. 16-25, 17-40 and 24-70. This primarily to bridge the gap from my current 20-700 F4L. I thought that 17-40 and 24-70 would be good enough than the more expensive 16-35 & 24-70 combination. What do you all feel? Does it make sense to pump money into 16-35 compared against 17-40? Then when I wanted to settle for 1 lens this month, I was also contemplating, which one to go for first, as I could buy the 2nd one only a few months later. So from a usability point of view which one is more useful? Last edited by srisaro; 17th June 2005 at 08:13 AM.

17th June 2005	#11
megaweb Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: East Posts: 8,125	24-70L is a very heavy lens (1 kg++) and I think it will not balance with your 350D. __________________ See my Photo Gallery at the Clubsnap \| Pbase Last edited by megaweb; 17th June 2005 at 11:25 AM.

17th June 2005	#8
data1ore Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Singapore / Pittsburgh (study) Posts: 169	Also, don't just think of lenses one by one. Try planning for your lenses. I did that, and ended up with a 10-22 and a 24-70 to solve the wide angle area. It also depends on your style of photography. Some people don't do wide much, so 24-70 is DEFINITELY better in that sense, not necessarily $-sense tho

17th June 2005	#10
Russ Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Pasir Ris Posts: 1,637	If you already have a 70-200, then I would go for the 17-40. If cropping is not an issue, then you can always crop the 40mm shots. Or get a 50 1.8 II or 50 1.4 as a gap filler. However, if you hardly even shoot wide angle, then the 24-70 will suit. If you shoots lots of wides, maybe a 10-22 and a 24-70?? It depends on your needs at the end of the day. I love my 17-40 except I wish it was 15-40!! Other people never use anything wider than 24mm on a 1.6 cropper like the 350D.

17th June 2005	#12
+evenstar Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Singapore / United Kingdom Posts: 5,462	17-40 should suffice on a 350D, a 24-70 will be 不三不四, not wide, not tele... Just my 2¢ __________________ the SEARCH FUNCTION is there for a reason. USE IT!

17th June 2005	#13
USM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 14,325	There is not much of a difference between the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm other than the f-stop and the price. Check out the review on http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml If you need to use fast lens or situations where using of flash is not permissible, then the 16-35mm f2.8 might come in handy, else go for the 17-40. In fact, you can save quite a lot by buying the 17-40 and invest in another lens, say the EFS 10-22mm. Just for info : Canon Singapore Warrantied set with GST EFS 10-22mm ----- $1,150 EF 17-40mm f4L -- $1,250 Grey set with GST EFS 10-22mm ----- $1,023 EF 17-40mm f4L -- $1,050 As you can see, buying both lenses is equivalent of buying the 16-35mm f2.8 ($2,450). Last but not least, know what are you shooting or what do you like/want to shoot? If you are a wide angle fan, then consider the 10-22mm or 17-40mm. 24-70 is just too heavy to be mounted onto your 350D. Furthermore, you will tend to bring this lens out less often due to its weight unless you are only bringing just this lens.

17th June 2005	#16
billpepsi Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The 3rd Rock Posts: 1,272	Weight is also one of the consideration for street photography, if interested in 24-70 range, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is not bad, price is ~$600+ and I've one myself.

17th June 2005	#17
user111 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 4,719	efs lens can also consider