17-40mm or 24-105mm for a 60D/450D

[3ugene]

Would it be sensible to buy an 24-105mm L Lens for a cropped body? Would I loose a lot of wide range?
Hmm.... Would the 17-40mm L lens be more suitable for a cropped body? Or what do you recommend? Mainly for daily photography, nothing specific.....
I found that the 24-105mm was fairly ok in most situation I thought of, but sometimes I may have to stand back a step or two. While trying it out, I found it was heavy, heavier than the 18-200mm!!

The 17-40mm I found a bit of distortion, while not too noticeable in most cases (I can edit if so desired.....)... And limits my range quite a bit, considering my kit lens 18-55mm would cover more....

The 24-105mm seems like a more versatile choice..... But it's a lot more heft of money and extra weight!!!! I would have to most likely go for second hand one if I do go for the dive...

Which one would complement my set up the best according to the lenses I current have (18-55mm, 18-200mm, 50mm F/1.8) I looked through my last 200 or so photos and found out of every 10 photos on average, 3 would be of 18mm, while the others would be from 28~85...

Oh! And the fact that one has IS..... Does it really matter in most cases? I've tested out hand held shots with my current lens with IS on and off. I only noticed the IS coming into play when I was at a shutter speed of 1/6... Good for low light/ night photography......
I'm pretty sold onto L lens (Great built quality?!?!?!)
I plan to use one for a general purpose lens, the contrast was a bit odd on my 18-200mm compared to the L lenses I tried.... So I'll use which this new lens as my general lens.

I plan to use it for sports, stage presentations, School Dance,trips , street photography, rarely shoot landscapes, etc. Of course, I'll also complement it with my 50 F/ 1.8 for low light situations..... I never tend to zoom more than 140mm, and rarely find myself in corner tight spots for 18mm....... I'm pretty sure both lenses provide similar if not same image quality..... Also the Bokeh!!

If you had to choose one from my stand point, and considering needs and the price of both, etc, which one would you go for?

Thanks, I'm new to this forums...... So sorry for any mistakes made!

[Ads]

[Hickeydog]

24-105 hands down. On the crop body (I think it's 1.6x), that gives you 38-168 (effectively). Plus, that lens is epic. The only zoom lens that might be able to tromp it is the 24-70.

[3ugene]

Is the 38 actually wide enough for everyday use considering all my zoom lenses go as wide as 18 (28.8 effectively) ?

[Derrel]

I know it goes against conventional wisdom, but the 17-40 range just seems limiting to me...same with 16-35 or 17-35...those lenses were really designed for FF. It MIGHT not seem like much, but the difference between 40mm and 50 or 55mm (in the case of 17-50 or 17-55 f/2.8 zooms) is actually REALLY, really important to ME--and maybe to you. For example,with the older, lightweight, SMALL 28-80 kit zooms, or the older, small, 35-70 f/3.3~4.5 ZOom-Nikkor, when used on APS-C bodies, I found that a lot of my shots were done at 43 to 45mm, as well as 50 to 55mm...

The 17 to 40mm lens on APS-C has a lot of "wide" in it, but not much else...I'd actually say the 24-105 f/4 L IS USM is the preferred lens...on APS-C and or on FF.

Of course, for people who like wider-angle stuff, then the 17-40 is the choice.

[Scuba]

Go with the 24-105 or the 24-70. Both of those are faster then then 17-40 which is generally used as a landscape lens. Plus once you get either of those you will probably never use the 50 1.8 again.

[analog.universe]

I shoot a lot of wide stuff, so I'd probably want something beyond 24. The thing is, anything good wide, isn't good at anything else. Even the 17-40 makes a lot of compromises, distortion as you said. If it was me, I'd pick up the 24-105 in this situation. But I'd also start saving for something like a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, or Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 or something. The wide end of all-purpose zooms is never satisfying to me, I'd rather just have a dedicated wide angle. The 24-105 is excellent at what it does however. 24 should be plenty for walk around shooting, and people shots, and all that.

[3ugene]

Derrel, I suppose you're correct. It's more of a wide angle lens...... Still, what I'm worried about is the 24mm (38.4 ff). I tried it on my current lenses. And found a so ever small difference. However, the focusing distance was 45Cm, meaning if someone sat next to me, let's say, a bus, it would be pratically difficult for me to take that precious shot (considering something special was happening)..... But I guess I'll have to give up something for another thing in return...........

Scuba, I think the 50 1.8 would still be very effective during low light situations.........

[3ugene]

analog universe, right on!!! I was considering that too! Thanks for the heads up!

[Derrel]

For shooting photographs of a person sitting next to you on a bus, the 11-16mm Tokina analog.universe is suggesting would be the go-to lens. As you point out, something must be given up in order to get something else...and that is the 40mm UPPER focal length limit of the 17-40...to me, that upper limit is what limits the 17-40 to FF use only...and that is also why Canon now has a 15-85mm lens...

[512_SIR II]

I bought the 24-105 recenty for my t1i and At first I thought it might not be wide enough, but after using it for a few days I realized how perfect it was. I love the 24-105!!! I compared it and the 24-70 and chose it for the extra zoom. The IS on it is also a very nice feature to have. I can hand hold shots down to 1/10 and still have no blur. I would still like a lens that can go wider, but i'll wait and get the tokina 11-16 for that. I don't regret getting the 24-105 at all. Hands down the best lens i've used

[3ugene]

The bus photographs were just mentions of "what if" situations.
Yea, seems quite clear the 24-105mm on my 60D would be best.........
One more thing, I have a project coming up, where I have to get some urban and rural shots. Would the 24-105mm cover it for me?