24-105mm f/4L or 17-40mm f/4L & 50mm f/1.4

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by sA x sKy, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. sA x sKy

    sA x sKy TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I'm going to be getting the Canon 5D Mark II this week and I'm trying to figure out if I should get the kit w/the 24-105mm f/4L or just the body and get two lens: 17-40mm f/4L & 50mm f/1.4.

    My main focus is portraiture and landscape photography (long exposures, time lapses, beaches, etc) and maybe trying out architecture. The problem is, I have no zoom. I used the 24-105 two days ago at B&H and it was definitely a very nice lens.

    I'm thinking of going for the body only w/the 2 lens and maybe sometime before summer, I can afford the 70-200mm f/2.8.

    I don't know. What do you guys think?
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2009
  2. Azriel

    Azriel TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Get sigma's 1.4 over canon's if you are going to get a 50mm

    personally though, I love my 24-105
     
  3. chip

    chip TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cypress, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Get the 24-105 and 17-40 and 70-200
     
  4. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,456
    Likes Received:
    12,794
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Tough call, but my gut feeling is to buy the 24-105-L,since it will be good for portraiture, and quite handy at the beach,and just handy in general. I have one, and it's a nice lens. Not "fantastic", but nice. It has very visible distortion at the short end, from 24 to around 38-40mm, and it has some light fall-off (vignetting) too, but that can be corrected in Adobe Bridge on the RAW files if desired. I would not suggest the 24-105-L as a lens for architecture.

    The 50mm 1.4 is not a very good portrait length on FF,and based on the price and use for portraiture, the 85/1.8 EF would be my suggestion instead of the 50/1.4,which I also have; the 50/1.4 is a quality 50mm lens, but on FF it is too wide,and the working distances are awkwardly close, leading to foreshortening on limbs and noses...50 is just not a good portrait length on FF. And neither is much of anything in the 17 to 40mm focal length--too short for portraiture.

    Convenience, IS, and all-in-one flexibility is where the 24-105-L shines. I don't own the 17-40, but have looked at it but the range to me is uninteresting; I am sure for many others it'd be a great lens.
     
  5. hchristensen

    hchristensen TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Belmont, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Just get the 24-105 for now. 24 is wide enough for landscapes in probably 80% of the cases you run into. You'll probably never want to go any wider than 20mm unless you like the distorted look. 105 should be great for portraits. If you are absolutely getting the 70-200, consider getting the 24-70 instead of the 24-105. The IQ is better on the 24-70.
     
  6. Gtogs

    Gtogs TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sioux City, IA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Get the kit with the 24 - 105L, it is a good all around lens on the full frame camera.
     
  7. bigtwinky

    bigtwinky No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,820
    Likes Received:
    285
    Location:
    Montreal
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    While not owning either lens, I would also think that if you are set on getting the 70-200, a better compliment might be the 24-70 instead of the 24-105.

    If you won't be with the 70-200 for a long time, then the 24-105 would be my choice over the 50 + 17-40.

    The "holy trinity" of lenses is considered to be the 24-70, 70-200 and 16-35...thus covering pretty much everything except very long telephoto and fish eye
     
  8. inTempus

    inTempus TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,692
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Indiana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    If you can only get one zoom, go with the 24-105 for now. Pick up the 17-40 later. Personally, I would go with the 24-70 f/2.8 (which I did). I would trade f/2.8 for IS any day of the week.
     
  9. DScience

    DScience No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,513
    Likes Received:
    122
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit

    I'll just take the time right now to say that I am insanely jealous of your glass collection. :drool:
     
  10. sA x sKy

    sA x sKy TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yeah, thanks for the heads up. I read through a ton of reviews on Fred Miranda between the 24-105 & 24-70, and it definitely looks like the 24-70 is the winner. I'll be buying the 24-70 then.
     
  11. davebmck

    davebmck TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Waxhaw, NC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I have both the 24-105 and the 14-40. You can use the 24-105 for landscape in a pinch, but you won't be satisfied with it for serious landscape. It just isn't wide enough for the full frame format. I was in the Colorado Rockies last weekend and never took the 24-100 out of the bag. The 17-40 got a lot of use though.
     
  12. sA x sKy

    sA x sKy TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I thought that 24mm is actually considered wide while something in the 10-20mm range would be considered ultra-wide.

    I'm not going to be doing anything other than taking long exposures of the beach w/ND Grad filters when it comes to wide angle but when I said architectural shots, I didn't mean real estate type of shots. I meant fine art/abstract looking exterior shots of buildings in NYC.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

17-40mm vs 24-105mm

,
50mm vs 24-105
,
canon 14-40mm f4 vs 24-105 f4
,
canon 17-40 vs 24-105
,
canon 17-40mm l vs 24-105mm l landscape
,
canon 17-40mm or 34-105mm
,

canon 17-40mm vs 24-105mm

,
canon 24-100
,
canon ef 50 1.4 vs 24-105mm
,
nd filter canon 5d 24-100