Canon 17-40 vs 24-70 and/or 24-105

[Don Kates]

Anyone have experience with the Canon 17-40 and 24-70 and/or 24-105? I currently have the 17-40 and am curious as to how IQ compares to the 24 - xx lenses for landscape shooting..

[Judy Becker]

I have the 24-70 but haven't done any landscapes with it yet. I use it for indoor/stage shots. It is a wonderful and very useful low light lens and well worth the money it costs.

[Robert Becker]

I own the 17-40 and have no complaints with it. It's a very nice landscape lens that seems to be very popular with many photographers.

[Robert O'Toole]

Hi Don,

I would recommend taking your camera body and memory card to a camera shop and shoot with a few Demo lenses. Good shops will let you take them out in the parking lot if you ask nicely.
I have used and/or owned all 3 and I prefer the 24-105L. I used the 24-70 for commercial photography for years and couldnt sell it fast enough when I decided to do nature photography full time.
Also give Photozone a try http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview
for reviews.

Robert

[David Kennedy]

There's no question that the 24-70 and 24-105 will give you greater image quality than the 17-40 that you presently own. However, neither one will replace the 17-40. You sound happy with your 17-40, which is great. I hate mine!!!

I generally recommend the 24-105mm because it's a little more versatile. However, it came out after I already owned the 24-70 and I'm happy to have the f/2.8 at times when I do commercial work indoors. As for weight, I just weighed them (Dad owns one, and Canon's weight charts have typos). The 24-105 weighs 1lb 10oz, and the 24-70 is 2lbs, 5 oz

[Ed Cordes]

I have both the 17-40 and the 24-105. I like them both. you do have to compose carefully with the 17-40 to avoid showing the barrel distortion at the wider end, however, it does give me the wide range I need sometimes. The 24-105 is a great, sharp lens that nicely fills the gap to my 100-400. So, when I travel I can get 17-400 which is very versatile.

[Don Kates]

David,
Actually, I am not happy with my 17-40. I don't think the image quality is what it should be. For years I used the Nikon 12-24 and loved it. But since I switched to Canon I don't feel the 17-40 stacks up. My wife just bought the 16-35 and I haven't used it yet, but from what I read it's not much better than the 17-40. So, I've been looking for something else in or near that range to use instead.

[David Kennedy]

David,
Actually, I am not happy with my 17-40. I don't think the image quality is what it should be. For years I used the Nikon 12-24 and loved it. But since I switched to Canon I don't feel the 17-40 stacks up. My wife just bought the 16-35 and I haven't used it yet, but from what I read it's not much better than the 17-40. So, I've been looking for something else in or near that range to use instead.

Welcome to my world. The 17-40--at least the one that I have--is a piece of junk at the wide end. And I only bought it for the wide end :)

I haven't yet tried the 16-35 mk II lens, but I plan on trying one from CPS at some point in the future. My solution has been to use an Olympus 21mm f/3.5 manual lens with an adapter to the EOS mount for my wide-angle landscape work. I keep the 17-40 only because it autofocuses and therefore can be (and is) useful for photojournalism

The 24-70 and the 24-105 are far superior to the 17-40. My dad really likes his 24-105, and I have used it on occasion. I love my 24-70. It helps to stop down to f/8 at 24mm, but otherwise it's a really sharp lens. The 24-105 requires some stopping down because it vignettes if you do not.

[Gib Robinson]

The 24-105 is the most versatile lens I own, not only becuse the image quality is pretty good but because of the focal range and, most important, IS. I often use the lens indoors as well as out.

If you are really looking for high quality WA performance, I don't know that you will find it with Canon lenses, although you will probably come closest with the current 16-35. IQ will be better with the 17-40 if you are using a 1.6 body rather than a 1.3x or 1x. It will also improve if you stop down. From about 21mm to 35mm it is OK at about f/8. On the other hand, it is no match for a Leica 21-35mm which can be used on a 1DIII or a 40D with a minor modifications.

[John Chardine]

I own both the 17-40 and the 24-105. Both perform very well for me. I have compared them under controlled conditions and the image quality is more or less equal, with the 24-105 showing a slight edge at certain focal length/F-stop combinations. This is based on examining images at 100% which you would never need to do in the real world. Bottom line, any difference I see in the two lenses, which are minor, fade into insignificance when the images are viewed normally on a screen or printed.

[David Kennedy]

John,
I'm happy for you that you have a good copy of the 17-40. I think they're few and far between!!! Unfortunately, because of the high variability of the quality of the 17-40, I personally have a hard time recommending it to anyone.