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



## sA x sKy (Oct 13, 2009)

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?


----------



## Azriel (Oct 13, 2009)

Get sigma's 1.4 over canon's if you are going to get a 50mm

personally though, I love my 24-105


----------



## chip (Oct 13, 2009)

Get the 24-105 and 17-40 and 70-200


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## hchristensen (Oct 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## Gtogs (Oct 14, 2009)

Get the kit with the 24 - 105L, it is a good all around lens on the full frame camera.


----------



## bigtwinky (Oct 14, 2009)

hchristensen said:


> 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.


 
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


----------



## inTempus (Oct 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## DScience (Oct 14, 2009)

inTempus said:


> 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.




I'll just take the time right now to say that I am insanely jealous of your glass collection.


----------



## sA x sKy (Oct 14, 2009)

inTempus said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## davebmck (Oct 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## sA x sKy (Oct 14, 2009)

davebmck said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## davebmck (Oct 15, 2009)

The 24mm may work fine for you, just depends on your needs.  To answer your question, the 10-20mm is considered ultra wide for a cropped frame camera.  If your camera has a 1.6 crop factor, the equivalent lens on a full frame camera like the 5DII would be 16-32mm.  So the 17-40mm would be considered ultra wide on the 17mm end of the zoom range on the full frame camera.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Oct 16, 2009)

i own the 17-40L, and i love it, but if i had the 5d mark II, i would switch to the 24-105. I have the 100-400L, and that would give me a range of 24-400 with only 2 very nice lenses. right now my 17-40 becomes a 27-64 on my rebel xs cuz of the 1.6x crop factor. i do landscapes, so i need as wide a lens as possible. for what you're gonna be doing, get the 24-105. it's got a good range and is very versatile. the 17-40 is very nice, but will show distortion on the edges on a full frame sensor, and 40 isnt much on the telephoto end, so u wont be able to do good portraits with it.

only get the 50mm if u need the really wide 1.4 aperture. it till create some nice bokeh with that super shallow DOF. i have the cheapo canon 50mm 1.8, and its pretty nice for $80. wanna get the 50 1.4 and the 100mm 2.8 for macro shots soon.


----------

