17-40L vs 24-105 F/4L on 7d

[adairusmc]

I just picked up a 24-105L this weekend through craigslist, was a deal I could not pass up ($800 NIB), and I was wondering if anyone had any input.

My previous main lens was my 17-40L, which I typically used for landscapes, but I am not sure if I will have much of a use for it now that I have the 24-105. Will I really lose that much on a crop body getting rid of the 17-40, or should I just get rid of it and maybe invest in a 10-22 instead?

Thanks for any input.

 

[4x4expy]

You really have to be the judge of this on your own. Go out for a landscape shoot and use both at their wide ends. See how much difference you see between 17 and 24mm. You may think of it as "just 7mm" difference, but that is a huge in practice. The 10-22 is a nice crop UWA, but personally I wouldn't consider getting rid of the 17-40. If there is a chance you will one day move to a full frame body, you'll be glad you kept the 17-40 all over again, since the 10-22 is a crop sensor lens.

 

[alfa147x]

Im considering selling my 24 - 105 for a 24-70mm f/2.8L

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I say go with a crop lens like the 17-55 f/2.8

 

[adairusmc]

Well, I already bought the 24-105, so I have that already.

The 17-55 could be an option as well, and it would be wider than the 17-40 is now on my 7d.

The point of the possibility of eventually going full frame is a good one, as I may do that some day. I have been pretty happy with the 7d so far so I have not yet felt the need to upgrade really.

The 17-40 has been a great lens and was my primary lens for a while, so I am hesitant to sell it. I am loving this 24-105 so far though.

 

[finbarqs]

my girlfriend and i have the 5D Mark 2, and she uses the 24-105mm f/4L IS, and I have the 24-70 f/2.8L

I find her lens is MUCH more useful, and hits the focus more consistently than my 24-70 f/2.8L

If you're going to get rid of the 24-105mm f/4L IS, then I suggest you go with the 35 f/1.4L. I feel that's the only lens that could be different enough to warrant a purchase/replacement.

 

[Madwand1]

For now, it's important to cover that range, as you don't really have a wide-angle without it. If you get rid of it, you'll need to research and find a substitute.

I suggest hanging on to it until the 5D III is announced and then reconsidering your options. Getting a better ultra-wide than the 17 will lock you more into crop cameras as the odds are that you'll be laying out significantly for a better lens, and it'd likely be EF-S, while the 17-40 is already pretty decent on a crop.

Note also that while the ultra-wide perspective is cool and sometimes useful, the 17-40 is weaker on a FF, and the 24-105 takes over the bulk of coverage as the 24 kicks in and becomes a wide angle again.

Another possibility is the Tokina 11-16. It's a real ultra-wide on both crop and FF cameras, although the available range is more like a 16mm prime on a FF.