Canon lenses

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Any of you guys have any time with the following?

1. 24-70 2.8L

2. 16-35 2.8L

3. 24-105 IS L

I am debating the 17-40 vs the 24-105 IS

Is 24mm wide enough for decent landscapes on a 1.6 body?

[MN Shutterbug]

I don't own one, but I would definitely think that 24mm isn't going to be wide enough, in most instances. This is the equivalent to about 38mm, when you factor in the crop factor. Forty eight mm is considered normal with 35mm cameras.

[polarsusd81]

MM, I own the 24-70 2.8L and love it. But it does not work well for scenics. It is not wide enough on a crop body. IMO, the best lens there is for weddings, which is why I bought it. I think on a 5D or the 1Ds series bodies, it would be fine for scenics. I actually strapped mine on a 5D for a wedding and was surprised by the differences between the two. I really didn't know how big of a difference there was, if you haven't done it, try it the first chance you get.

[Steve Foss]

Aside from what I've used, what follows is all IMO, of course.

I've used the 24-105, and I believe it is the best all-around wedding lens on the Canon market if one has a full-frame body to work with. I'm shooting my weddings now with crop-sensor cameras, the 17-40 for wide work and the 70-200 f2.8L for candids, coupled with the 1.4 TC as needed.

I usually use the 17-40 on crop bodies for landscapes. Often, it's not quite wide enough to suit me. But when it's not, there are several landscape situations in which I take overlapping pics and stitch them together in PhotoStitch. And if you don't like panoramics, you can turn the camera to vertical position and take three or four overlapping verticals, which basically equal a REALLY BIG horizontal.

Also, there's only one stop of aperture difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 but a HUGE difference in price. I've only shot the 16-35 Mk1 once (haven't shot the Mk2 yet), but I saw no difference in sharpness, saturation, contrast or anything else between the two lenses.

If you don't own a full-frame camera, there's no point in buying any of the three lenses you numbered for landscapes. If landscapes are what you want to pursue, I'd definitely recommend the 5D and the 17-40. There is some edge softness with the 17-40 on a full frame camera at 17mm, but that disappears at 19mm or so. And if you can't swing a full frame body, the 17-40 will do you just as well anyway as the 16-35 unless you are in extreme low-light situations (such as a very few limited band performance and similar scenarios), in which case the extra stop may make a difference.

Bottom line is, based on IQ and price, the 17-40 is the best bet on a 1.6 body, unless you want to add the 10-22. All ultrawides have some issues with chromatic aberration, but the 10-22 is among the good ones when it comes to that. I know you have the 70-200, so if you add the 10-22 and 24-70 you'll be effectively covered at the wide end.

And worth mentioning is the way the used 5D bodies have come way down with all the rumors of the upgraded 5D. It's a great landscape body.

[Dbl]

I use the 17-40 on the Mark II which is 1.3 and I love it for landscapes. I shot three softball games tonight and surprisingly I used the 17-40 on a 20D for portraits at night with good success. I have a 28-75 that I use on a 20D and 30D and its not nearly wide enough on the low end. I really think Steve is right on with his post and suggestions.

I would love a 10-22 but its EF-S so it only works on two out of three cameras. I am looking at a 15mm fisheye but that is a whole another type of shooting that most won't find useful.