Lense Decisions...is 24mm wide enough

Dazzlercee

Dazzlercee

Dazzlercee

Associate
Joined
2 Jun 2005
Posts
117
I am in the process of selling/buying to reorganise my lense collection to accomodate the move to full frame. At the longish end I am going for the acclaimed Sigma APO 100-300 F4 EX IF HSM + 1.4x TC. At the wide end I cannot decide between the Canon 17-40 F4L and the Canon 24-105 F4L IS.
I would prefer the 24-105 as it gives a seamless focal length range when combined with the Sigma. I just don't know whether 24mm is wide enough for landscape work etc.

Any suggestions greatly appreciated..
 
If you can strech the extra then go for the 17-40L and the 24-105L.
On a full frame camera 24mm should be enough though.
 
I appreciate the 17-40 is a great lense, I had one a couple of years ago for my 300D. When I got my 20D I sold it and moved to the EF-S 10-22 which like the 17-40 on full frame was very wide and of great quality.

I cannot stretch to both lenses just yet so I may go with the 24-105 to fill the gaps so to speak and if it proves not wide enough I could get the 17-40 at a later date. Tough decision.
 
24 is likely to be wide enough on FF for many situations, plus you get IS and the 40-105 range with the 24-105 - I'd probably go with that one for a walkabout lens along with a 50/85 prime for portraits/low light work.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
On a full frame camera 24mm should be enough though.
Click to expand...

Anything wider than 24mm full frame will start to get a fisheye effect, it's as wide as you can go without noticable distortion.
 
on FF I would have thought 24mm would be enough. TBH even on 1.6x 24mm is enought for most "wide" situations, although am going to buy a Canon 10-20 anyway to cover myself, but i doubt i will use it that much

Also, IS is something that I probably wouldn't be able to live without having used if for quite some time now - it really is worth having IMO
 
Mohain said:
Anything wider than 24mm full frame will start to get a fisheye effect, it's as wide as you can go without noticable distortion.
Click to expand...

Sorry that's completely wrong about fish eye effect, I have 18mm FF without issues, depends on the lens design/quality for distortion.

24mm is very useful on FF, and does most jobs real well......but the extra on a 17mm does open up some creative angles..... I'd get the the 17-40 later.
 
Can I suggest neither? When I was about to get the 17-40mm I had been saving for I reconsidered and ended up getting both a Sigma 20mm f1.8 and a Canon 35mm f2 for about the same price (to add to my 50mm and 100mm) and couldnt be happier. I just prefer prime lenses though.
 
Alex53 said:
Can I suggest neither? When I was about to get the 17-40mm I had been saving for I reconsidered and ended up getting both a Sigma 20mm f1.8 and a Canon 35mm f2 for about the same price (to add to my 50mm and 100mm) and couldnt be happier. I just prefer prime lenses though.
Click to expand...

But then he'd have a gap between 35mm and 100mm - that's a big gap!
 
70-200 2.8 IS in use

IMG_0996_1.jpg


70-200 2.8 IS in the bag

ff7b1c45.jpg


Just wished Sleepyd I had more time to use the lens, other than holidays!


GADGER=G4AJG
 
G4AJG said:
70-200 2.8 IS in use

GADGER=G4AJG
Click to expand...

I was trying to work out why you wanted the 24-105 F4 IS, and I thought, well he couldn't have the 70-200 F2.8 IS otherwise he'd have pretty much full coverage of that range in a 2.8 and ...how could you want more??!!

Well, obviously the IS is enough to warrant an upgrade.. ;)

That's an awesome kit bag - don't drop it down any stairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom