Need to go wider: 5D w/ 24-105 or 7D w/ 17-40

Hi all,

I shoot with a 7D primarily (20D as a rarely-used backup, both 1.6 crop bodies). Over the next few months I'll be working in people's houses a little bit (family portraits and the likes).

All is well and good until I just had the realisation that my 7D/24-105 combo, while it's a great combo, is probably not wide enough to allow me to get these jobs done comfortably.

So I'm faced with a purchasing decision, and not too sure which way to go with it.

As far as I can see, keeping things affordable, I have two options;

1. I can either invest in a 17-40 L for the 7D (effective focal length of approx 27mm)

2. I can buy a used 5D (Mark 1) for a little more, and use the 24-105 on that (effective focal length of 24mm).


So both options have their up and downsides, with the 5D with the 24-105 giving me a slightly wider image than the 17-40 on the 7D.

However, the 17-40 has the upside of acting as a back-up, should the 24-105 ever take a tumble. That said, The 5D has the upside of me having a full frame camera in my bag of tricks for whenever I may need or want to use it.

In an ideal world I'd own both, but I'm completely stumped on this buying decision and so thought I'd seek a little bit of advice or assistance from you guys.

Anyone happen to have any input here at all? Googled to no avail. General reviews criticise the 17-40s poor sharpness in the outer parts of the frame (corners, etc.) but most people acknowledge that this is not an issue on a crop body and only noticeable on a full frame camera.


Trying to keep this affordable, so a 16-35 or 5DII are out of the question at the moment, as they're unnecessarily expensive.


Cheers.

pete4130

17-40 f4 without a doubt. 7D is basically a crop sensor 5Dii. So why go back technology to a 5Di? The 17-40 will outlast your 5D and 7D.

PCPhoto

or keep an eye out for an older model 17-35mm f2.8 (better than the 17-40mm) and around the same price (the 17-35mm was released a while before the 16-35mm mkI... it was designed for film cameras but works perfectly on digital)

the 5D does have a completely different sensor and feel to it compared to the 7d ..... cant say which I would prefer, the 5d is dropping in price as the mkIII (or whatever they will call it) is strongly rumoured to be announced in a month or two, I use my 5D for underwater only, my 7d is in cork - with my brother, I never liked using it, it didnt feel solid enough for me.

Borderfox

17-40L, great little lens for the money

ThOnda

Borderfox wrote: »

17-40L, great little lens for the money

Amen to that, Borderfoxe's one survived fall from my hands and it seems that it's still working

Have to admit I was leaning towards the 5Dc before i put this thread up. 17-40 is starting to seem a bit more sensible though.

Does anyone who uses it know if it distorts much at the wide end? My 17-85, whilst a great lens, used to have noticeable distortion at 17, which wasn't great for people at the edge of the frame.

Should I expect the same from the 17-40? Or because it's made for full frame will the actual edges (ie; not just the corners) display less distortion because it's on a 1.6 crop?

stcstc

you will have an issue with using very short lenes on either camera

you will get features distortions at short focal lengths

things like noses looking longer etc

stcstc

stcstc wrote: »

you will have an issue with using very short lenes on either camera

you will get features distortions at short focal lengths

things like noses looking longer etc

I don't really mind that kinda stuff, i'm more concerned about 'stretching' people sideways at the edges of the lens.

oshead

I can't see how 24mm on a 1.6 crop is not wide enough. Just how wide do you need? How many peeps do you expect to photography in one group?

Edit: The 17-40 is a great lens for the money if you decide on it. But it's not perfect. If you want sharp and blur free on the edges then go with a wide prime....

oshead

oshead wrote: »

I can't see how 24mm on a 1.6 crop is not wide enough. Just how wide do you need? How many peeps do you expect to photography in one group?

Edit: The 17-40 is a great lens for the money if you decide on it. But it's not perfect. If you want sharp and blur free on the edges then go with a wide prime....

Well I'm basing my measurements/focal length issues in my own house. I reckon that with 24mm on a 1.6 body, I'm going to struggle. Truth be told, I haven't actually tried this yet (photographing a person/group for test shots) so chances are 24 on a 1.6 could be fine, but I'm very much doubtful.

I'd rather not run into such issues during paid work. Even if the 17-40 or 5D ends up gathering dust, at least I know it's there. Better safe than sorry and all that.

Looks like I'll end up going down the 17-40 route over the 5Dc though. I'm still mildly interested in owning a full frame camera. Just to have it. Kinda hoping a 5DIII announcement is made soon with a relatively close release date (just to try and further knock the 5D/5DII prices).

Though that said I reckon the 5DIII/Whatever the replacement will be, will be overly expensive (€3,000+). So may not affect current pricing at all.

Pete67

I have a 17 - 40 here, you're welcome to try it if you are near Dublin. I use it on a full frame camera and there is noticeable distortion at the edge of the frame, I think it would be much less obvious on a 1.6 crop camera. 17mm is not particularly wide on a crop body.

Actually I have a 20D here as well, if I get a few minutes later I'll stick up an image taken at 17mm so you can have a look.

Borderfox

I use a 5d/1dmk3 with the 24-70L and havent found myself needing any wider except for a family shoot in a restaurant with my back against the wall

Pete67

If it helps, a 24mm lens on the 5D has a horizontal angle of view of 74 degrees, on the 1Dmk3 it is 61 degrees, and on the 7D it is only 50 degrees.

A 17mm lens on the 5D has a 93 degree horizontal angle of view, on the 1Dmk3 it is 79 degrees and on the 7D it is 67 degrees.

To get the same field of view as a 24mm lens on a 5D, you would actually need a 15mm lens on your 7D.

Well to be honest, I wasn' getting very technical with my calculations or anything. I just popped the 24-105 onto the 7D and was walking past my sitting room when I decided to take a look through the viewfinder and realised things may be very tight with that lens (once you take into consideration that there'll be space needed for backdrop, lights stands, etc.).

I reckon 17mm could be much better suited. I won't actually really know for sure until I get a few test shots done with the backdrop and such when I get it, but at the moment I'm fairly certain 24 is just too much reach for what i'm hoping to achieve.


Pete, I appreciate the offer to try out the 17-40. Thank you very, very much. I won't take you up on it as I'm not in Dublin/won't be for a while, but I do appreciate it.

pete4130

A good alternative is the Sigma 18-50 2.8 macro. I've had the mki on a D200 a few years ago and even for me, I'll say it was a really good lens. Can focus to a few inches as well, so really versatile.

I appreciate that recommendation Pete. Though I admit I nearly dropped my monocle to see you recommending a Sigma lens.

To be honest, I think I'm gonna stick with Canon L lenses as much as I can. I've nothing against Sigma (I've yet to really be let down by them) but when the option is available, I'd like to opt for Canon L lenses.

FoxT

...is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS .

Its an APS-C lens, but f/2.8. I dont have one, but they seem to be well regarded.

Non-L, but has IS & is f/2.8. Looks like good price/performance to me...

Regards,

FoxT