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

11-02-2012 02:58AM #1

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 · 11-02-2012 03:17AM

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 · 11-02-2012 10:57AM

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 · 11-02-2012 02:55PM

17-40L, great little lens for the money

ThOnda · 11-02-2012 09:15PM

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

11-02-2012 09:34PM

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 · 11-02-2012 09:52PM

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

12-02-2012 02:06AM

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 · 12-02-2012 02:37AM

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....

12-02-2012 07:51AM

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 · 12-02-2012 03:59PM

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 · 12-02-2012 10:38PM

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 · 13-02-2012 12:25AM

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.

13-02-2012 02:07AM

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 · 13-02-2012 02:45AM

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.

14-02-2012 02:33AM

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 · 16-02-2012 12:10AM

...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

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

Comments