How much difference between 17mm and 24mm?

[jdbb]

I have a Canon 24-70 f2.8L which I think is a great lens but I find it a bit heavy to carry around, and there are times when I would like something either a bit wider or a bit longer.

So I'm thinking of selling the the 24-70 and buying a 17-40 f4L for something a bit wider, and a 24-105 f4L for a lighter walk around lens with a bit more length and IS as a bonus. From the posts I've read it appears that the 24-105 is a good lens and for me it seems to tick a few boxes.

But I'm not so sure about the 17-40 because I don't know how much difference there is between the two lens at their widest. Is the difference between 17 and 24mm like "wow, look at that", or "hmmm, is that it?".

John

[Tannin]

It's a big difference. Lots

What bodies are we talking though?

[Scotty72]

7 mm

[Tannin]

^ No no, difference between two focal lengths, not distance between left ear and right ear.

[jdbb]

I've got a Canon 40D Tony. A 7D or 5D mk II is on the horizon but not for a while yet.

John

[Tannin]

Thanks, Jdbb. Hmmmm ....

Assume that you go to a 7D (just for now). In that case, you absolutely need something wider - 24mm widest is very long. Perfect answer would be a 10-22. Superb lens, and an excellent match for your 24-70. (I use a 24-105 and a 10-22; they work great together. I don't use the 70-105 range all that much because I also use the 100-400, which acts like an 80-320 on the 1D III I use it on. I am inclined to think that the extra reach of the 24-105 would be nice but not a huge advantage for you - almost certainly not enough to justify the changeover cost.)

But what if you go full-frame later? Well, there will always be a market for 10-22s: well-respected lens, always popular. You can sell it. Alternatively, you could buy something wide that will still work on a 5D - and there is only one possible answer: the Sigma 12-24.

What if you go to a 5D instead of the 7D?

17-40: old lens, lacks IS, but cheap for an L.
16-35/2.8: dear as poison, heavy, limited FL range, f/2.8 is a bit wasted in an ultra-wide.
Sigma 12-24: still worth considering.

[JM Tran]

going from 24mm to 17mm will definitely be a 'wow that is so much wider' experience than say, going from 70mm to 105mm

theres a great diagram representation of the cumulative effects of incremental changes in going a few mm wider and wider floating on the net somewhere

[Paul G]

This is sort of along those lines but doesn't have the exact focal lengths to compare:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EF...al_length.html

[Paul G]

This might be better:

http://lens-reviews.com/Technical-Ta...tion-tool.html

[JM Tran]

This might be better:

http://lens-reviews.com/Technical-Ta...tion-tool.html

thanks Paul that was the one I was referring to!

look at the poor Olympus users with the 2x crop......

[Paul G]

look at the poor Olympus users with the 2x crop......

And I thought my D200 was bad enough at 1.5x !

[KeeFy]

Problem with deciding on 7D or 5D in the future is the full frame vs crop issue.

If 7D i'd highly recommend the 17-55. IQ is better than the 17-40, is 1 stop faster and has IS.
If going with the 5D then 17-40.

I was about to pull the trigger on the sigma 30 1.4, 50 1.4 and the 10-22. Then i suddenly realised... hey i'll definitely go FF pretty soon, thus not buying it and setting myself up for the 5D & 50 1.2. If you know what's your road map going to be like it'll be much easier. For events (should i ever get to shoot any) i've decided that the 5D + 7D combo will be pretty lethal. 17-55 f2.8 on the 7D and swapping btw the 70-200 2.8 II and 50 1.2 for the 5D.

[kiwi]

Try this too

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator

[Kym]

Try this too

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator

Oh! Oh! Oh! The Nikon simulator has more numbers

[jdbb]

Thank you all for the replies - some great information there that I will make good use of.

It looks like I need to give some serious thought to staying with a crop camera or going to full frame. Maybe one of each as KeeFy mentioned is a good option.

And those FOV tools are exactly what I needed to see - thanks Paul.

John

[KeeFy]

What i've failed to mention with the 17-55 is the build quality. Definitely not L grade. That's my only qualm about the lens. Esp when you're paying so much for it! It's more expensive than the 17-40L as well!