16-35 and 70-200 a Good Combo to Call it a Day With?

[Cory]

So I have a 6D, 16-35 4.0 IS and 135 2.0. Almost snagged a 50mm lens, but didn't and have a longer telephoto lens on my wish list.
I do paid headshots, family portraits, word-of-mouth whatever and lots of "running" events plus my son's Marching and Jazz Bands. Even my "lighting" skills are taking on a new higher level of excellence.
Would a numbnut like myself who's unable to make decisions possibly do quite well with just my UWA and one of the new 70-200's (maybe the 2.8, but maybe the 4.0)?
Thanks.

 

[Ozarker]

So I have a 6D, 16-35 4.0 IS and 135 2.0. Almost snagged a 50mm lens, but didn't and have a longer telephoto lens on my wish list.
I do paid headshots, family portraits, word-of-mouth whatever and lots of "running" events plus my son's Marching and Jazz Bands. Even my "lighting" skills are taking on a new higher level of excellence.
Would a numbnut like myself who's unable to make decisions possibly do quite well with just my UWA and one of the new 70-200's (maybe the 2.8, but maybe the 4.0)?
Thanks.

If it were me, I would want to throw a 24-70 in there to boot. I would do that and skip the 50mm prime lens. I have no idea what your budget is. I have the 24-70 f/2.8L II and it is extremely sharp and quick focusing. The 50mm f/1.4 I had wasn't near as good.

I don't see the 16-35 or a 50mm as all that useful for what you describe (okay 50mm for portraits), but I don't get paid to do anything. The 24-70 spends more time on my camera than anything else and makes very nice portraits.

There are a lot of pros here that could answer better, but that is my take.

 

[Cory]

I have considered swapping out my 16-35 for a 24-70 4.0 IS and then maybe just keeping the 135 (because it is wildly tremendous).
I don't do a ton of "foreground" landscape shots, but maybe a wide angle prime one day for that and interiors; maybe.

 

[YuengLinger]

I agree with the suggestion to save up and get a 24-70mm. Unless video, I'd go with the 2.8 II. Or wait for IS on the 2.8, if you're saving anyway.

 

[Ozarker]

I have considered swapping out my 16-35 for a 24-70 4.0 IS and then maybe just keeping the 135 (because it is wildly tremendous).
I don't do a ton of "foreground" landscape shots, but maybe a wide angle prime one day for that and interiors; maybe.

The 135 is awesome, but everything I have got from Canon in the "L" line has been. I had the Tamron SP 15-30mm DI VC USD and recently sold it. Turns out 24mm is plenty wide for anything I do. Gonna use that $ towards a TS-E I think.

 

[Cory]

I'm thinking that maybe f/4 on full-frame is all I need and when I need more there's the 135. Plus, all of my filters are 77mm and smaller (4.0 vs. 2.8) might be better a lot of the time.
Even if this thread seems stupid I think it may have cleared up a 24-70 4.0 IS, 135 2.0 and 300 4.0 IS kit.

 

[ethanz]

How about 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200

That is a good set, great lenses, and you will have the 24-70 on your camera 75% of the time.

 

[stevelee]

In my film days I did fine most of the time with a 28mm, an 85mm, and a 200mm. I had others, but those worked well unless I knew a reason to take along something else. Zoom lenses were really bad and hopelessly inconvenient, and I think expensive, so I didn't have any. So the combo in your original question would have worked well for me, and probably still would.

Now my default trinity consists of zooms: 16-35mm f/4, 24-105mm STM, and the 100-400mm L, the last of which I don't take just anywhere lightly, so to speak. If I'm doing a portrait, I'll often use the 100mm f/2.8 macro for now, when I want blurrier backgrounds than with the zoom. I haven't found any use for my 50mm f/1.4 since I went full frame. It did fine for portraits on my Rebel. If I were rich, I might substitute the 24-70mm and a 70-200mm for the 24-105, but so far have never felt the need.

For sports, if you are wanting to show the action, especially in videos, you'll need something wider than you think. The basketball that I shot a couple weeks ago was done at 40mm or so. I found even 45mm cut out a crucial pass now and then. Even for football your 135mm will be too long to get the whole lineup in view even from way up in the stands, judging from my experience.

On the other hand, if you are making pictures of individual players for their families and friends, you'll want something somewhat longer. I tend to see a lot of giant white lenses on sidelines.

 

[wsmith96]

If you can only afford 2 lenses right now, then I second the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200. You could also substitute the 24-105 for versatility, but I think you would be happier with the 24-70 2.8 for paid work.

 

[jolyonralph]

You've already got the 135 f/2, I would suggest save a huge bunch of money and just get a 1.4x extender to use with it, which gives you approximately a 190mm f/2.8 lens

 

[stevelee]

You've already got the 135 f/2, I would suggest save a huge bunch of money and just get a 1.4x extender to use with it, which gives you approximately a 190mm f/2.8 lens

I don't have either piece of gear, but that sounds like excellent advice.

 

[Ozarker]

You've already got the 135 f/2, I would suggest save a huge bunch of money and just get a 1.4x extender to use with it, which gives you approximately a 190mm f/2.8 lens

I don't have either piece of gear, but that sounds like excellent advice.

I had the extender and tried it on my 135mm just for kicks. I was disappointed with that particular combination. That was about 3 years ago and I can't remember exactly why I was disappointed. I'm sure others have tried it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

So I have a 6D, 16-35 4.0 IS and 135 2.0. Almost snagged a 50mm lens, but didn't and have a longer telephoto lens on my wish list.
I do paid headshots, family portraits, word-of-mouth whatever and lots of "running" events plus my son's Marching and Jazz Bands. Even my "lighting" skills are taking on a new higher level of excellence.
Would a numbnut like myself who's unable to make decisions possibly do quite well with just my UWA and one of the new 70-200's (maybe the 2.8, but maybe the 4.0)?
Thanks.

It depends on how you use your camera. I could not do without the 24-70, while I have no use for 16-35, its just what I shoot, and not necessarily what others will do. After getting the new 24-70m MK II, 70-200 MK II, 100-400 MK II, and keeping my 100mm L Macro and a 17mm f/3.5 Tokina prime(virtually never used), I sold my 15mm fish eye, 16-35mm f/2.8 L, 35mm f/1.4/ 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and my 135mm L. The primes which had been my main lenses suddenly fell into disuse and the 16-35 sat unused. Some will make the opposite choice, if its right for them, that's great.
Do what works for you.

 

[wldbil]

I use my 24 mm f/1.4 ii the most, second is the 135 mm f/2, I like the 14mm f/2.4 and the 100 – 400 ii. I do use the 50 mm 1.8 sometimes. For me if I get another lens it would be the 24 – 70 mm. I just don’t know if I would get the f/2.8 or the f/4. Because I have enough fast lenses, I personally think the 24 – 70mm f/4 would be good for you and for me. I love my 135mm f/2 and have used it with a 1.4iii and had good results with it. I have shot hockey, swim meets and lacrosse successfully with and without the 1.4iii on the 135mm.
I also think the 24 – 70 mm f/4 would work well for you with the 16 – 35 mm f/4. The main reason is the 16 – 35 mm f/4 has a 77 mm filter, the 24 – 70 f/4 also has a 77 mm filter as does the 24 – 105 mm f/4. I also like the weight of the 24 – 70 mm f/4 being only 600 g.

 

[ERHP]

So I have a 6D, 16-35 4.0 IS and 135 2.0. Almost snagged a 50mm lens, but didn't and have a longer telephoto lens on my wish list.
I do paid headshots, family portraits, word-of-mouth whatever and lots of "running" events plus my son's Marching and Jazz Bands. Even my "lighting" skills are taking on a new higher level of excellence.
Would a numbnut like myself who's unable to make decisions possibly do quite well with just my UWA and one of the new 70-200's (maybe the 2.8, but maybe the 4.0)?
Thanks.

It depends on how you use your camera. I could not do without the 24-70, while I have no use for 16-35, its just what I shoot, and not necessarily what others will do. After getting the new 24-70m MK II, 70-200 MK II, 100-400 MK II, and keeping my 100mm L Macro and a 17mm f/3.5 Tokina prime(virtually never used), I sold my 15mm fish eye, 16-35mm f/2.8 L, 35mm f/1.4/ 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and my 135mm L. The primes which had been my main lenses suddenly fell into disuse and the 16-35 sat unused. Some will make the opposite choice, if its right for them, that's great.
Do what works for you.

Sounds similar to me, with 11-24 being extra weight most of the time. I still regard my 24-70 f/2.8 II to be essential for the landscapes I typically shoot. Two fireworks shows tonight, both fell within that range, cityscape and the Hotel Del Coronado. Depending on what you are shooting, the 16-35 may be ideal, but I've found it too short too many times to buy another copy of it.