Buy Canon 24-70 M.II and sell 24-105, 17-40 and possibly 50 1.4???

[Jamesy]

I have a 5D3 with the following line-up:
24-105
17-40
40/2.8
50/1.4
85/1.8
100L
135L
70-200/4.0/IS
TC 1.4x, MK.II

I am toying with the idea of selling the 24-105, 17-40 and possibly 50 1.4 and was wondering others thoughts on this and if you have gone that route and regretted it or not. I would likely use the 24-70 as a general walk-around, vacation lens along with environmental portraits. I tend not to shoot video.

Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.

 

[mackguyver]

I have a 5D3 with the following line-up:
24-105
17-40
40/2.8
50/1.4
85/1.8
100L
135L
70-200/4.0/IS
TC 1.4x, MK.II

I am toying with the idea of selling the 24-105, 17-40 and possibly 50 1.4 and was wondering others thoughts on this and if you have gone that route and regretted it or not. I would likely use the 24-70 as a general walk-around, vacation lens along with environmental portraits. I tend not to shoot video.

Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.

I shoot with my primes a LOT less since upgrading to the 24-70 II and sold several of them as well, so I'd say it's a safe path if you can live without the 17-23mm range and 2 stops at 50mm. It's an amazing lens, I don't think you'll regret the decision.

 

[Random Orbits]

Sometimes 24mm is not wide enough. Unless you rarely, if ever, use the 17-40 wider than 24mm, you might just find yourself rebuying that lens in the future.

I can see the 24-70L II replacing the 24-105 and 50 f/1.4, especially if you don't use the 50 f/1.4 much wide open. The 24-70 II with the 5D3 with AI servo is a treat to use -- it is my preferred combo for shooting kids basketball games courtside. With it's shorter FL, I do tend to bring a short telephoto more often though. Before getting the 24-70, I used the 16-35/50/70-200 combo, but now I use the 24-70 for about 1/3 of the shots.

 

[Jamesy]

I shoot with my primes a LOT less since upgrading to the 24-70 II and sold several of them as well, so I'd say it's a safe path if you can live without the 17-23mm range and 2 stops at 50mm. It's an amazing lens, I don't think you'll regret the decision.

Valid points for sure. I have been grappling with this decision for a while. I used a 17-55/2.8/IS on my 40D for years and it was bolted to the camera 90% of the time. The 24-105 does not produce the same 'wow' factor for me and if I am going to carry the weight of a general purpose zoom I am leaning towards something that produces better images than the 24-105.

 

[Jamesy]

Sometimes 24mm is not wide enough. Unless you rarely, if ever, use the 17-40 wider than 24mm, you might just find yourself rebuying that lens in the future.

Noted. I may hold off on selling it just yet but likley the 24-105 would go on the block.

I can see the 24-70L II replacing the 24-105 and 50 f/1.4, especially if you don't use the 50 f/1.4 much wide open. The 24-70 II with the 5D3 with AI servo is a treat to use -- it is my preferred combo for shooting kids basketball games courtside. With it's shorter FL, I do tend to bring a short telephoto more often though. Before getting the 24-70, I used the 16-35/50/70-200 combo, but now I use the 24-70 for about 1/3 of the shots.

What short tele are you referring to? The 70-200?

 

[Dylan777]

I said before, I'm going to say it again: 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II are the BEST zoom lenses in Canon current line-up.

 

[Random Orbits]

I can see the 24-70L II replacing the 24-105 and 50 f/1.4, especially if you don't use the 50 f/1.4 much wide open. The 24-70 II with the 5D3 with AI servo is a treat to use -- it is my preferred combo for shooting kids basketball games courtside. With it's shorter FL, I do tend to bring a short telephoto more often though. Before getting the 24-70, I used the 16-35/50/70-200 combo, but now I use the 24-70 for about 1/3 of the shots.

What short tele are you referring to? The 70-200?

It depends. For walk-around, I'll usually pair it with a 100 or 135 if I know I'd like something longer than 70mm, depending on whether or not I want macro or portrait capability. If I'm going to a zoo and want to keep it light, I'll bring a 70-300 and the 40 (and leave the 24-70 at home). If you want a two lens solution to cover most of the FL range, then (as Dylan pointed out), the 24-70 II and 70-200 II are hard to beat.

 

[YuengLinger]

Wait, wait, wait. Why would you sooner give up the 50mm 1.4 than the 40mm 2.8 if you are not doing video? If just for stills, I believe the 50mm is about as sharp as the 40mm at 2.8+, and of course you have the option of going to a usable 1.4 and a quite nice 1.8-2.2...

If you absolutely must make a decision because of finances, yes, you have to think hard; otherwise, you could buy your 24-70mm, use it for a month, and then you will really have a good feel for which of your lenses you want to give up.

As for me, I got the 24-105 for what seemed a steal during a kit sale, so I kept it after getting the 24-70mm. I was sure I'd want to sell it. But I use the 24-105mm for daytime outdoor events, for portrait sessions indoors where I'm using lights and want to work fast, and for when I scout a location for an upcoming session. I reduce the wear and tear on my 24-70mm, reserving it for lower-light, absolute best IQ during paid or portfolio sessions.

Even though I got the 24-70mm with a double rebate, I still see it as a big investment, making it hard to give up the 24-105mm.

Finally, if you don't shoot below f/2.8, period, giving up the 17-40, nifty 50, and the 40 makes sense.

[Yay! 100 posts!]

 

[Jamesy]

Thanks for the replies thus far. It is always a tug of war with respect to trade offs with lenses...

There is no question in my mind that the 24-70 II is an awesome lens (along with the 70-200 II). I have shot both and they are great.

I make a bit of money with primarily my 100L for product and studio shots. The zooms are more of a personal walk-around lens. That said, I don't use my 50/1.4 all that often and I just bought the 40/2.8 to try out as a possible walk-around, general purpose compact lens for my 5D3.

The real essence of why I started the thread was related most to the 24-105 and whether people miss it once they get the 24-70 II. I can get the 24-70 here in Canada at the moment for 1999.99 plus taxes which is better than the USA rebates going on as I cannot take advantage of them and it costs us at least 11% more to buy from the US with the exchange rates at the moment.

 

[mackguyver]

That's a good price on the 24-70 and unless you need IS or carry the 24-105 by itself and use the 71-105 focal length a lot, I'd say go for it. The 24-70 II is an amazing lens.