Lens dilemma... help! :)

[paolo80]

After abandoning Canon a couple of years ago, I'm back. I missed it. :-[
I recently got a 5D IV with 100-400 L II and TC 1.4x. I already owned the 50L which I love.
I'm trying to decide if it would make sense to add a fast prime to my kit like 35 1.4 II L or sell the 50mm, while getting 16-35 F4L and 24-70 2.8 L.
Would I miss the 50L with the 24-70? I don't shoot very often at 1.2/1.4

thank you for any advice!

 

[cayenne]

After abandoning Canon a couple of years ago, I'm back. I missed it. :-[
I recently got a 5D IV with 100-400 L II and TC 1.4x. I already owned the 50L which I love.
I'm trying to decide if it would make sense to add a fast prime to my kit like 35 1.4 II L or sell the 50mm, while getting 16-35 F4L and 24-70 2.8 L.
Would I miss the 50L with the 24-70? I don't shoot very often at 1.2/1.4

thank you for any advice!

I'd keep the 50L.....and add the 24-70mm f2.8.

I'm actually working your method in reverse...I have the 24-70, and will get a 50L, hopefully in the near future...


HTH,

cayenne

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I'm trying to decide if it would make sense to add a fast prime to my kit like 35 1.4 II L or sell the 50mm, while getting 16-35 F4L and 24-70 2.8 L.
Would I miss the 50L with the 24-70? I don't shoot very often at 1.2/1.4

Only you will know that - but it would help the discussion if you told us what you shoot, Paolo.

 

[Random Orbits]

Adjust your kit one piece at a time and reassess. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is a very good lens, and if you don't shoot much at larger apertures, then the 50L has less value to you. However, if you prefer the look of the 50L then use it and keep both.

I would suggest covering the focal lengths you use with zooms first, and then figure out whether you need a prime covered in that range.

 

[FramerMCB]

After abandoning Canon a couple of years ago, I'm back. I missed it. :-[
I recently got a 5D IV with 100-400 L II and TC 1.4x. I already owned the 50L which I love.
I'm trying to decide if it would make sense to add a fast prime to my kit like 35 1.4 II L or sell the 50mm, while getting 16-35 F4L and 24-70 2.8 L.
Would I miss the 50L with the 24-70? I don't shoot very often at 1.2/1.4

thank you for any advice!

Welcome back to Canon!
The 35mm f1.4L II is simply an amazing lens - from a build standpoint (check out LensRentals write up on it), from an optics and performance standpoint (including blazing fast and always accurate autofocus); read any reviews out there about it (Bryan over at TDP (the-digital-picture.com) and Dustin Abbott both come to my mind here.

I think if you got rid of the 50L and replaced it with the 24-70 you might miss it. One thing you could try...rent the 24-70mm and shoot it at 50 and compare the results with what you get from the 50L in how you most often shoot with it (i.e. f-stop and distance-to-subject). If the results are similar then you have your answer. However, even though you most often don't shoot the 50 wide-open it's hard to justify getting rid of that capability/usefulness for those times when you wished you still had it.

As others have suggested...it really comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot it. And if you're planning to grow/branch-out beyond what you have been doing.

Best wishes in your decision and best of luck!!!

 

[paolo80]

I'm trying to decide if it would make sense to add a fast prime to my kit like 35 1.4 II L or sell the 50mm, while getting 16-35 F4L and 24-70 2.8 L.
Would I miss the 50L with the 24-70? I don't shoot very often at 1.2/1.4

Only you will know that - but it would help the discussion if you told us what you shoot, Paolo.

good point, I omitted an important piece of information
I shoot mainly events, occasionally landscapes. I always used the 50L and 35 F2 for events in the past, and I was thinking that the 24-70 would give me more flexibility. I have a 3 weeks safari in October between Kenya, Namibia and Botswana... that's the main reason I got the 100-400 with TC. For that trip I'm considering taking the 24-70 with me, still debating on the 16-35.

 

[FramerMCB]

I'm trying to decide if it would make sense to add a fast prime to my kit like 35 1.4 II L or sell the 50mm, while getting 16-35 F4L and 24-70 2.8 L.
Would I miss the 50L with the 24-70? I don't shoot very often at 1.2/1.4

Only you will know that - but it would help the discussion if you told us what you shoot, Paolo.

good point, I omitted an important piece of information
I shoot mainly events, occasionally landscapes. I always used the 50L and 35 F2 for events in the past, and I was thinking that the 24-70 would give me more flexibility. I have a 3 weeks safari in October between Kenya, Namibia and Botswana... that's the main reason I got the 100-400 with TC. For that trip I'm considering taking the 24-70 with me, still debating on the 16-35.

Seems like for events the 16-35mm f2.8L Mk II would be a good choice. Unless you have a body that handles high ISO well then the 16-35mm f4.0L IS would be good. Either would also cover you well for landscapes. I guess in part, it depends again on what type of events and how close you can get/approach what you are shooting.

Sounds like maybe you need both the 16-35mm f4L IS AND THE 24-70mm f2.8L II. You might also consider the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8VC option. A pretty well regarded lens. Certainly not as good as the Canon Mk II but a decent lens. Especially when you price compare. (Just not on the resale end.)

 

[LonelyBoy]

I have never used the 50L and am probably the least-talented shooter on this forum. That said, I love my 24-70ii, and here are my thoughts on what I've heard about the 50L:

If you like the magic/dreamy look of the 50L, the 24-70 will not replace it. If you need f/1.2 in that range, the 24-70 will not replace the 50. If you shoot the 50 stopped down a bit and aren't after the magic/dreamy look, the 24-70 will probably do you nicely. It, or mine at least, is sharp and clear and wonderful. From what I've seen of the 50L, it goes in a totally different direction. The two lenses are complementary, not competitive. You may only want one, you may want both. But it's like asking if you need to replace a Mustang with an F-150; the question feels a little odd in a vacuum.

 

[BeenThere]

I think that starting out, I would stick with zooms and later, if you need a faster lens for a specific purpose, get it then. So, the 24-70mm would be the one I would add first to the kit (dump the 50mm for now). Next would be the 16-35mm f/4. These would have you covered pretty well from 16mm to 560mm with the TC.

 

[ecka]

F2.8 / F4 zooms replacing F1.2 / F1.4 primes? Whaaa... ? Really?
This is like sugar vs candy.
If you are - "quality first; shooting for pleasure; waiting for the moment; pushing it to the limit" guy - get primes.
If you are - "need to catch those moments fast; don't have much time for photoshop; what's stitching?" guy - zooms are fine.

 

[Ozarker]

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II gets my vote. Great lens.

I also have the EF 35mm f/1.4L II and it is a great lens, but unless you need wider than f/2.8 I see no reason to get the f/1.4L.

If you are using flash at your events, get the 24-70 for sure.

16-35? Later.