Sell non L primes to get 24-70LII

[wildmudflowers]

I have a a 24-105L a 28mm/1.8 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.8
I'm thinking of selling the 24-105, the 28mm and the 85 mm and just buy the 24-702.8II and have the 50 left

I shoot a lot of events and portraits.

I have a 5d Markii

 

[mwh1964]

If not low light events I would keep the 24-105 L and the 85 f/1.8 for portraits and sell the rest. Otherwise sell all your stuff to offset the 24-70. Just my 2C.

 

[wildmudflowers]

When I say I shoot a lot of events. I mean a lot. 100 a year. All situations arise eventually with those numbers.

 

[SwissBear]

Depending on the type of events, i would buy either a 5DIII or a 70-200.
The image quality, at least for the events i shoot, is not 24-70LII-important, because it is downscaled for internet usage.
If it's no-flash, then a 5DIII gives you many more stops in ISO that than single stop from f/4 to f/2.8
If flash is allowed, i'd get a 70-200 for more reach - portraits from a bit further away and so on

 

[brad-man]

Have you considered selling the zoom and the 28 and which ever one of the remaining primes you don't often use for portraits, and picking up a Tamron SP24-70VC? Though not quite as sharp, it has VC (IS) which I personally find very convenient, and is much less money.

 

[wildmudflowers]

Thanks for your input. But the 70-200 is not currently on my list.

And I would not consider and third party lens.

If I dont go for the current 24-70 upgrade I will probably do nothing at the moment.

also, I do intend to get a 5d3 eventually. Just not now. It's too expensive and bodies depreciate much faster. I'm just not ready to buy it right now.

I shoot a wide range of events there's no one "kind" and besides the different kinds of events and parties are more similar than not. And the 24-105 is fine for most of that. I would love to use more primes and events but its just not practical. At best I can carry another prime on me and every once in a while I shoot a whole event with just 1 prime.

So, I need a mid range zoom. And since I need a midrange zoom that's what is on my camera body all the time. Although I don't need a better zoom for most events, I feel it would help me out in all situations since that is by necessity the default lens.

I dont do a lot of weddings, but when I do I imagine the 24-70 would be much better and I just rent the 70-200
A longer lens would be nice, but just not absolutely needed enough to warrant such a large expense.

 

[Cptn Rigo]

Sell everything except the 85mm 1.8, that lens is pretty good for portraits, and give you a little extra length vs the 24-70II, I don't know what kind of events you take, but a fast zoom its super handy at weddings and events like that.

 

[jdramirez]

I think it is reasonable... but are you really going to get 2200? maybe 700 for the 24-105, 300 for the 85 & I'm not sure about the 28mm, but if you get 400 for that, the total is 1400. that leaves you quite short.


but in terms of image quality, I'd say the 85 is better for portraits and sharper wide open. so I would sell off the 50 before the 85.

 

[wildmudflowers]

Sure, I'd come up short. But I'll be a lot closer to 2100 than not (600 short). Thinking of selling my extra speed lite because I dont use it much and its going out of date (580exii)

 

[jdramirez]

Sure, I'd come up short. But I'll be a lot closer to 2100 than not (600 short). Thinking of selling my extra speed lite because I dont use it much and its going out of date (580exii)

I think the mtf charts suggest the 24-70 is just as sharp as the primes, but you might want to check Lightroom and see how often you dip into apertures wider than 2.8. if you dip into 2.0 a lot, then the 50 won't work because it is too soft between 1.4 and 2.0

 

[jdramirez]

also, I do intend to get a 5d3 eventually. Just not now. It's too expensive and bodies depreciate much faster. I'm just not ready to buy it right now.

it killed me when I lost 250 in depreciation on my 60d... and now I'm looking at losing 800 when I eventually sell my mkiii... but once you accept that is the price of admission... it is easier to wrap your head around.

 

[AudioGlenn]

hmmm... To be honest, I'm not really seeing a need for an upgrade here. What are you looking to improve on? IQ? Shallower DOF than your 24-105? Convenience of not having to switch out lenses as often?

It sounds like the 24-105 f/4L + 580 ex II + one prime (85 1.8 or 50 1.4) would cover most of your needs already.

Now if you're not happy with the overall IQ you're getting from your current set of lenses, I think the 24-70 2.8 II is a step up in sharpness/IQ compared to the 24-105. I sold my 50 1.4 and 24-105 but kept my 35L when I got the 24-70 II. I wanted it for it's sharpness and versatility/speed.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I guess I just want to understand your need for the upgrade before I say "YES it's worth it".

I find myself using the 70-200 2.8 IS II more than my 24-70 II. It's like having the shallow DOF and sharpness of a prime with the convenience of a zoom... I've always got a speed light (+Gary Fong) on my camera no matter what. But that's just my style.

 

[wildmudflowers]

But I've allready paid the price of admission on bodies. I have a 5d2. Not exactly out of date or cheap. Trust me, I'll get to the 5d3. One day, in the next year they will have some crazzy sale. And I'll be there.

This makes no sense.

#1 if the 50 wont work, then it's currently NOT working. Cause that's what I use. I assure you. It works.

#2 ... just forget it.

also, I do intend to get a 5d3 eventually. Just not now. It's too expensive and bodies depreciate much faster. I'm just not ready to buy it right now.

it killed me when I lost 250 in depreciation on my 60d... and now I'm looking at losing 800 when I eventually sell my mkiii... but once you accept that is the price of admission... it is easier to wrap your head around.

 

[wildmudflowers]

This makes no sense.

#1 if the 50 wont work, then it's currently NOT working. Cause that's what I use. I assure you. It works.

#2 ... just forget it.

Sure, I'd come up short. But I'll be a lot closer to 2100 than not (600 short). Thinking of selling my extra speed lite because I dont use it much and its going out of date (580exii)

I think the mtf charts suggest the 24-70 is just as sharp as the primes, but you might want to check Lightroom and see how often you dip into apertures wider than 2.8. if you dip into 2.0 a lot, then the 50 won't work because it is too soft between 1.4 and 2.0

 

[wildmudflowers]

Yes, I want it because it's sharper. Cause it's faster. Cause its shallower if you want it to be. Cause it's built better (my 24-105 has zoom creep). Cause it's the best.

Duh. Yeah. I want it for the same reasons everyone wants it. And I dont have it for the same reasons not everyone has it, $2100 I want it for the same reasons I want all the best L lenes. I would love to have a 50l 35l etc but dont. Because they are expensive.

However I do have those little lightweight photography assets (the primes). That cuts down the out of pocket costs to something more manageable. But then I'll have less primes.

hmmm... To be honest, I'm not really seeing a need for an upgrade here. What are you looking to improve on? IQ? Shallower DOF than your 24-105? Convenience of not having to switch out lenses as often?

It sounds like the 24-105 f/4L + 580 ex II + one prime (85 1.8 or 50 1.4) would cover most of your needs already.

Now if you're not happy with the overall IQ you're getting from your current set of lenses, I think the 24-70 2.8 II is a step up in sharpness/IQ compared to the 24-105. I sold my 50 1.4 and 24-105 but kept my 35L when I got the 24-70 II. I wanted it for it's sharpness and versatility/speed.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I guess I just want to understand your need for the upgrade before I say "YES it's worth it".

I find myself using the 70-200 2.8 IS II more than my 24-70 II. It's like having the shallow DOF and sharpness of a prime with the convenience of a zoom... I've always got a speed light (+Gary Fong) on my camera no matter what. But that's just my style.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I think it is reasonable... but are you really going to get 2200? maybe 700 for the 24-105, 300 for the 85 & I'm not sure about the 28mm, but if you get 400 for that, the total is 1400. that leaves you quite short.


but in terms of image quality, I'd say the 85 is better for portraits and sharper wide open. so I would sell off the 50 before the 85.

I am gonna take a totally different advice position ---

Sell the 24-105L a 28mm/1.8, and snag a 16-35mm 2.8!

Between the three that's a lot of coverage. I do agree that between the 85 and the 50...the 85 is the one to keep.

While the 24-70 2.8v2 is an amazing lens (I wish I had one!!!), for events and events alone it may be overkill.

If you want that longer end covered too, snag a 135 f2 (a used 16-35 and a 135 would be close to the same cost as the 24-70v2)...

All the other options brought up here are valid too!!! Just tossing a different direction out there as food for thought.

 

[wildmudflowers]

I guess the jist of it is. I want to upgrade something in the glass dept. and I have $500 cash and all those lenses.

But I dont want new focal ranges. I'm happy in my focal range zone for now.

 

[spinworkxroy]

I have a a 24-105L a 28mm/1.8 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.8
I'm thinking of selling the 24-105, the 28mm and the 85 mm and just buy the 24-702.8II and have the 50 left

I shoot a lot of events and portraits.

I have a 5d Markii

This is exactly what i did and never regretted it…
However, i did keep the 85 but not the canon version, i kept my sigma version because i also do alot of portraits…BUT i must also say…i've not touched the 85 either after i got the 24-70…i thought i needed it but in the end, i realised the 24-70 could do 90% similar..so i didn't bother changing lenses during portrait shoots either.

 

[pwp]

Interesting discussion...

When I got the 24-70II I thought it would replace my 24-105 and I'd definitely keep the primes. But it's turned out the other way around. The primes have been sold but I still find the 24-105 very useful for events. In low light the IS is often more valuable than the f/2.8 max aperture of the 24-70II, and the extra reach is very, very useful.

With my clients, events work is a little less uber-quality driven than other commercial work so the 24-105 is FINE! I've sold my Sigma 50 f/1.4 and my 24 f/1.4II since I got the 24-70II. It's just such a hot lens.

FWIW I couldn't function at events work without the 70-200 f/2.8IIis. I run the 24-105 on a 5D3 body with 580exII and the 70-200 on a 1D4 body also with 580EXII. Often my best shots will be candids shot with the 70-200.

-PW

 

[wildmudflowers]

It's odd that I've never felt the need to own the 70-200
a lot of event photographers says they need it.
I work all the premier events in NYC and I've NEVER seen it used. Unless it was a fashion show and they were on the rafters.
90% of the other photographers I see (and that's a lot or photographers) carry the big white with them to all jobs and I repeat I have NEVER seen it used.
Just last week I had a discussion about it, I asked the other photographer why he carries it with him in his backpack he said, "I need it daily, I should be using it right now"
He NEVER took it out the whole night.

Obviously portrait people use it a lot. But a lot of portrait people don't.

Also, I see a lot of obsession about covering all focal lengths with 3 lenses etc. I would never do that outside the studio. Unless I was being paid very well, I would never leave my house with more than 2 lenses. If I NEEDED a wide range I'd go with a 28-300 or whatever kind of equivalent.

Interesting discussion...

When I got the 24-70II I thought it would replace my 24-105 and I'd definitely keep the primes. But it's turned out the other way around. The primes have been sold but I still find the 24-105 very useful for events. In low light the IS is often more valuable than the f/2.8 max aperture of the 24-70II, and the extra reach is very, very useful.

With my clients, events work is a little less uber-quality driven than other commercial work so the 24-105 is FINE! I've sold my Sigma 50 f/1.4 and my 24 f/1.4II since I got the 24-70II. It's just such a hot lens.

FWIW I couldn't function at events work without the 70-200 f/2.8IIis. I run the 24-105 on a 5D3 body with 580exII and the 70-200 on a 1D4 body also with 580EXII. Often my best shots will be candids shot with the 70-200.

-PW