Would you be interested in this trade

[KreutzerPhotography]

I am currently selling *(sold) my 70-200 f/4L IS (but can borrow it as i need) so I only have a 16-35mm for "normal" shooting(besides the kit 28-135 from my 50d). Would trading my 16-35 for the 24-70 and $200 be a trade you would be interedted in?

 

[Drizzt321]

I'm guessing you have the 50D. Do you normally shoot wide to normal? Or when using the 28-135 you tend to be towards the longer end? Basically, what do you shoot more? What's more important to you?

 

[wickidwombat]

i think you are mad to be getting rid of the 16-35 f2.8L II it's one of my favourite lenses

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

I think it has a purpose that I am just not looking for AT THE MOMENT. I know I will buy it again in the future... I was planning to get a 5DII early this year but finances have not gone to plan. And the 16-35 just isnt the range that I love.

I have used the 24-70 for a wedding in October and I enjoyed it alot but I still had my 70-200 f/4L IS which has been my workhorse. (which is currently "sold" to a friend and I can borrow it when needed) so I am looking for a general purpose lens. I liked the 24-70 and found a person on CL that would be willing to trade and I just dont want to look back and feel like it was a bad decision. I have recently started shooting for a local band and feel like the 16-35 is just too wide for my purposes but LOVED using it at the end of last wedding season(granted I had my 70-200). I am just torn between the two and hoping some of y'all can help with the decision.

As of right now I feel like the 24-70 could be a one lens fits "all"

 

[wickidwombat]

also be carefull trading this lens as lots of the early mk1 24-70 are not great it would seem that most of the newer production models are better based on what people say of this lens

you might regret trading an awesome sharp lens for something you are not happy with

have you considered buying the tamron 24-70? the new one? and keeping the 16-35?

or perhaps keep the 16-35 and get a canon 85mm f1.8 for those times the 35 doesnt reach enough
I know its 2 lenses not 1 but just throwing some options around

for me 16-35 + 85mm gives perfect coverage for events you could also grab a nifty 50 f1.8 if you feel lacking in that range they are only $100 and the 85f1.8 go pretty cheap so you could be better off financially doing something like this and have wider apertures available for shooting gigs

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

The 50mm 1.8 gets too much CA for my taste... I did a portrait shoot and bought one of these to get me by. I was NOT HAPPY AT ALL and returned it a few days later. I have shot an 85 1.8 and I liked it but have been so blessed with L lenses that it makes it hard to purchase this when I think I would rather just wait and get the 1.2 later. The feedback you are giving is amazing and I really appreciate your time...

What is your experience with the original 24-70... Is it not worth my time... Would i be happier with my current set up?

 

[wickidwombat]

The 50mm 1.8 gets too much CA for my taste... I did a portrait shoot and bought one of these to get me by. I was NOT HAPPY AT ALL and returned it a few days later. I have shot an 85 1.8 and I liked it but have been so blessed with L lenses that it makes it hard to purchase this when I think I would rather just wait and get the 1.2 later. The feedback you are giving is amazing and I really appreciate your time...

What is your experience with the original 24-70... Is it not worth my time... Would i be happier with my current set up?

Using Lightroom 4 CA is a complete non issue, it takes 2 seconds to completely remove it
i wouldnt let that be a concern my main issue with the 50 1.8 is the 5 blade aperture and not so great bokeh
vs the 1.4 etc that is

I personally have the sigma 85mm (I chose this over the L even after testing side by side) which is my absolute favourite lens Its amazing however if you are budget constrained i would still say the canon 85 1.8 is going to flat out give you the best images for your money.
maybe see if you can go test a few out in the shop but if CA is a concern download the trial of lightroom 4 and see for yourself its really a non issue

I have always been disappointed with the 24-70 mk1 i have used they have never been as good wide as my 16-35 is and never as good long as the 70-200 f2.8 or the 50mm f1.4 for that matter

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

Thank you so much for your reccommendation. The guy on CR responded that he would only offer $150 on top of the lens anyway and I feel that I could get more than that. I remember having a bit of an issue with the weight of the 24-70 and getting obnoxious flare but have been reconsidering this as an option... I think i will stick with my 16-35 and wait for the 70-200 2.8L IS II that I hope to get in the next month or so. I feel better turning the offer down now.

 

[Bruce Photography]

Now that your trade idea if off, have you considered the 24-105L? I really like my copy of this lens and I know there are deals both with the 5d II and the 5d III. My 24-70L gets very little use because it is so heavy. For an event lens on a full frame camera, I can't think of a better all in one lens. I do keep a nifty fifty 1.4 in my pocket just in case I need to do some low light stuff (or the 85, 1.8).

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

I had the 70-200 f/4 IS and I wasnt happy with f/4 at weddings/concerts... I do portrait work too and once again it just doesnt cut it... I think I am stuck at 2.8 or faster lenses. I have never used a 24-105 so i dont want to count it out...

 

[wickidwombat]

Thank you so much for your reccommendation. The guy on CR responded that he would only offer $150 on top of the lens anyway and I feel that I could get more than that. I remember having a bit of an issue with the weight of the 24-70 and getting obnoxious flare but have been reconsidering this as an option... I think i will stick with my 16-35 and wait for the 70-200 2.8L IS II that I hope to get in the next month or so. I feel better turning the offer down now.

I think you made the right choice
I might also add that since getting my sigma 85 i find i use it more than my 70-200 now, the sigma is noticably sharper at f2 than the 70-200 is at f2.8 the only reason i choose the 70-200 over the 85 these days to shoot is if i need the reach or the zoom flexability but for events and protraits where i can move around the 85 is my go to lens now its also smaller lighter and les obtrusive. The 70-200 is still definately worthwhile to have but even in the interim while you wait to get that lens the 85mm f1.8 could still be a worthwhile option. it might however be a bit long on the crop bodys the 50mm f1.4 is around the same price and gives you around the equivalent focal length that 85mm on a FF gives. The bokeh and blur of the 50 f1.4 is significantly better than the 50 f1.8

hope that helps

 

[sammydavisjrjr]

I think with a 50d, the sigma 50 1.4 would be the most bang for the buck. It would essentially be an 80mm prime which would be good for portraits. I have both the 50 and the 85, and ya the 85 is amazing and much better but also twice as much. If your planning on getting a 70-200, this would be a good lens to keep also.

 

[agierke]

my experience with my 24-70mm 2.8L has been phenomenal. granted, i got it about a year ago so it is a later version but i find it to be a staple right up there with my 70-200mm 2.8L (v1 non IS). on my 5d mrk 2, my copy of the 24-70 is tack sharp and outperforms the 70-200mm on finding focus using the outer focus points. using the center focus point they are both on par with each other.

i find that the 24-70mm focal range is far more versatile on a FF than the 16-35mm. also consider that the 24-70mm offers a semi decent macro capability.

i realize that you already made your decision but i think you will find that the 24-70 will and should remain high on your wish list. it just does too many things to not have in the bag.

 

[wickidwombat]

I had the 70-200 f/4 IS and I wasnt happy with f/4 at weddings/concerts... I do portrait work too and once again it just doesnt cut it... I think I am stuck at 2.8 or faster lenses. I have never used a 24-105 so i dont want to count it out...

this lens is still brilliant and a pretty decent all rounder and I still use it alot I always prefered it to the 24-70 mk1 but you have to have a flash with it in my opinion

I think for concerts it would be out and i tend to put it away for weddings where light is low since i prefer to be around f2.8 even using flash at receptions to help with balancing with ambient the f4 can tend to light the subject up a bit too much and background is under exposed however saying that i havent tried it at a low light event with the 5Dmk3 yet shooting at 6400 iso flash balancing and f4 instead of f2.8 and iso 3200 like i do with the 5dmk2

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

In the past at concerts I have had my 70-200 f/4 on my 50d and shot at 3200ISO. yeah it is noisy but a minute per image editing using NIK software DFine I get useable results. I cannot print large with that high of ISO so that is a limitation and i am notmally shooting at 30th-60th of a second so I lose a ton of shots there too... So I am looking into the 2.8 FOR SURE... I think an 85mm might not be a bad add on (since I like tele a bit more than wa.) but with weddings I prefer the versatility of a zoom. Sometimes you cant get close enough and sometimes to are too close. I think the 24-70 will stay on my wish list till the verII is more available.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Beware used 24-70mm lenses. I have had five of them (1 New), and none of them were very good. On a crop, they are unbalanced and difficult to hold still.

Be sure to try the lens out, and check it for the many problems like decentering that many of them have. Odds are that the owner would not even be aware of a problem like that.

A 17-55mm EF-s is the best choice for a crop body for general use.

 

[briansquibb]

Beware talking wedding portraits at f/2.8 - the far eye will be often out of focus through lack of DOF