# Need your opinions on selling my 50L and 24/70L



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Mar 25, 2013)

So I have the 50mm L and the first version of the 24-70mm L. If I were to sell them both on eBay, I could afford the second version of the 24-70...I just bought the 70-200 IS f/2.8 II and have been blown away with its sharpness and would love to have that kind of sharpness in the 24-70 range. 

My question is: do you think it's worth giving up my 50L to pursue this, and why or why not? I love the 1.2 and I'd probably eventually buy the 85mm 1.2 down the road

What are your thoughts?!?

Thanks! : 8)


----------



## agierke (Mar 25, 2013)

i would say yes go for it. whatever feelings of loss you may have from your 50 will be more than made up when you grab the 85L.

if you really miss it that much you could always grab the 50 1.4 in the interim.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 25, 2013)

What do you prefer? creamiest bokeh or sharpest zoom?


----------



## kbmelb (Mar 25, 2013)

I LOVE my 50 1.2 and have yet to see the short comings everyone complains about. I don't know how you feel about your personal copy but the FOV of 50 and 85 are WAY different and I would never even consider them interchangeable.

The 85 1.2 would be the only lens I would use if the FOV were more useable but in my REAL world 50 is way more useable.

If you can live without the zoom, lose the 24-70. This is my leased liked lens. I just keep it to play it save.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 25, 2013)

I just rented the 50L this weekend. It was a good copy with no issues but to be honest, I really missed my 24-70 2.8 II. It a perfect complement to my 70-200 2.8 IS II. Yes, the bokeh on the 50L is creamy but wasn't really all that. I sold my 50 1.4 when I got the 24-70 II 'cause I was stopping it down to 2.8 when I used it anyway. I guess if you're really into the blur, then cool. I find I can get similar blur with the 70-200 zoomed in from farther back AND my images are sharper. just my thoughts


----------



## nda (Mar 25, 2013)

Well I was in your shoes a few months back, I was going to sell my 50L and 24-70, in the end I just sold the 24-70 and bought the 24-70II I just could not part with the 50L there is something about it, I also have the 70-200II and to me the 50L compliments them, when I need a very fast prime> there it is. I was going to get the 85L> got the 100L instead which is great for macro and portraits and cheaper


----------



## Vivid Color (Mar 25, 2013)

Keep both lenses until you've saved enough to buy the 24-70 II with the proceeds from just the sale of the 24-70 I. I would not suggest selling a lens you love. You don't want to be in a position of selling a lens and then buying it back later due to seller's remorse.


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 25, 2013)

It makes sense to exchange only the 24-70 for the mark ii without selling the 50L, especially if you love the 1.2 and want to purchase an 85L in the future. 50L and 85L make for a beautiful combination of prime lenses. They are not too close in focal length.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 25, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> 50L and 85L make for a beautiful combination of prime lenses. They are not too close in focal length.



Note to self: Never ask for advice on internet forums :


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 25, 2013)

Well, I own both of these lenses and I tend to use them a lot. Pardon me, if you think they are too close in focal length.

My point is: If the OP sells the 50L and later purchases the 85L and then realizes missing the 50L's focal length, then selling the 50L is just a waste of money, isn't it?


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 25, 2013)

GoodVendettaPhotography said:


> So I have the 50mm L and the first version of the 24-70mm L. If I were to sell them both on eBay, I could afford the second version of the 24-70...I just bought the 70-200 IS f/2.8 II and have been blown away with its sharpness and would love to have that kind of sharpness in the 24-70 range.
> 
> My question is: do you think it's worth giving up my 50L to pursue this, and why or why not? I love the 1.2 and I'd probably eventually buy the 85mm 1.2 down the road
> 
> ...




Only you can know. Me personally: never ever. I wouldn't want the new 24-70 plastic zoom and I would happily keep the original version (I made the mistake and bought the 24-105 as a kit instead of the 24-70 when it was still available for very little extra money...). Would I give up the 50L. Absolutely not. It's my most important lens and the best reason to having bought into the EOS system (while I simply can't afford the Leica M/50mm Noctilux combination).

It sounds like what you really want is keeping the 50L and saving for the 24-70 II. Or in other words: you would otherwise trade your 50L for a theoretical increase in "sharpness". Will you make better pictures with the new 24-70 over the old 24-70? No. Not in 98% of the cases at least. Or in other words: what do you take pictures of where that ever so slight increase in corner sharpness is essential? Landscapes? Get an appropriate prime. People? You don't want things THAT sharp. Product photography? Get a medium or large format camera. And so forth, you get the idea.


----------



## Studio1930 (Mar 25, 2013)

Easy choice for me as I did not like the 50L and got rid of it. I would also like a sharper 24-70 as my copy is not that great. I own the 85L and wouldn't trade it for anything. Also note that I am shooting this on full frame. Some people prefer the 50L when using a crop body but everyone here will have their own opinion.


----------



## lastcoyote (Mar 25, 2013)

i suspect none of the above has helped the OP make a decision  ;D
things would be so much simplier if we took that frustrating little thing called 'money' out of the equation :-\


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 25, 2013)

GoodVendettaPhotography said:


> So I have the 50mm L and the first version of the 24-70mm L. If I were to sell them both on eBay, I could afford the second version of the 24-70...I just bought the 70-200 IS f/2.8 II and have been blown away with its sharpness and would love to have that kind of sharpness in the 24-70 range.
> 
> My question is: do you think it's worth giving up my 50L to pursue this, and why or why not? I love the 1.2 and I'd probably eventually buy the 85mm 1.2 down the road
> 
> ...



Yes, because I did this 
I also have the 70-200 F/2.8 II IS and this and the new 24-70 F/2.8 II are the only lenses I've kept.
I've tried most of them but they don't compare...

ET


----------



## nomad85 (Mar 25, 2013)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

The difference between version 1 and 2 of the 24-70 is not a life changing difference I believe. A shot that is properly focussed and lighted will be perfectly usable with both lenses. 
There is far more improvement to be made on other aspects of photography. For instance lighting, or the decor you photograph in, clothing of a model, time of day etc etc.

Let me phrase it differently. You most be really good indeed that changing from the mark I to the mark II is the biggest improvement you can make to your photography.

Amongst other lenses I have the 24-70L, 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 (Sigma) and of these lenses my 24-70 is the least sharp (makes sense, the only zoom lens). But everytime I take a lens out of the bag and choose what I want for the next shot, it is not the sharpness I worry about.


----------



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Mar 25, 2013)

Thank you For all of your responses. I guess my real question for all the 50 mm L-series users out there was: is the 50mm 1.4 not enough. I could sell my 50 L and my old version of the 24 – 70 to purchase the newest version of the 24 – 70 and still have money left over to buy the 50mm 1.4. 

Thanks again.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 25, 2013)

GoodVendettaPhotography said:


> I guess my real question for all the 50 mm L-series users out there was: is the 50mm 1.4 not enough.



I did exactly that a few years back...sold the 50L and kept the 50 f/1.4 which I also had and still do. This is _not_ to say that the 50L was not exceptional; when the AF nailed the subject it was tack sharp and the bokeh was sweet. However, in my specific lineup it was clearly an extravagance with 35L and 85L.

Mind you, in the interest of full disclosure, in the last month, I did go through a pathetic (Gollum-like), gear-driven, fever to get the 50L back in my collection... but it would have been a luxury; my concerns about it from the first round would have resurfaced once it was in my hands, and it is highly unlikely that I would have suddenly found more use for it than I had the first time around... 

So, if the 50L truly fits in your line up, and you have the funds for it, of course get it... only you can make that call.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 25, 2013)

GoodVendettaPhotography said:


> Thank you For all of your responses. I guess my real question for all the 50 mm L-series users out there was: is the 50mm 1.4 not enough. I could sell my 50 L and my old version of the 24 – 70 to purchase the newest version of the 24 – 70 and still have money left over to buy the 50mm 1.4.
> 
> Thanks again.




They're really two different animals. Both are good and both have strengths and weaknesses. I had both for a little while and considered keeping the 1.4 after I bought the 1.2. The 1.4 is a classic. I really like the lens and it's really the same exact lens design that has been around for decades. Still use my FD version of it. Optically it's exactly the same. Unfortunately, the build quality is not. I always felt like I needed to treat the EF 50 1.4 like a raw egg with its flimsy motor coupling and protruding/moving front part. But sharp it is. A little stopped down it's actually sharper than the 50L (between 2.8 and 4 or so). The other benefit is that it's small and light and doesn't draw any attention.

The 50L on the other hand is a brick and feels very solid. No moving front element there. Wide open it's perhaps a bit sharper but what is more is that the color contrast is just a league of its own. That does come at the price of some CA and of course the infamous "front focus" when stopped down slightly.

It's the old issue: no 50mm lens is "perfect". You pick your poison. It depends on how you use it. If sharpness is the main concern here the 1.4 will serve you well.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Mar 25, 2013)

Well I owned the 50 1.4 on my 500D times back then, I didn't like it so much anymore on the 5D3 and sold it. I now got the 50L and absolutely love it, you just can't compare them. The 50L is big, heavy, a bokeh monster and weather isolated whereas the 50 1.4 is a average built 20 year old lens with just a different look.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 25, 2013)

GoodVendettaPhotography said:


> Thank you For all of your responses. I guess my real question for all the 50 mm L-series users out there was: is the 50mm 1.4 not enough. I could sell my 50 L and my old version of the 24 – 70 to purchase the newest version of the 24 – 70 and still have money left over to buy the 50mm 1.4.
> 
> Thanks again.



You seem to be quite fond of your present 50L. Have you considered selling your Canon 24-70 and replacing it with the Tamron SP24-70 Di VC? Cost should be pretty much a wash, so you could keep your 50. You'd be getting a sharper lens (though not as sharp as the vll) and great VC (IS). There's not much the Tamron and the 70-200L v2 can't handle. I have them both and the versatility is great. I usually bring my 35 & 85 if I need more isolation, but those 2 zooms can do pretty much anything...


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 26, 2013)

I'd keep them both and buy the 35mm f1.4, but maybe not until after the rumored new version is announced.
Not that the new one would be a slam dunk - particularly if it's priced like the new 24-70 over the old version.


----------

