# Own 35 50 85 135, thinking about selling my 50



## ryebread (Aug 6, 2015)

Prime guys/gals:
Own 35 50 85 135, thinking about selling my 50
has anyone gone down this road and regretted it?

When I'm packing for a gig, I usually bring 35 85 135. or 35 85. or just 50L.
I love the 35A. it is great for environmental portraits of people. the 50L may be redundant for me now.

I shoot people, with a mark III.

The problem is that I've sold a 50L and came back after a year.

> 50L
lighter than 85L
faster AF than 85L
more versatile FL than 85L, if you could only pick one prime for an event, this is a good spot to be.

but the 35A can do the versatile thing too.

I just don't like to have all these tools laying around, seems like a waste.
I am considering selling my 16-35 2.8ii, 50L, and 24-70 2.8ii to help fund a 11-24 for my real estate work.

the 24-70 2.8ii
great zoom, I rarely use it, b/c I'm addicted to my primes.
it's laying around too much. 1.2 and 1.4 are just too much fun.

I will probably regret selling either the 24-70 or 50L, they are like family to me...
so I'm here to get help.
thanks all


----------



## Eldar (Aug 6, 2015)

If you don´ t need the cash, don´t sell. The use of a 50mm focal length comes and goes. I have sold many, but always bought new ones. Now I have three ...


----------



## Ruined (Aug 7, 2015)

50mm is quite useful and the 50L produces beautiful pictures.

Likewise, the 24-70 II is difficult to beat in flexibility and sharpness.


Why not consider a 16-35 f/4L IS for your real estate work instead? 16mm already makes indoors look huge, and the 16-35 f/4l is really controls light shining in through windows well. Plus the IS means you can do more handheld in poor light. Would be a big upgrade from your 16-35 f/2.8 for what you do. Might make more sense than the 11-24 and is a heck of a lot more affordable.


----------



## nvsravank (Aug 7, 2015)

I would say sell the 16 to 35 and get 17tse.
That would be more useful in real estate than even 11-24. 11-24 is much harder to use due to its extreme wide angle and very few applications of the real wide end.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2015)

nvsravank said:


> I would say sell the 16 to 35 and get 17tse.
> That would be more useful in real estate than even 11-24. 11-24 is much harder to use due to its extreme wide angle and very few applications of the real wide end.



I disagree, and I shoot real estate/architecture with the 11-24 and the 17TS-E. Indeed the 11-24 is a far more versatile tool than the 17 as you can emulate shift by cropping, you can't emulate tilt with a wider focal length but it isn't the primary use for a TS-E lens in architectural shooting.

I had the 16-35 f2.8 and sold it for the much better IQ from the 16-35 f4 IS which is very apparent in architectural shooting, I sold that after I had the 11-24 for a while and haven't regretted it. The 11-24 has become my number one lens for architectural and real estate shooting whereas I used to use the 17TS-E with and without the 1.4TC almost exclusively for it.


----------



## ryebread (Aug 7, 2015)

Thx for the suggestions thus far.
Valuable input, I appreciate it all. 


I don't need the IS from the new 16-35
I really NEVER use the lens aside from real estate, MAYBE a car show once in a while.
But since it's not a big investment, I could probably sell my zoom, and buy the new zoom without spending much at all. If it's that much better IQ, then YES! 
thx all! nice suggestion.
I am still considering the big boy though. we shall see.

I don't trust my eyes enough with MF, so the T/S lenses are not for me.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 8, 2015)

I had both and the 16-35 f/4L IS is better than the 16-35 /f2.8L II in every way, unless you need f/2.8 which in your case I do not see you using. Even so, you already have the 24-70 f/2.8, so do you really need f/2.8 for 16-23mm? Probably not, in which case you'll get better quality from the 16-35 f/4L IS.

Re: the 11-24, I am thinking you will probably use 25-35mm from the 16-35 a lot more than 11-15mm from the 11-24. As stated earlier, 16mm makes rooms look huge already due to the distortion.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 25, 2015)

Eldar said:


> If you don´ t need the cash, don´t sell. The use of a 50mm focal length comes and goes. I have sold many, but always bought new ones. Now I have three ...



I think this is well said and sums it up well. 

I'm a "pack the 35/85 combo" type of guy. The 50 is relatively redundant. Yet there are times it has been handy to have and I'm sure if I sold mine, there would be days I'd miss having that piece of kit available to me.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 26, 2015)

I have owned and sold at least five 50mm lenses because I don't use that FL much. I normally go wider or longer. My most used prime is the 35mm f2 IS. However, I now own the new 50mm 1.8 STM because is so cheap that doesn't hurt at all if I don't use it much.
I regards to the 24-70mm f2.8L II, I sold it and now started to regret that. It's so flexible, contrasty and sharp that I miss it. 
I don't shoot real state for living so, I have to limit myself to the 16-35mm f4L IS that is sharp from border to border. However, for real state I think no other lens is more versatile than the new 11-24mm f4L but is damn expensive.


----------

