# Sell non L primes to get 24-70LII



## wildmudflowers (Jun 11, 2013)

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 (Jun 11, 2013)

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 (Jun 11, 2013)

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


----------



## SwissBear (Jun 11, 2013)

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 (Jun 11, 2013)

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 (Jun 11, 2013)

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 (Jun 11, 2013)

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 (Jun 12, 2013)

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 (Jun 12, 2013)

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 (Jun 12, 2013)

wildmudflowers said:


> 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 (Jun 12, 2013)

wildmudflowers said:


> 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 (Jun 12, 2013)

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 (Jun 12, 2013)

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. 



wildmudflowers said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## wildmudflowers (Jun 12, 2013)

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. 



jdramirez said:


> wildmudflowers said:
> 
> 
> > 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)
> ...


----------



## wildmudflowers (Jun 12, 2013)

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. 



AudioGlenn said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 12, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> 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 (Jun 12, 2013)

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 (Jun 12, 2013)

wildmudflowers said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 12, 2013)

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 (Jun 12, 2013)

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. 



pwp said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jun 12, 2013)

Hey Wildmudflowers,

I shoot more weddings than anything, and though I do not own the 24-70ii, I rented it for a wedding a couple of weeks ago just to try it out. This lens was prenominal, and was used for more pics than the 17-40, 35L, 50L, or 70-200ii, however, it was primarily used on my crop frame 60D rather than the 5Dii. This may just be my style, but the big tele came in handy more often for my ff. My 2c, rent one or both and try them out. I also rented the 50L, and was not deeply impressed, and though I may buy it eventually, I am not as excited to buy it as I was previously.

If you would rather buy before you try then the 24-70ii is one of the best lenses I have ever used, and I think you will be very happy with it for your events. I would sell anything you can reasonably justify.

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 12, 2013)

Personally - if you "have" to sell all that gear to get the 24-70 II then you can't afford it :-/

The 24-70 II is a great lens with great focal length flexibility, but without a camera that's exceptional in dark conditions - read 6D, 5D3, 1DX - you may struggle with low light images - check how many of your favourites are below f2.8 before making any change


----------



## drolo61 (Jun 12, 2013)

hi wildmudflowers, sounds like you want to have it and try to find arguments (and cash). am not a pro by any means, but gave myself the lens as a birthday present couple of weeks ago. And since I feel I wastetd too much of my time on my 24-105 for the past 7 years. It might be, that later versions of that may be better than my original copy that came bundled with my 5D classic, but IQ wise the latest 24-70 is out of this world. Go test one, and be ready to just wanting it so much more..
Have fun
drolo


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jun 12, 2013)

pwp said:


> 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.
> 
> 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



I think this sums up what I was trying to say more clearly. I don't mean to dissuade you from the lens. It's a great lens. but I agree if you're shooting events, the 70-200 would be my first pick. Why the need to to upgrade from the 24-105? zoom creep can be fixed with a $5 lens band. 70-200 IS II is also "faster, sharper, and shallower"


----------



## wildmudflowers (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm sure the 70-200 is great. But I don't need it. I'm too lazy to carry it. 
I'f I had to pick one lens to use forever it would probably be the 35l. But thats to impractical of a purchase for right now. 
NO event client of mine would justify all that equipment. I all ways have full acess to everything and dont need to discreetly get shots. For a headshot I just see my self ever needing more that 135mm, but even if it was I wouldn't want to use it unless I was getting paid well. If its a personal project, 85mm is long enough for me. 



AudioGlenn said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## wildmudflowers (Jun 12, 2013)

That's amazing. I had no idea it was such a quick fix. I thought I needed to take my lens to the repair shop and spend a bunch of money to get it fixed. 
I hate the zoom creep. Thats my number 1 pet peeve while working. 

What $5 band?




AudioGlenn said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2013)

24-70 II is great lens for general shooting.

I would keep 85 f1.8 for portrait and sell everything else.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 12, 2013)

wildmudflowers said:


> 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
> ...



Yes. I would do the same.


----------



## vbi (Jun 12, 2013)

The great thing about the 24-70II is that it is sharp across all apertures - and you can't say that for any of your existing lenses. In fact, I doubt of one of your existing lenses can compare to the 24-70 at f2.8 - you would probably have to stop down to f4 or f5.6 to get sharpness - but not on the 24-70II. For me that is what it is all about. I can choose the aperture I want for the DOF I need as opposed to trading off sharpness (or lack thereof) for DOF.

So unless you are shooting in very, very dark places the 24-70 at 2.8 will do everything you need it to do while giving you pinsharp images. Can't ask for any better.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jun 12, 2013)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/834030-REG/LENSBAND_628586557901_Lens_Band_Black.html



wildmudflowers said:


> That's amazing. I had no idea it was such a quick fix. I thought I needed to take my lens to the repair shop and spend a bunch of money to get it fixed.
> I hate the zoom creep. Thats my number 1 pet peeve while working.
> 
> What $5 band?
> ...


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jun 12, 2013)

There's a link to the item from B&H (in my last reply).

the lens band proved to be more than a quick band-aid fix for me when I owned the 24-105. I used it in a way that way that was half on the barrel and half on the zoom ring and it gave a nice resistance to the zoom after a little bit of a break in period. loved it. it made it feel like new again. I'd try that first if you're relatively happy with the IQ of that lens. 

personally, I didn't like my 50 1.4 between f/1.4-2.6 so I decided to sell it and put the $ towards the 24-70 II. If you're using the 24-105 at f/4 all the time, i think you'll be super happy with the 24-70 at f/2.8. It's quite a bit sharper wide open. I found I used my 24-105 more between 70-105 which I why I actually got the 70-200 2.8 first. 

sounds like you got a good plan in your head based on what you want. I say go for it.


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 12, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> Personally - if you "have" to sell all that gear to get the 24-70 II then you can't afford it :-/
> 
> The 24-70 II is a great lens with great focal length flexibility, but without a camera that's exceptional in dark conditions - read 6D, 5D3, 1DX - you may struggle with low light images - check how many of your favourites are below f2.8 before making any change



every lens I've ever purchased was done so with the eventual intent to sell it. look at my signature... I go through lenses and bodies like condoms... well when I was in college.... 

someone tried to convince me the 18-200 was all the lens I would ever need... and I tried to convince then they were stupid. yes, our gear is redundant, so when you get new gear, some old gear will be sacrificed to non use.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 13, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally - if you "have" to sell all that gear to get the 24-70 II then you can't afford it :-/
> ...



+1


----------



## Grumbaki (Jun 13, 2013)

We get one topic like this per week. "should i sell my x/y/z to get the new 24-70L" Maybe there should be a sticky "Get it if you can really afford it, it rules". With an Oprah gif saying ëverybody gets a 24-70.


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 13, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> We get one topic like this per week. "should i sell my x/y/z to get the new 24-70L" Maybe there should be a sticky "Get it if you can really afford it, it rules". With an Oprah gif saying ëverybody gets a 24-70.



that is where I most contribute, because I love to spend other people's money. 

and honestly, if it helps someone make s right decision or they feel more comfortable with their decision, then I am glad to have helpedeven if it is redundant.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jun 13, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Grumbaki said:
> 
> 
> > We get one topic like this per week. "should i sell my x/y/z to get the new 24-70L" Maybe there should be a sticky "Get it if you can really afford it, it rules". With an Oprah gif saying ëverybody gets a 24-70.
> ...



I too am ok with helping people feel better about their purchase as long as it's the right purchase for their needs.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 13, 2013)

wildmudflowers said:


> When I say I shoot a lot of events. I mean a lot. *100 a year.*



If I photographed that many events a year, I wouldn't be bothered by depreciation ... or that much by purchase price. The gear would pay for itself within the first 6-8 months.


----------



## wildmudflowers (Jun 13, 2013)

I'm bothered by depreciation, or I guess I should say, prices. I'm not in a rush to buy, I'm fairly certain that there will be a sale this august on the 5d3 etc. With that camera and the 24-70 2.8 I think I can save $400 combined by waiting 2-3 months. I'll probably wait until christmas for the 5d3 and get a new lens this summer. 

THanks for all your comments. I think I'm going to get the lens. I'm just debating on weather or not I should sell the 50mm 1.4

It's nice to have a lightweight backup lens like that.


----------



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Jun 14, 2013)

Do it. The lens will change your work immensely.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Jun 16, 2013)

The 24-70 II is amazing, and it rivals primes.... I'd recommend buying it and keeping your 85mm 1.8. You'll have a low light lens, an excellent portrait lens, covering a bit of range along with the zoom.


----------



## wildmudflowers (Jun 19, 2013)

So I sold a bunch of unneeded gear and all I have left it the 5d2 24-105L and the 85 1.8 and $1127 and a flash

but know i'm doubting upgrading glass.


----------



## tphillips63 (Jun 19, 2013)

Well it's not like your glass is bad and since you shoot so much you will probably know in a few weeks at most if you still have that feeling of wanting or needing the new 24-70 and if so get it. From what I've read about it and following your comments in this thread you will use it well.
Especially if you are not using he flash, sell it to add to the pool. You know the 24-105 will sell very fast when you are ready.
In other words I think you really want the 24-70 and will use it and enjoy it and I want to hear about it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 19, 2013)

Now that I've had my 24-70mm MK II for about 3,000 images, I find my primes getting used less and less, I've kept my "L" primes, but they may go on the block by years end.
The new zooms do not have f/1.4, but the new cameras make up for much of that with their high ISO capabilities.


----------



## wildmudflowers (Jun 19, 2013)

tphillips63 said:


> Well it's not like your glass is bad and since you shoot so much you will probably know in a few weeks at most if you still have that feeling of wanting or needing the new 24-70 and if so get it. From what I've read about it and following your comments in this thread you will use it well.
> Especially if you are not using he flash, sell it to add to the pool. You know the 24-105 will sell very fast when you are ready.
> In other words I think you really want the 24-70 and will use it and enjoy it and I want to hear about it.




i need the flash


----------



## dylan (Jun 19, 2013)

I own the 50 1.4/24-70ii/135 2.0. In my opinion, the 50 1.4 is so razor sharp at 2.0 that I prefer it for most low light shoots and it's super light weight/size. I bought the 24-70 ii (after selling the brick) and love having it for the ability to shoot an entire wedding with just that lens (on FF camera). It's not just the practicality of the 24-70, it's also knowing your images will be sharp at any focal length or aperture. All this topped with super fast AF, the lens is almost a no brainer for run and gunners. Even though I have the 50mm on the zoom, I love having a sharp 2.0 and won't hesitate to purchase the 1.4 replacement soon.


----------



## wildmudflowers (Jun 19, 2013)

dylan said:


> I own the 50 1.4/24-70ii/135 2.0. In my opinion, the 50 1.4 is so razor sharp at 2.0 that I prefer it for most low light shoots and it's super light weight/size. I bought the 24-70 ii (after selling the brick) and love having it for the ability to shoot an entire wedding with just that lens (on FF camera). It's not just the practicality of the 24-70, it's also knowing your images will be sharp at any focal length or aperture. All this topped with super fast AF, the lens is almost a no brainer for run and gunners. Even though I have the 50mm on the zoom, I love having a sharp 2.0 and won't hesitate to purchase the 1.4 replacement soon.



I too love the 50mm 1.4 and also felt that it was great at 2.0, 

I feel a little naked without the 50mm, I allmost bouht the 50L in december when bnh was selling it for 1200 new i think. But I was busy and never got a around to it. I love the 50

for me though, the particular copy that I sold was just plain cursed. I've to repair it twice at $110 each time. 

I started the bidding on that lens at 99 cents and didn't look back.


----------



## a-hopps (Jul 20, 2013)

I sold my primes and a zoom for the 24-70mm f2.8l II. I liked the 50 1.4 and I will probably replace it with the 1.2 at some point. My 35 f2 wasnt anything special so It was worth cashing in on. The Tokna 11-16 never really got much use on the 7d, and since adding the 5d to the mix the Tokina was just collecting dust. I ordered a refurb 24-70 II from Canon for a good price so I think I made the right choice.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 25, 2013)

Do whatever you want to do - it's only money. If you find out you've made a mistake, sell it and move on.
No one but you knows what makes you happy.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 25, 2013)

I sold my 100mm f/2.8L is macro prime last week... and I miss it.


----------



## iso79 (Jul 26, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I sold my 100mm f/2.8L is macro prime last week... and I miss it.



You should have kept it! :-\ I sold all my primes under 85mm.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 26, 2013)

iso79 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I sold my 100mm f/2.8L is macro prime last week... and I miss it.
> ...



I'm going to get a 135mm f/2... and then I'm going to eventually sell that to get a 85mm f/1.2... so I'm not too concerned... 

I used the 100mm as a portrait and just a solid indoor/outdoor sports lens. I didn't do much macro... but I liked having that as an option. 

So after I get the 85mm... if I still have an itch for macro... maybe I'll pick up one...


----------

