Would this combo be overkill?

I have a 5d ii with 70-200 2.8L, 17-40L, 50 1.4,

I'm debating whether getting the 24-105 would be overkill for what I have now?

I've also had the dilemma of going straight primes in the future, so this would be going against that, but that may be further down the road.

Adorama has a deal now so debating jumping on it.

You can pick 24-105mm for $800 anytime you wish.

To me, the 24-105 is the perfect FF walkabout lens.

I have pretty much what you have (FL) and I was debating the same thing but I want it mostly for travel when I don't want to drag the heavy 70-200 with me.

A question I'd ask is whether the "hole" in your lens lineup makes a difference to you. For me, there's no problem with just swapping to the 50mm and even forcing framing with that (zooming with feet) but obviously this can be troublesome and it is difficult to carry all of your lenses comfortably (and wearing a photo vest all the time is not for everybody).

If you find that you're able to get a lot of use out of just a two-lens combo and it's comfortable, you might stick with that (I would). If you're feeling you are missing shots or that it's too much stuff, you can try for the other lens. I would keep in mind, however, that it might just end up being another lens to add to the pile, because it doesn't replace a 70-200mm, or even the 50mm and 17-40mm, in my situation. For you, it might replace the wider lenses, and that 70-200mm might not be too much extra to carry around, or it might be left at home most of the time.

Its not the hole in your lineup.
Its what you want to walk around with.
24 - 105 on 5D II and 17 - 40 on 5D for me.
70 - 200 in the bag.

My take on this, is that once you acquire the 24-105L for your FF, your other lens usage would drop significantly.

I love the wide 17mm on the 17-40 on ff, but everyone says how perfect of a walk around the 24-105 is. But sometimes walking around while I'm out on the weekend I like having one lens with me and no bag (eg walking about the city w the gf) and sometimes the 17-40 doesn't have the reach I'd like.

I'm torn. I always thought (before getting the 5Dii) that the 50mm was a bit too long on the crop and would be perfect on the ff. But now it seems I see lots of people favoring the 85mm L on their ff. maybe it's more because of the optics?

Would I be able to get the 24-105 and sell the 17-40, I'm afraid I'd miss the 17-24. Ugh.

Another long term thought was to get rid of the 70-200 since I rarely use it now (not much sports shooting or anything that requires reach unless I use it for portraits) and replace it with a 135L

Can't imagine not having my 24-105L. In fact going away this weekend and guess what will be attached to my camera?

akakong wrote in post #14488051
I love the wide 17mm on the 17-40 on ff, but everyone says how perfect of a walk around the 24-105 is. But sometimes walking around while I'm out on the weekend I like having one lens with me and no bag (eg walking about the city w the gf) and sometimes the 17-40 doesn't have the reach I'd like.

Would I be able to get the 24-105 and sell the 17-40, I'm afraid I'd miss the 17-24. Ugh.

Well, why not keep both? Your situation is simple. The gear you have now, is for your photography work. Now in your personal life, you found a need for something different and luckily you know exactly what to get. So, just get the lens and you would balance both your art AND life. If money is an issue, then i agree, let go of the least used lens, i.e. the 70-200. Otherwise, keep it.

cfcRebel wrote in post #14488822
Well, why not keep both? Your situation is simple. The gear you have now, is for your photography work. Now in your personal life, you found a need for something different and luckily you know exactly what to get. So, just get the lens and you would balance both your art AND life. If money is an issue, then i agree, let go of the least used lens, i.e. the 70-200. Otherwise, keep it.

Money isn't really an issue per say, but my thought process was I could out the money to something more useful, aka another lens that would get more use. But you have a point, its not doing any harm being in the fleet.

Now what if I open up a 800-1k budget for a lens, what would you find to be beneficial to add to my lineup? I'm thinking a used 24-70 for 1k may be better having the 2.8. I know its a subjective question... but I guess I'm asking ones opinion with my line up. I think I'd rather have the 2.8 vs 70-104 reach

I shot with a 24-70 in my "newbie" days and it wasn't a great experience (inside, horrible lighting, etc) and now own a 24-105. I don't know how different it would be if I shot with the 24-70 now... but I can't imagine getting rid of the 24-105 and I just got it this week. (I have a 70-200 f/2.8L as well, so I've had good glass before).

the 24-105 is an f4 lens and the 24-70 is an f2.8 lens.
I would think the 24-70 would be nicer for all around purposes.

Jumped on the 24-105... Figure worst case if it doesn't fit me, used prices are going for the same amount and it can go to a better home at little to no loss

Congrats on the new addition. I REALLY like the 24-105's range than my 28-75's when i had both. f2.8 and f4 really didn't make much different for my shooting.