Upgrade to 70-200 IS II or But 16-35 2.8 II

I need help deciding, if I should upgrade my 70-200 f/2.8 to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II OR purchase the 16-35 f/2.8 II.

I currently have:

24-70L f/2.8 II
70-200L f/2.8
70-300L
100-400L II
100L Macro

Is the 70-200L f/2.8 worth the $1,000 upgrade?

I currently revamped my bag, so may thoughts were not one more lens or the IS II version of the 70-200.

Any thoughts???

Maceo wrote in post #18290857
I need help deciding, if I should upgrade my 70-200 f/2.8 to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II OR purchase the 16-35 f/2.8 II.

I currently have:

24-70L f/2.8 II
70-200L f/2.8
70-300L
100-400L II
100L Macro

Is the 70-200L f/2.8 worth the $1,000 upgrade?

I currently revamped my bag, so may thoughts were not one more lens or the IS II version of the 70-200.

Any thoughts???

Well, what camera body or bodies are you using? I'm shooting a 1D IV so I have a 16-35 f/4 IS instead of a 24-70 f/2.8 II though that is next on my list. I just bought the 70-200 f/2.8 II a couple weeks ago. I'm not a pixel peeper, per se, but so far, I love the photographs it produces.

Sorry I don't have an actual recommendation because I've never had version one of the 70-200.

I do see that you might be like me. I also have the 70-300L. I loaned it to our youngest son not long after I got the 100-400ii. It's such a nice lens, I couldn't bring myself to sell mine, esp. at the current used prices.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18290873
Well, what camera body or bodies are you using? I'm shooting a 1D IV so I have a 16-35 f/4 IS instead of a 24-70 f/2.8 II though that is next on my list. I just bought the 70-200 f/2.8 II a couple weeks ago. I'm not a pixel peeper, per se, but so far, I love the photographs it produces.

Sorry I don't have an actual recommendation because I've never had version one of the 70-200.

I do see that you might be like me. I also have the 70-300L. I loaned it to our youngest son not long after I got the 100-400ii. It's such a nice lens, I couldn't bring myself to sell mine, esp. at the current used prices.

I have a 60D and 1Dx MkII.

The 70-300 is my gem. It's a great size for traveling and outdoor venues where lens restrictions are strict.

16-35 would give you a completely new focal range, might open up some new possibilities for you.

Yes I had the 70-200 2.8L I (non IS) which was sharper wide open than the 70-200 2.8L IS
The 70-200 2.8L II IS is the best ever made, I doubt that Canon would make a version III as it's just perfect

I wouldn't waste my money on that 16-35 2.8L II, I sold it for the 16-35 f4L IS which is the best UWA has corner-corner sharpness.
Just see what's your first preference, events/modelshoots/wed​ding or landscapes

Another vote for the 16-35 F4 L IS - simply a brilliant lens at it's price! It would also give you a very different perspective/range for you photography. I love mine.

You also seem to have 3 lenses with a lot of overlap - do you really need them all?

I should have mentioned that I love my 16-35 f/4L IS as well, but with the 1D IV, I'm not getting the actual wide end. The field of view is somewhere near 20mm.

Agreed - but it does do it rather well