prime lens lineup advice

I currently own the 35L and 50L, paired with 5d2. I recently aquired the T-SE 45mm f/2.8 for a shoot. Turns out that I did not like it enough to justify spending 1350$ on it. Going to return it for a refund and it will free up that money to spend on another lens. I am thinking of adding the 24L to my lineup. But then, maybe I can give up the 35L and just use 24 and 50.

I mostly shoot with my 50L when possible. Decisions decisions.

Also, would I be happy with a 16-35 instead of the 24L? I shoot engagement sessions, weddings, portraits.

Thanks for any help that you can give.

A friend of mine shoots weddings with only her 24L and her 85L.

the 16-35 will be VERY wide on the wide end, and you probably won't use it for weddings. But the 24 is just wide enough.

People look nasty at 16mm, you have to be pretty careful to avoid the edge of the frame.

I went for 35, 85 and 135 lengths. Appears you like the WIDE side more and I the long side. To me, the 35 is really wide!

dave

I'd say go for it. 24 + 50 is a great combo. Someone on this forum uses those two lenses for weddings nearly exclusively.

You could even use the extra money from the 35L sale to pick up the 70-200 II!

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L

Canon 24-70mm f2.8 or 25-105mm f/4

How old is that statement about the 16-35 at 24mm?

I have a problem in that, I'm new and an amateur and I only want to use prime lenses now, outside of my brick. I keep thinking the 24L or the 35L will be my next wide angle prime, but too often get sidelined by knowing I have that focal range covered minus a few stops with my 24-70L.

Maybe I can sell a kidney and get a 200 2.0L.

Chips wrote in post #12201604
I have a problem in that, I'm new and an amateur and I only want to use prime lenses now, outside of my brick. I keep thinking the 24L or the 35L will be my next wide angle prime, but too often get sidelined by knowing I have that focal range covered minus a few stops with my 24-70L.

Maybe I can sell a kidney and get a 200 2.0L.

I just picked up the 24L and now I am feeling the same way wondering if I need 24L and 24-70. I mostly shoot for hobby, travel, family stuff and having both seems like a waste and I am thinking I should sell 1 or the other but they are all really fine lenses and the 24L feels light and small next to the 24-70.

As to the OP. I would get a second body and get something wide to go with the 50. 16-35, 24L, or 24-70 are all really nice so just go by the FL you prefer.

I'm glad I'm not alone. I think in the next 3-4 years my goals, gear-buying wise, would be to get the best quality telephoto prime, either the 200 or 300 first. I like the idea of only having 4 or 5 lenses, but having them be the best examples at that focal length, like the amazing USMC guy on here, ( forgetting his exact screen name at the moment) who is constantly blowing it out of the park, skill and result wise.