Sell 24-105 for 16-35 II? Bad move?

Would like to hear thoughts and opinions on this.
I'm thinking of selling my 24-105 (+ a 50 prime possibly) to fund a 16-35, I just want something a bit wider again as I used to have a 17-40.

Not sure if I should save up and keep the 24-105, or just sell it? It is just such a convenient range - although f/4 can be limiting when shooting indoors so I usually use something else then. My concern is I might regret not having it, currently have: Sigma 50, Zeiss 50, 100L, 70-200 2.8, 300 f4.

I think in the long term you will regret the sale. I've owned and used mine extensively for 6 years on a 5Dc. You are absolutely right about that convenient 24-105 range. And you have even better high ISO handling with your 5DII. Mine is used a great deal for weddings, walkaround, landscape and misc. other uses. I love it.

sapearl wrote in post #14522306
I think in the long term you will regret the sale. I've owned and used mine extensively for 6 years on a 5Dc. You are absolutely right about that convenient 24-105 range. And you have even better high ISO handling with your 5DII. Mine is used a great deal for weddings, walkaround, landscape and misc. other uses. I love it.

Thanks for your input! I think I don't really want to let any of my lenses go, but just want to add to the collection, hence why I have 2 50mm .

Bilderknipser wrote in post #14522319
Thanks for your input! I think I don't really want to let any of my lenses go, but just want to add to the collection, hence why I have 2 50mm .

You are very welcome Mom . Is there some reason you have the two 50's? I'd imagine the Zeiss is significantly sharper.

Seriously these two lenses are pretty much covering different focal length with different purposes . They should be working together, not selling one and funding the other...

sapearl wrote in post #14522341
You are very welcome Mom . Is there some reason you have the two 50's? I'd imagine the Zeiss is significantly sharper.

I've put the Sigma up for sale before and had no interest so I just kept it. Now I use it whenever I'm too lazy to manual focus with the Zeiss. Both of them are outstanding lenses and I'm happy with the results. I have no hoarding tendencies until it comes to my camera gear.

Carmen

kin2son wrote in post #14522359
Seriously these two lenses are pretty much covering different focal length with different purposes . They should be working together, not selling one and funding the other...

Thanks for your input as well! Good point, sometimes I just wonder if I have too many lenses already and I should replace instead of adding..

Don't rob Peter to pay Paul. Save up and add the 16-35 to your 24-105 L.

I have both and I can tell you that I am not too impressed with the 16-35. In no way shape or form can I see myself giving up the 24-105 for the 16-35. If I had to do it again, I would have gotten something like the Zeiss 21mm. I have been using the 16-35 more often recently as a video lens, and for that it is pretty nice, but then again the 21mm would have been probably nicer. It is just that at 16-35 you won't be using the zoom or at least I don't ... I feel I would be just as good off with a prime and thus why not get the improved quality of a prime image. The 24-105 is really the best all around lens, and I can't see any lens beating it except if Canon came out with a nice 24-70 f2.8 with IS. Obviously I am assuming you are using FF.

By the way, don't get rid of the 50mm! I have a 50 f1.4 and it is just amazing when there is hardly any light and you don't want to use a flash or if you are using passive bounce flash.

I had both of them, but no I have none of them

If I would but one of them again, honestly I would re-buy 17-40 f4L and have some spare cash for another lens. 16-35 2.8LII is a nice UWA-zoom, but none of the UWA zooms are perfectly sharp, for this I would go prime.

Canon 20 2.8, 15 2.8 fisheye (with barrel distortion correction if needed) are great price/quality. Don't miss any UWA/standardzooms as I have 70-200 2.8L II if needed best IQ.

Canon 16-35mm f2.8 II is a great lens like 24-70mm but i need zoom like 24-70. I have 50mm and 85mm for wide angle which is enough for me. 16-35mm is too wide for me.

Nick5 wrote in post #14522976
Don't rob Peter to pay Paul. Save up and add the 16-35 to your 24-105 L.

I agree, if you can keep both lens. They both have a purpose and will serve you well.


I am after a 16mm for my 5d2 at the moment, but want to keep my 105

keep your 24-105 and save up for the 16-35, i have both of them and will not sell them on

i am looking for the 70-200 now to go with them


here are 2 photo's with the 16-35 for you
First photo
Tv 1/250,ISO Speed 100, Focal Length 16.0mm, Av 8.0.
Second Photo
Tv 1/200, ISO Speed 100, Focal Length 16.0mm, Av 7.1.

thken last weekend

Don't do it.

If you want wide, the. 17-40 for the money is far better, and with higher ISOs around the one stop difference is worth nothing.

Besides, the corners on the 16-35 are mush and the barrel distortion is massive.

Thanks everyone! I'm keeping the 24-105! Definitely food for thought and I'm not rushing out to buy until I'm sure, I might just go back to the 17-40..