Sell my 24-70L for a 17-40L (and 70-200F4 maybe)

I really don't know what to do right now.
As you can see I have three lenses. I do not use the 50F1.8 anymore. I love the 85LII and 24-70 pretty much.

Next year I am going on a big backpack trip where I can shoot lots of landscapes probably. So I really want to get something wider and lighter. The 17-40L looks fine to me. I liked the Samyang 14mm. option but it doesn't hold my 77mm. holder for my LEE filters.

For that trip I can also buy and and take a 70-200F4 with me next to a 17-40. But I don't know if I would use it that much.

For some reason I don't like to have a FL overlap. And I don't like to spend more euros to photography (for now). So I am thinking about selling my 24-70. But everytime I see pics made with it and when I see the lens itself it looks so cool and good.

I want to buy a 35L too. But not that soon. So could a 17-40L Replace a 24-70? I can fill up the gap with my nifty fifty. I don't shoot on F2.8 that much with my 24-70.

I really have a mixed feeling about this. I can sell my 24-70 for 1000 euro's now. I bought it for just 780 euro's so thats also a + for selling it. But I still don't know. 24 is in most cases wide enough. And the 24-70 seems like a great walkaround for me. Maybe I will miss it sometimes.

I need some advise. I just can't make a decision (I've got the time, but I am thinking alot about it).

from the sounds of it, you really like the 24-70 and rarely go all the way to the 24 end, so how much would you use the range of the 17-40? Seems to me like your going to miss it if you sell the 24-70. If it were me, I would keep the 24-70, and if your looking for something wider maybe look into getting something relatively cheap in the wide angle prime area for those landscapes that you want to go really wide, or you could always just use the 24-70 and stitch images together in PS.

Or if your set on the 17-40 for the trip, you could always keep your eye out for a good priced one, buy it to use for the trip, and then resell it after the trip to get your money back. This is what I would do if it were me.

Bonbridge wrote in post #14822820
I really don't know what to do right now.
As you can see I have three lenses. I do not use the 50F1.8 anymore. I love the 85LII and 24-70 pretty much.

Next year I am going on a big backpack trip where I can shoot lots of landscapes probably. So I really want to get something wider and lighter. The 17-40L looks fine to me. I liked the Samyang 14mm. option but it doesn't hold my 77mm. holder for my LEE filters.

For that trip I can also buy and and take a 70-200F4 with me next to a 17-40. But I don't know if I would use it that much.

For some reason I don't like to have a FL overlap. And I don't like to spend more euros to photography (for now). So I am thinking about selling my 24-70. But everytime I see pics made with it and when I see the lens itself it looks so cool and good.

I want to buy a 35L too. But not that soon. So could a 17-40L Replace a 24-70? I can fill up the gap with my nifty fifty. I don't shoot on F2.8 that much with my 24-70.

I really have a mixed feeling about this. I can sell my 24-70 for 1000 euro's now. I bought it for just 780 euro's so thats also a + for selling it. But I still don't know. 24 is in most cases wide enough. And the 24-70 seems like a great walkaround for me. Maybe I will miss it sometimes.

I need some advise. I just can't make a decision (I've got the time, but I am thinking alot about it).

sounds to me like you're just better off renting a lens for the trip.
seems like you love the 24-70, so just keep that and rent something for the trip.

Keep the 24-70. I have a 17-40 and it is by far my least used lens, to the point where I have to force myself to get it out and use it. The 24 wide end on my 5D2 is plenty wide enough for 99% of shots. I also like to use my 70-200 f/4 IS for landscape as well, it is great for isolating a point of interest in a scene. The 24-70 (or 24-105) & 70-200 would be the 2 lenses I would not leave at home for any reason when travelling.

I'll echo those above. The 17-40 is certainly a nice lens, but there are many times where I wished for the FL of the 24-70 or 24-105.

17mm-23mm has its place, but for landscapes, it takes a little creativity/proper framing to make the ultra-wide frame really work. The 70-200 range is really not as long as it seems on a FF.

I'd say rent the 17-40, and then see really how much you use it on the trip compared to the 24-70.

Thanks guys! I think I can get enough use out of a 17-40L. My previous big trip went to Central America (Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatamala etc.) and I just took a Tokina 11-16 and 50mm.F1.8 that trip. I used the Tokina 11-16 for 85% of the time and could should almost everything. I shoot architecture too. And for some interior shots I need something wider. So I am a wide angle fan. But 24mm. is already 15mm. compared to a crop sensor. So that is already pretty wide. And I can sell my 24-70 with a 200/300 euro profit these months so that makes me think even more. And what I said, I really would like to have a 35L. The 35 could replace a 24-70 in most cases they say...

I do not like to rent lenses. So buy and maybe sell is better for me. Maybe I will do that.

17-40 is one of the cheapest L....just save up for it.

You will regret after the trip if you sell your 24-70 which you seem to like.

24-70L can be replaced by 35L .
I am a happy user now, though I still miss the FL of 24-70L, thinking to get a cheaper 24-105L to cover the FL

I shot with the 17-40L and the 70-200mm f/4L on both full frame and crop cameras and the gap between 40mm and 70mm drove me crazy when I was shooting with one camera and only slghtly less so when I was shooting with two cameras.

I settled for a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a a 70-200mm f/4L IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras and my perfect setup...

No, they are very different. I would save up and find a good used 17-40. FL is pretty similar but really very different lenses.

You say you hardly use 2.8 so you could probably sell the 24-70 for a 24-105 + 17-40. I know the 24-70 is worth about $400 more used then the 24-105. I would not worry about the overlap, you only mount 1 lens at a time so I find it to be an advantage.

This is not true, I don't understand why so many people say this on these forums.

As an alternative to the 17-40 you may also want to have a look at the 16-35. Not that the additional 1mm will make a huge difference, but it's a 2.8. When I go hiking, it's always in the bag, in particular for night shots (star trails, milky way, and such) and panos. Then again, you could compensate the f-stop with a bit of ISO increase.

I would absolutely keep the 24-70, or trade it for a 24-105 (you'd get a bit of money back) to have a bit more reach. On the long end, what are you expecting to shoot with the 70-200? Wildlife? Portraits (of fellow backpackers)? If not, I'm not sure I'd even take it on the trip. Consider this: Where would you keep this heavy lens while you're walking with your backpack. If it's in the backpack, you will never use it and it only adds weight. If you keep it in an extra shoulder camera bag (for easy reach) you'll be asking for back pain. Just my 2 cents.

bitblue wrote in post #14851098
Consider this: Where would you keep the heavy lens while you're walking with your backpack. If it's in the backpack, you will never use it and it only adds weight. If you keep it in an extra shoulder camera bag (for easy reach) you'll be asking for back pain. Just my 2 cents.

Chest mounted packs are the perfect solution for what you're describing. Gives you immediate access to your camera and/or lenses, offers protection and organization, and even offsets (slightly) the weight of the backpack. Check out some of these:

Mountainsmith
Clik elite
Thinktank

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #14851141
Chest mounted packs are the perfect solution for what you're describing. Gives you immediate access to your camera and/or lenses, offers protection and organization, and even offsets (slightly) the weight of the backpack.

I understand what you're suggesting, but those bags never worked for me, as they were too small for the stuff that I needed instant access to. Just can't store a gripped body plus three lenses/flash/filters. The Lowepro S&F system seems to provide a bit more flexibility. Downside: makes you look like Rambo.

bitblue wrote in post #14851667
I understand what you're suggesting, but those bags never worked for me, as they were too small for the stuff that I needed instant access to. Just can't store a gripped body plus three lenses/flash/filters. The Lowepro S&F system seems to provide a bit more flexibility. Downside: makes you look like Rambo.

Upside: makes you look like Rambo.

In your position I will sell 85L and buy 17-40 + 85f1.8 or 100f2.8