Looking for Suggestions, Lens Juggling

Hi all,
Current setup: 5d iii, 24-105 F4L, 50mm 1.4, 70-200 F2.8 IS II, Rebel T2i, 17-55 F2.8 IS

Dilema: Since I bought my 5d iii, I haven't used the Rebel hardly at all. I've also found that I barely use the 50 1.4 with either camera, and when I do I usually am not happy with the sharpness.

I've considered a few things. I would like to dabble in UWA so have thought about selling the 17-55 and 50, and getting a 16-35 L. Also, while I am happy with the 24-105, I am tempted by the new 24-70 2.8. I do really like the 17-55 and use it at F2.8 quite often (when I only had the Rebel), but now that I have the 5D, I just don't use it enough and I'd like my lens to be useable on both cameras since I plan to keep the rebel as a backup body. The things I don't like about the 24-105 are the barrel distortion at 24, and overall it just doesn't quite have the "wow" factor that the pictures with the 70-200 do.

I shoot a wide variety of subjects, from landscapes, to family photos and portraits, cars, and some sports. Both the 5D3 and the 70-200 have a major wow factor to me and I just love using them. I'm looking for the same feeling with the short/wide angle lenses. What would you guys do?

Thanks for any suggestions

The 16-35L has good potential for wow factor, as does the 24/1.4L and the new 24/2.8 IS. You will probably get a little better image quality with a prime than with a zoom, but the zoom is very flexible.

The new 24-70 looks great (I haven't tried it yet), but it may have as much or more distortion as your 24-105. The distortion probably wouldn't bother me, but you have to make sure it's not too much distortion for your needs.

Personally, I'd keep the T2i and use it as a backup or second body. I'd keep the 24-105L (I have one for use on my crop cameras). I don't like to sell my lenses, but if you don't like your 50 or 17-55IS, you can consider the 17-40L or the 16-35L to replace one or both of them. They will work on both cameras, and give you good results. Either lens will be useful on a T2i for normal views and wide angle, but will give you ultrawide on the full frame.
Have you tried microadjust on the full-frame with the 50f1.4? It should be a sharp lens on both cameras.
It is much better at f1.8 than wide open, but is useful wide open.
I happen to like the 50f1.4, but you might like the 35f1.4L for low light. If you don't do much of that, then the zooms may serve you well.

If this was me:

Sell the t2i
Sell the 17-55
Sell the 24-105

Buy a 16-35 VR2
Buy a 10 stop ND filter for landscape work

Good suggestions. Again, I think I'm keeping the T2i if for nothing else just as a backup body (and one I can keep the 70-200 on or a wide lens on while using the 70-200 with the 5d3. And Zach, I do need a 10 stop still! Some other small gear pickups I want to get are a OCN cable for my 430 EXII, and a cheap umbrella kit to start experimenting more with flash work.

Right now leaning on selling both the 17-55 and the 50, and getting the 16-35. What about 16-35 vs. 17-40, is there a big difference in sharpness/quality? The F2.8 vs F4 isn't a big deal to me with that lens as it would most likely be for outdoors/landscape with a tripod.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #15061434
Right now leaning on selling both the 17-55 and the 50, and getting the 16-35. What about 16-35 vs. 17-40, is there a big difference in sharpness/quality? The F2.8 vs F4 isn't a big deal to me with that lens as it would most likely be for outdoors/landscape with a tripod.

I had the 17-40 and didn't like it. If your 24-105 isn't giving you a "wow" factor, the 17-40 will be a let down.

I find the 17-40L sharp enough & a good enough performer in all honesty - As you say, you don't really need the f/2.8 for what you will use it for. I sold my 24-105L to get a 17-40L & I use the 17-40 more times per month than I used the 24-105L in 18 months......

I like the 50/1.4 & 85/1.8 for portraits - I still have my old 450D so I go 450D/85 & 5D2/50 usually on a major shoot. I also have just picked up a Sigma 70-200/2.8 but not really used that for portraits so far....

The second body does come in handy though. Portraits as just mentioned ^^ Landscapes/nature I will take 5D2/17-40 & 450D/100macro or car events 5D2/50 & 450D/70-200 if there is track action.....

I am consiering replacing my 17-40 for wideangle work. I tried the 16-35 Mk2 and, though it distorts less, I preferred my existing 17-40.
The only lens that seems to fit the bill for me is the 14-24 Nikon (sorry for swearing!). I have not done a proper comparison yet but it is widely rated as the best short zoom on the market so is well worth a look. The manual focus and apeture (via a cheap adapter) are simply not an issue on static subjects. I currently use a Contax-Zeiss 25mm F2.8 quite a bit for landscapes and simply set apeture and focus when I put it on the camera then forget about it unless subjects are closer than about 2.5 meters.
The Nikon is well woth a look - but expensive!

^^You preferred the 17-40 over the 16-35?? What reasons out of curiosity?

My 17-40L is quite a sharp performer. I dont think the 16-35 is really much better for landscape.... Unless the extra 650 is worth is to you for 1mm and 1stop of light. I spent that money on Lee filters instead. Though I haven't owned it (caveat). I reserve "wow factor" for primes usually though.

If landscape: 24 tse-ii (love this lens, pry it from my dead fingers)
If UWA low light/photojournalism: 24Lii or 35L
If trying to replace the 17-55: go for the 24-70L if you must though I will stick with my 50L....

Trust me the 24Lii and 24tse2 are in a whole different league for landscape. Beautiful rendering and sharpness corner to corner!

(Personal bias)

GuitarDTO wrote in post #15062357
^^You preferred the 17-40 over the 16-35?? What reasons out of curiosity?

Mainly the much better colour. I like the reduced distortion of the 16-35 and the better build quality. The 16-35 appeared sharper but my 17-40 is sharp enough so no real advantage here. The 17-40 simply produced nicer looking (to my eye) images.
There are quite a few people out here who prefer the 17-40, though we are probably a minority!

jerbear00 wrote in post #15062691
My 17-40L is quite a sharp performer. I dont think the 16-35 is really much better for landscape.... Unless the extra 650 is worth is to you for 1mm and 1stop of light. I spent that money on Lee filters instead. Though I haven't owned it (caveat). I reserve "wow factor" for primes usually though.

If landscape: 24 tse-ii (love this lens, pry it from my dead fingers)
If UWA low light/photojournalism: 24Lii or 35L
If trying to replace the 17-55: go for the 24-70L if you must though I will stick with my 50L....

What Lee filters out of curiosity? I'm definitely going to look seriously at the 17-40, it seems to be getting a lot of love in this thread, and I suppose I'd actually save money selling my 17-55 and 50 for the 17-40!

I just put up the 17-55 and 50 on Craigslist last night so I'm in full steam ahead research mode.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #15066856
What Lee filters out of curiosity? I'm definitely going to look seriously at the 17-40, it seems to be getting a lot of love in this thread, and I suppose I'd actually save money selling my 17-55 and 50 for the 17-40!

I just put up the 17-55 and 50 on Craigslist last night so I'm in full steam ahead research mode.

Much as I love my 17-40 on FF and 1.3 crop, try one against yor 17-55 F2.8 before you change! I read the 17-55 is a great lens - so compare the two first!
If you are definitely not going to use your efs mount camera then I think you will like the 17-40. If not then compare them first!