Hmm, should I keep what I have or go to these...

I have a 5DIII body with the following glass:

16-35 2.8L, 24-105L, 70-200 F4 IS, 50 1.2L, 100 2.8L Macro

All very nice lenses. I am not using the 50 quite as much as I thought I would, I could suck it up and just say "learn to use it more you idiot". But there's a nagging feeling there I could sell the 50, 24-105, and 70-200 and pick up a 70-200 2.8 II, and the 24-70 2.8 II for a difference of just under $1500 and wind up with 4 exceptional lenses.

Worth it? Or stick with what I have?

I am mostly a walk around guy, cityscapes, landscapes, but I also do some photography in dark places like in night clubs, hence the desire for fast glass.

On a walkabout you will miss the lighter 70-200, which is super sharp (usually) even with TCs. I would drop the 50 and the 100 and use either Canon TCs or extension tubes to do macros with either of the great 70-200 zooms.

I'd sell the 70-200 F4 and the 100L to fund the 70-200 IS II if you are not much into macros (i picked up those kenko tubes when i shoot details). I had a 50L and sold it but i'm getting another because i have a love/hate relationship with it; if the 50L has no focus issue (not user errors) then you should keep it to use in low light places like night clubs . I'd also keep the 24-105 as a walk around lens. Just my 2 cents

I do really like the 100 Macro, it's also awesome for people/portraits. I don't think I want to sell that lens.

I should add I do have a 1.4III TC and it works awesome with the 70-200. Is the 2.8 reallllly worth the weight? I'd hate to buy it, sell my 70-200 F4 and then not carry the 2.8 with me because of the weight and size. I suppose the 2.8 100L Macro does give me (although prime) a fast lens in that focal length range.

I really am kind of covered for what I need, no? Maybe I should do nothing and enjoy what I have

Another thing I've thought of was that for any video the 24-105 has the IS.

Ryan0751 wrote in post #15198480
I do really like the 100 Macro, it's also awesome for people/portraits. I don't think I want to sell that lens.

I should add I do have a 1.4III TC and it works awesome with the 70-200. Is the 2.8 reallllly worth the weight? I'd hate to buy it, sell my 70-200 F4 and then not carry the 2.8 with me because of the weight and size. I suppose the 2.8 100L Macro does give me (although prime) a fast lens in that focal length range.

I really am kind of covered for what I need, no? Maybe I should do nothing and enjoy what I have

Another thing I've thought of was that for any video the 24-105 has the IS.

You may have answered your own question/s. If your set don't worry about it.

Me, I need the f/2.8 but not everybody does for how they shoot. I have the MK1 and would not trade for a f/4 (even if it might be sharper).

If you like macro, then you know extension tubes will not quite substitute for a true macro lens.

You certainly have all the ranges covered, so it comes down to what you like to shoot and decide if the lenses you have are doing the trick. I dont love the 50mm focal length on full frame and it seems like maybe you dont either. Sell it for a prime in the range you do like, or perhaps apply it toward one of the zooms you want.

Ryan0751 wrote in post #15198480
I do really like the 100 Macro, it's also awesome for people/portraits. I don't think I want to sell that lens.

I should add I do have a 1.4III TC and it works awesome with the 70-200. Is the 2.8 reallllly worth the weight? I'd hate to buy it, sell my 70-200 F4 and then not carry the 2.8 with me because of the weight and size. I suppose the 2.8 100L Macro does give me (although prime) a fast lens in that focal length range.

The 100L is really good for portraits and macro but the 70-200 II is more "like of" combination a couple primes ie 100, 135 minus the macro job on the big boy, (and i'm excluding the 85L II. And it's def not a lens to carry around on every shoot imo, but once you put that lens pairing with the 5d3, you just dont want to stop shooting, AF is really fast and image quality are awesome!

jimewall wrote in post #15198688
If you like macro, then you know extension tubes will not quite substitute for a true macro lens.

I'm with ya... that's why said if the OP is not into macros much .

That is exactly what I did. Could not be any happier.

Do all what you want to do
But keep the primes

why don't you get a flash? I didn't see it in your list. It's very helpful for club pictures

I have been thinking about my next lens purchase for a while now as I have the 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f4L, 100-400L, 100L Macro and 50 f1.4 to complement my 5D MK III so my situation is not that dissimilar. I don't shoot sports and mostly shoot landscapes, architecture etc and walk around with my kit so weight is important to me. I have ruled out the 70-200 f2.8 as I know it would sit at home where as the 70-200 f4 I am happy to carry with me. The 24-70 looks like a great lens but I am unsure how often it would get used as the 24-105 has a greater range and IS making it a better general purpose walk around lens so I will end up with the 16-35L next as the f2.8 aperture will be useful for shooting indoor architecture.

If it was me I would think very carefully about ditching the 24-105L or 70-200 f4L for the 24-70 and the 70-200 f2.8 as this would leave me with a less than ideal setup if the intention was to regularly walk around with a selection of lenses. I would therefore stay with what you have but potentially look at adding a 24-70 to your line up when funds permit or selling the 50 1.2 to part fund the addition of the 24-70.

Neil

2loose wrote in post #15199408
why don't you get a flash? I didn't see it in your list. It's very helpful for club pictures

I have two 600-EX RT's.

I can shoot anything I want with 2 lenses and a 2x extender. Only thing missing is a ultra wide. As for the weight it is worth every ounce when I see the quality of the files. I carry these lenses all day long without difficulty. We are all different so you make the choice that works for you.

neilgcart wrote in post #15199410
I have been thinking about my next lens purchase for a while now as I have the 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f4L, 100-400L, 100L Macro and 50 f1.4 to complement my 5D MK III so my situation is not that dissimilar. I don't shoot sports and mostly shoot landscapes, architecture etc and walk around with my kit so weight is important to me. I have ruled out the 70-200 f2.8 as I know it would sit at home where as the 70-200 f4 I am happy to carry with me. The 24-70 looks like a great lens but I am unsure how often it would get used as the 24-105 has a greater range and IS making it a better general purpose walk around lens so I will end up with the 16-35L next as the f2.8 aperture will be useful for shooting indoor architecture.

If it was me I would think very carefully about ditching the 24-105L or 70-200 f4L for the 24-70 and the 70-200 f2.8 as this would leave me with a less than ideal setup if the intention was to regularly walk around with a selection of lenses. I would therefore stay with what you have but potentially look at adding a 24-70 to your line up when funds permit or selling the 50 1.2 to part fund the addition of the 24-70.

Neil

Hmm, ok. That helps. I do think losing the 24-105 and 70-200 F4 doesn't make a lot of sense given they are walk around lenses, and that's really what I need to do with them!

Is the 24-70 really worth it if you have the 24-105? I mean 2.8 is certainly wonderful.

I'm going to give the 50 1.2 a lot more love. Certainly there are people taking amazing photos with this lens. I guess I'm not really used to shooting with a prime (not since back in my film days in the 90's).

Or, is the 2.8 on the 24-70 so good at 50mm that I don't even need the 50? I should really stop and go take more pictures!

The 24-70 and 24-105 is a question I still haven't fully answered myself. The only way I think I would personally be able to answer that one would be to buy the 24-70 use both and then decided if I wanted to keep both or sell one or the other. Something keeps telling me I need the 24-70 but my practical side is telling me I probably don't need it. Either way it looks like an expensive option so if you are not missing f2.8 then I would be inclined to save the money.

Neil