24L mk I or 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS

I'm looking at purchasing either of these lenses used. It looks like they're around the same price. As you can see from my signature, I am covered from 17mm to 105mm. The primary use for both of these lenses would be cityscape and landscape purposes. Although the 24L would serve as a walk around lens in addition to star/night sky lens. The 70-200 would mean I'm covered up to 200mm and since the filter thread for both is 77mm, I'm able to use my assortment of CPL, ND, and graduated ND filters. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS version is not an option since it's out of my price range. I'm leaning a bit more toward the 24L, but I would love to hear opinions specifically for those that use/used both lenses for city/landscape photography.

Personally since you have 24mm covered by two lenses already I would go 70-200. Also if you plan to shoot city/wide you have 2 lenses that can do so and even the TS-E can as well. So do you want 4 lenses to do one job or have options to what you want to shoot.

nburwell wrote in post #15560721
I'm looking at purchasing either of these lenses used. It looks like they're around the same price. As you can see from my signature, I am covered from 17mm to 105mm. The primary use for both of these lenses would be cityscape and landscape purposes. Although the 24L would serve as a walk around lens in addition to star/night sky lens. The 70-200 would mean I'm covered up to 200mm and since the filter thread for both is 77mm, I'm able to use my assortment of CPL, ND, and graduated ND filters. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS version is not an option since it's out of my price range. I'm leaning a bit more toward the 24L, but I would love to hear opinions specifically for those that use/used both lenses for city/landscape photography.

70-200 2.8 non-IS since you get import focal range added (for what you intend to shoot I'd think 70-200 f/4 IS might make even more sense though, maybe even the 70-300L)

24-105 has a sort of weak 24mm on FF but the 24 1.4 I wasn't the most amazing 24mm prime, I'd sooner go for the 24 2.8 IS since the 24-70 II and 24 1.4 II cost too much (although selling the 24-105 and then getting 24-70 II....)

you might want to wait on the samyang 24mm T&S, that can do neat tricks for landscapes and city stuff that no other type of lens can do, perhaps it will be a great samayng lens? worth a wait at this point

I couldn't live without my 24L, and it's a version I. I've never had the 70-200, but my vote is 24L. 24L and 50 1.4 are almost all I need.

Thanks for the replies so far. The thing with the 70-200 is that I used to own the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and I found since I'm covered up to 105mm, I didn't really pull the 70-200 out all that often. If anything, I tend to shoot more on the WA end. I have thought about picking up another 70-200 f/4 (IS or non-IS), but I'm afraid it will yet again sit in my bag more often than not.