24-70mkii or 50L and 24Lmkii

Right now I have the 50 and 24, but since I am not shooting much anymore (3kids and no time, besides taking photos of them.)

Would you sell these two for the 24-70mkii? I use the 50 90% of the time and find myself at about 2.8 or so. I can't tell if it is just me looking at a new lens and wanting it or it it would make sense to consolidate these two lenses.

Anyone do something similar?

I sold my 24L II very shortly after I picking up a 24-70L II. The 50L is just too useful to me in low light for me to give that one up too. I found myself using the 24L II mostly for landscapes, for the dramatic view, and for the sharpness rather than for its large aperture, so it made moving to the 24-70L II a pretty straight-forward decision. With the zoom, I get to keep all of the positive aspects of the prime, all while gaining the versatility of a zoom.

As far as the 50L is concerned, I use that one too often for its aperture and unique portrait rendition, so I just could not see giving that one up for a 2.8 zoom.

If you're up at 2.8 most of the time, it would seem to be a smart move. But there's something nice about just slapping on the 50 and going out. The 24-70 weighs a good bit more and is much larger.

You have the 17-40 as well. Do you find you use that at all over the 24mm? If so, then yu'd probably use the 24-70 instead of the 24mm. If you use the 24 more than the 17-40, chances are you'd miss the 24mm...

Personally, I'd find it hard to give up the 50mm, I love mine, but I've never had the 24-70 so not in a great position to advise! I'm in a similar situation of not having a standard zoom, but am currently thinking of getting the new 24-70mm f4 to complement the 50.

Looking at your gear list, I wouldn't do it.

General range zoom lens is boring imo unless you absolutely need the versatility such as for events.

Since you have the 70-200II as well, I think 24 & 50 combo already covers the lower range nicely.

Having said that, if you are using your primes at f2.8, then you are really not maximising their benefits...

Also if your primary subject are your kids, I don't see the 24L being THAT useful. Since you also have 17-40 to cover the UWA to WA, I would sell the 24L and just grab the Tamron 24-70 VC and keeping the 50L.

Thanks for the input. I think I might just keep what I have or maybe sell the 24. I originally bought the 24 when I had my 1dmkiv, but now it is usually just used for wa landscape shots. I could probably get away with the 17-40 for this. I really do like the 50 at large apratures and think I may miss it too much. Maybe I will sell the 24 and save up for some astro gear. Thanks for the input.

The 24-70 II is sharp, but it can't do 1.2 - 2.0 in low lighting situation. If you can afford the 24-70 II and don't need anything faster then the 2.8 I say get it.

I thought about doing the same thing but I really like having the primes. I also considered getting a sigma 35 to replace my 24/50 combo and sort of split the difference but they are great lenses so I have just kept what I have. IMO the 24L is one of canons best.

skater911 wrote in post #15787741
Right now I have the 50 and 24, but since I am not shooting much anymore (3kids and no time, besides taking photos of them.)

Would you sell these two for the 24-70mkii? I use the 50 90% of the time and find myself at about 2.8 or so. I can't tell if it is just me looking at a new lens and wanting it or it it would make sense to consolidate these two lenses.

Anyone do something similar?

in a heartbeat . it's that great of a lens and it does 24, 35, 50 and 70mms.

ed rader wrote in post #15788217
in a heartbeat . it's that great of a lens and it does 24, 35, 50 and 70mms.

My 24-105 does that and 85 and 105 plus it has is.

Tommydigi wrote in post #15788223
My 24-105 does that and 85 and 105 plus it has is.

if he had asked about the 24-105L and i would have said "hell no!" . there's a reason you can pick up a new one for $700.

The 24-105 is a nice lens and for that price its a great bargain to own but It's also older. In 6 or 7 years you will probably get the 24-70 for 1600.

I was really just making a joke or being sort of tongue and cheek by saying its not all about the focal lengths. Primes and zooms are different animals. No way the 24-70 can duplicate what the 50 can do and vice versa.

If I did switch to the 24-70 I would still want a prime in that range. At least a 50 1.4 or Sigma 35 just because I find primes are more fun to shot with and I often shoot for fun.

I have gone back and forth from all zooms to all primes to mixed setups... Currently, I am currently at the all-zoom stage again.

The thing is, it is hard for me to find a prime that is used enough to justify keeping with my 24-70 II and 70-200 II combo getting most of the action.

I guess if/when Canon releases that 35L II... That may be the one I really want... So I will start saving now

[QUOTE=Tommydigi;15788​262]The 24-105 is a nice lens and for that price its a great bargain to own but It's also older. In 6 or 7 years you will probably get the 24-70 for 1600.

I was really just making a joke or being sort of tongue and cheek by saying its not all about the focal lengths. Primes and zooms are different animals. No way the 24-70 can duplicate what the 50 can do and vice versa.

If I did switch to the 24-70 I would still want a prime in that range. At least a 50 1.4 or Sigma 35 just because I find primes are more fun to shot with and I often shoot for fun.[/quote]

sure. it's always nice to have a prime when you want something smaller and different but i think the 24-70L II will make you view zooms differently .

ed rader wrote in post #15788376
sure. it's always nice to have a prime when you want something smaller and different but i think the 24-70L II will make you view zooms differently .

Um care to explain?

Sure it's sharp, but it's still just a f2.8...:p

I for one have no intention to get a general zoom (I used to own a 24-105) apart from convenience.