24-70mkii or 50L and 24Lmkii

ed rader wrote in post #15788713
the 16-35L II was my most used short lens before getting the 24-70L II but i have to say that the 24-70LII is pretty much welded to my camera now. the 24-70L II + 5d III is a sweet combination. the combo really has brought the excitement back for me!

anyhow back to the 16-35L II -- it is the only lens i own that i will shoot wide open only if i have no other choice. i consider f3.2 wide open on that lens. but it still is very good and UWs tend to look sharper anyway.

The 16-35 II is one of the few I have yet to actually own at some point... I have used the 17-40 before (and I just bought one which comes tomorrow), and it is a good lens for the money. I have read mixed stuff on the 16-35 being worthwhile if you don't need the f/2.8, so I had a hard time spending for it. Especially with the 24-70 II for f/2.8...

What do you think of the great 17-40 vs. 16-35 II debate, putting aside the f/2.8 vs. f/4? IQ only.

Invertalon wrote in post #15788828
The 16-35 II is one of the few I have yet to actually own at some point... I have used the 17-40 before (and I just bought one which comes tomorrow), and it is a good lens for the money. I have read mixed stuff on the 16-35 being worthwhile if you don't need the f/2.8, so I had a hard time spending for it. Especially with the 24-70 II for f/2.8...

What do you think of the great 17-40 vs. 16-35 II debate, putting aside the f/2.8 vs. f/4? IQ only.

i think the 16-35L II is sharper but stopped down they are very close. for a walkaround the 17-40L doesn't cut it for me. it's another lens i won't shoot wide open unless i have no other choice.

i've owned my 16-35L II for five years (cost me $1275 gray market) and on 1.3 crop it was my walkaround. i think it's the best all around UW for canon FF.

I would especially being a dad of 9 kids you will get a lot of use over the summer from 24-70mm lol and switch to the larger zoom when needed thats what i do most of the time during the summer they like to run so one minute its a portrait the next its a group shot 20 feet away lol either way good luck ..

gojirasf wrote in post #15787944
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.

I did exactly the same. I too love the 50L so I kept it. The 50L and 24-70 II are very different for mine and I use them differently, so try complement each other well (for me).

I had the 24L II and the 50L and sold the 24 once I bought the 24-70L II. I bet there are many here who did the same. The 50L is just special and reminds me most when I had the 85L.

So yes to the 24-70 zoom if you want a "bag of primes" which is sharper at f2.8 than some primes at similar aperture. If you can affort to keep the 50L, please do. It render images very differently and I bet the OP already knows this.

Wow I got a lot of responses. To answer most, while I do shot at 2.0 or higher most of the time. I do really like the 1.2. With that said I haven't used the 24 much and then when I do it seems to be at f8-11 for landscape. So I think I am going to sell it and also maybe the 70-200 depending on the reviews of the new sigma 120-300 os sports series. Dunno. Maybe.