Thinking about a change.

I am considering (and at this point likely to) purchase a Canon 1GX II, sell my trusty 24-105, and buy a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II.

My thinking is: use the 1GX II for everyday/always have a camera with you stuff.
I presently use the 5D2 & 24-105 for that.
Upgrade to the 24-70 f/2.8L II.

I like to shoot wildlife and would then carry the 1GX II for unexpected wide shots, the 5D2 with 70-200/1.4x, and 1D4 with my 500 mounted.(Additional extenders handy.)

I am unsure whether the upgrade is worth it to me as the 24-105 is a good lens, although the 24-70 gets rave reviews.

The nice thing is I have time to think about it as the 1GX II won't be available for a month or so.

Also I am waiting to see what new FF bodies Canon brings out.

Heya,

Seems pointless to me to get the 24-70MK2, when you're just going to walk around with the 1GXII for the "walk around" stuff. So I guess it depends how often and for what purpose you use your 5D2 and 24-105 or 24-70. If you're just going to get the 1GXII for that, having a walk around setup on your dSLR seems pointless unless you know you'll go back to it for everything. Sounds like you like big lenses for wildlife, but you don't want to lug the big lens and SLR for every day.

I don't see a point in buying a $2k lens like the 24-70 if you are not going to use it exclusively for your day to day, since you'll instead be walking with the 1GXII.

If you're happy enough with the 24-105, just keep it and wait. See what happens over the next year, while you settle into the 1GXII and see if you're ok with that instead of the SLR for walk around. Give it time. Just because a lens gets rave reviews doesn't mean it's useful to your photography if you're not going to even really use it often.

Very best,

I have been very happy with the 24-105. It's big advantage over the 24-70 is it's greater focal range.
However if I get the 1GX II, the 24-105 would see little use.
My thinking is that the 24-70 would be a "killer" lens for landscape & portrait photography. I'm just not sure I would use it enough to justify the expense. (After selling the 24-105 about $1500.net)

I picked up the G16 when it came out and love it. I looked at the G1x and then decided on the G16. It was a close decision between the two. I find walk around outside I still carry the 7D with the 15-85mm lens, but inside venues (Churches, Colloseums, etc.) I find the G16 to be outstanding and much more discreet. I believe you will find the same with the G1x II.

I agree concerning selling to 24-105, you may want to wait a bit first, I believe you will miss it for outside/outdoors walk around use. I find I still get better image quality with the DSLR. Even though I believe my best pic ever came from the G16.

I'd do it. I just did something fairly similar by selling my 24-105L for a Fuji X-E1 with kit lens. I'm very happy with my decision. The 6D with the L on it was still too much camera for me on daily outings and the M didn't do it for me simply because I sometimes missed the VF and the better manual controls, the X-E1 filled the gap perfectly and I imagine the G1Xii would as well for you.

I personally found f/4 to be simply to slow for me, the only reason I used the extra range was to get a more narrow DOF, which you can achieve by using f/2.8 on the 24-70.

Tapeman wrote in post #16686916
I have been very happy with the 24-105. It's big advantage over the 24-70 is it's greater focal range.
However if I get the 1GX II, the 24-105 would see little use.
My thinking is that the 24-70 would be a "killer" lens for landscape & portrait photography. I'm just not sure I would use it enough to justify the expense. (After selling the 24-105 about $1500.net)

Heya,

Personally I think the 24-70 is good if you want a flexible lens. But I wouldn't call it killer for landscape & portrait. It's excellent. But frankly, for it's cost, I'd rather have a very good landscape lens that goes wider (maybe 17-40 or 16-35), and an amazing portrait lens like the 85m F1.4, or 135L.

Very best,

I have the 16-35 and do like it for landscape photos.

OK, I'll probably wait on the lens decision, and have to wait on the camera decision.

Who knows by then I might be a Nikon shooter

MalVeauX wrote in post #16687135
Heya,

Personally I think the 24-70 is good if you want a flexible lens. But I wouldn't call it killer for landscape & portrait. It's excellent. But frankly, for it's cost, I'd rather have a very good landscape lens that goes wider (maybe 17-40 or 16-35), and an amazing portrait lens like the 85m F1.4, or 135L.

Very best,

For me, the 24-70 II is indeed a killer lens for landscape - it's critically sharp across the frame right in the bread and butter landscape focal lengths. For portrait, I agree - I find it less useful since I tend toward 85-135 for portraits but it has it's uses there too.

Part of the/my problem is I don't like to buy equipment that doesn't get much use. With the exception of my macro, I use every lens I own at least once a week.(Maybe not the 16-35 some weeks.)
The 24-70 f/2.8L II might see very little use, especially if the 1GX II is good.