Sell my lenses in favor of the 24-70 f/2.8 ii?

I'm a hobbyist shooter, no paid work. Lately for my "everyday" photography I've been using mirrorless and lighter cameras.

But I shoot "events" about 1-2 times a month, these range from work functions, engagement ceremonies, birthday parties, etc., mostly for friends and family. For these I use my 6D.

My primary setup is the 6D with the 24-105, 35mm f/2 IS, and 85mm 1.8. And a 430 ex ii. I like it, it's a pretty versatile setup.

But I am toying with the idea of selling those 3 lenses and kicking in some extra money to get the 24-70 f/2.8 ii. Basically the best zoom I can get for that range, and I consolidate 3 lenses into 1 for a simpler kit that I don't use that often. That being said, even selling off my lenses I would still have to spend MORE money to get the 24-70 and I'd lose some versatility.

Would you do this, or should I stick to my current setup? Any other suggestions?

I think that you have identified the issue squarely. Each of the 3 lenses that you mention does something that the 24-70 II doesn't - IS (35); reach (24-105) and speed (85). It is a more versatile kit, but of course the 24-70 is a single lens, so your overall kit would therefore be smaller if you changed over.

I have the 24-70 II on a 6D, and it is an amazing lens - sharp, fast accurate focus, great contrast and colour rendition. I use my 35 IS much less since I got the 24-70.

If a significant factor in you looking to change is to carry fewer lenses and avoid swapping during an event, then the 24-70 II would suit you perfectly.

See my sig... I'm not the best to be offering advice...

I've always said though if money permits to own a short prime, longer prime and short zoom and longer zoom. I always recommend a 35/85 and a 70-200 with either a 24-xx zoom or an 17-40/16-35 for the wide zoom.

With 4 lenses you will have an amazing kit. However your wanting to sell all your lenses AND put money toward only one zoom???

If it was me I'd keep the 35/85 for sure and the zoom isn't hurting anything.

Rent one for a week first?

Talley wrote in post #17197803
See my sig... I'm not the best to be offering advice...

I've always said though if money permits to own a short prime, longer prime and short zoom and longer zoom. I always recommend a 35/85 and a 70-200 with either a 24-xx zoom or an 17-40/16-35 for the wide zoom.

With 4 lenses you will have an amazing kit. However your wanting to sell all your lenses AND put money toward only one zoom???

If it was me I'd keep the 35/85 for sure and the zoom isn't hurting anything.

As I understood OP's post, he only uses his 6D kit for events, and uses mirorless/lighter bodies for everyday shooting, so is looking for specific advice about his 6D event kit.

Otherwise, I agree entirely with your comments - except that my longer prime is a 100L.

I currently use a 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 1.4 and 100 2 on my 6D. The cost alone of the 24-70 II will keep me out of that lens, to say nothing of the slower aperture. I have Tamron 28-75 if I need a zoom. It doesn't get used very much.

That said, I am eagerly awaiting reviews of the 24-105 STM. MTF looks promising. It offers more range than my 28-75, and IS. If I sell my 28-75 and my 28-135, I can almost cover the cost of the STM.

i was just yesterday looking at upgrading my tamron vc to the canon version knowing that it is a bit sharper. One look at the price of the canon with no is helped me very quickly to see that the tamron was here to stay. Since your not getting paid for anything and in reality us hobbyists/pixel peepers are really yhe only ones that can tell a difference when viewing at above 100%, i say just stick with what you have.

elitejp wrote in post #17198087
i was just yesterday looking at upgrading my tamron vc to the canon version knowing that it is a bit sharper. One look at the price of the canon with no is helped me very quickly to see that the tamron was here to stay. Since your not getting paid for anything and in reality us hobbyists/pixel peepers are really yhe only ones that can tell a difference when viewing at above 100%, i say just stick with what you have.

I've been having similar thoughts, although the itch to grab the 24-70II is not for the extra (and perhaps negligible sharpness), but rather for the improved AF consistency and speed in low-light situations. The Tamron is very good at just about everything, but the Canon is noticeably more accurate during my 2-day comparison.

mannetti21 wrote in post #17198102
I've been having similar thoughts, although the itch to grab the 24-70II is not for the extra (and perhaps negligible sharpness), but rather for the improved AF consistency and speed in low-light situations. The Tamron is very good at just about everything, but the Canon is noticeably more accurate during my 2-day comparison.

This. I need "goto" lenses. If I cannot get that out of a lens then I tend not to use it. I just sold my Tamron 24-70. The lens was super stellar using the center point and 5D3 but I was starting to have issues with the outer points.

I remember when I had the 24-70 II that it never missed a beat.

Again... I need goto lenses and that requires nothing but the best AF consistency. My 120-300 is a goto lens. it always nails it. Same for the 35. The 85 I have had some issues but it's not bad. I usually do OK having a few throw aways with it.

If you don't need the extra stop and little bit extra reach, go for it. I essentially did similar. I had a 24-105 and 24-70 I, and had an 85. I never had a 35. I shoot a lot of sports, and the 24-70 II has been a great lens.

I have a 24-70 mk I and am completely happy with it. If I could justify the mk II I'm sure I would be even happier. Nonetheless, it and my 70-200 cover the vast majority of my needs. I will probably pick up a 24-105 to fill in the occasional need for a good walkaround lens for the 5D3, but I shoot all my sports now with the other 2 lenses. I haven't tried every alternative, but they have the best AF of any lenses I've ever used.

I considered the Tamron, but have talked to too many people locally who have had defective copies (yes, plural).

I have the 24-70/2.8ii and the two primes you mentioned. If I had to choose, I'd rather sell the zoom than these two primes. The 35IS and the 85/1.8 are among my favorite lenses. I use them pretty much for walk-around (either one or the other, depending on my mood). I love the rendering, the subject isolation at f/1.8 or f/2, and the fact that they are practically weightless. The zoom is my event lens at my kids' school for when I don't have time to change lenses. As optically perfect as it is, I would never dream of carrying around that beast unless I have to. So think long about it.

Unless you feel your kit is lacking, I wouldn't mess with it. If you really want to be sure, rent the 24-70m2 for an event and see if it does everything you need it to. Specifically, you'd be giving up a stop which can be very valuable in low light events where you can't use flash.

I sold my 24-105 and bought a 24-70 II and I couldn't be happier. There is a noticeable improvement in sharpness and bokeh. For me it was a worthwhile upgrade.

Would any of you guys consider selling the 24-105 to get the Tamron 24-70 in my situation? And keep my Canon primes?