Selling 16-35 IS and 35 1.4 to buy 24-70 2.8 II, yes or no?

Just like what the title says. Is 24mm wide enough for landscape work? I love the look of the UWA at 16mm, but I find myself not using it enough. Will I regret selling if I chose this route? Please help me decide!

I have the 24-70 F/2.8L II, and use it a lot on my 5D III. It's a great
walking around lens, but find there are times that it's just not wide enough.
SO I just ordered the 16-35 F4L IS to go with it, for those times I want wider.
I thought about waiting for the new 11-24 F4L that is coming out but
it's going to be, too expensive for now Honestly, the best way to decide, is
either borrow or rent one, and try if for the weekend, and see what you think.

--Evan

Real tough question. I use the 24-70 all the time but the 16-35 not so much. Bummer is that I find myself reaching for the 16-35 enough I won't get rid of it or not carry it specifically in urban situations. Now, if you said I could only pick one of the three in your list it would be the 24-70 without question so I would say that I would go for it. You can always pick up a 17-40 down the road for pretty cheap to get the wide angle back in your bag. The 24-70 II is worth every penny you pay for it in my book.

I only have a 17-40 and 35IS. I wouldn't trade either or both of those for a 24-70 II. Well, unless I was allowed to sell it and pocket the difference from buying back my 17-40 and 35IS.

NO!

If I were you, I wouldn't. But that's me. I love the 35mm focal length and f/1.4 is very nice. I have the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art and it barely leaves my camera. I also have the 16-35 f/4L IS and it is incredible, especially for real estate, landscape, and shooting dances at weddings. I then have the 70-200mm f/2.8L, so I do have a hole between 35 and 70. So I ordered the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 just to have a cheap 50mm prime mostly for video.

If you're finding you're really needing something between 35-70mm, then the 24-70 is a great solution. It's a top of the line lens with ridiculous sharpness, great AF, and IS.

But I would not be satisfied with 24mm being the widest, and f/2.8 being the biggest aperture at 35mm. All depends on what you shoot.

okcomputer wrote in post #17428362
NO!

If I were you, I wouldn't. But that's me. I love the 35mm focal length and f/1.4 is very nice. I have the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art and it barely leaves my camera. I also have the 16-35 f/4L IS and it is incredible, especially for real estate, landscape, and shooting dances at weddings. I then have the 70-200mm f/2.8L, so I do have a hole between 35 and 70. So I ordered the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 just to have a cheap 50mm prime mostly for video.

If you're finding you're really needing something between 35-70mm, then the 24-70 is a great solution. It's a top of the line lens with ridiculous sharpness, great AF, and IS.

But I would not be satisfied with 24mm being the widest, and f/2.8 being the biggest aperture at 35mm. All depends on what you shoot.

24-70 f/2.8 II does not have IS.

okcomputer wrote in post #17428362
NO!

If I were you, I wouldn't. But that's me. I love the 35mm focal length and f/1.4 is very nice. I have the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art and it barely leaves my camera. I also have the 16-35 f/4L IS and it is incredible, especially for real estate, landscape, and shooting dances at weddings. I then have the 70-200mm f/2.8L, so I do have a hole between 35 and 70. So I ordered the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 just to have a cheap 50mm prime mostly for video.

If you're finding you're really needing something between 35-70mm, then the 24-70 is a great solution. It's a top of the line lens with ridiculous sharpness, great AF, and IS.

But I would not be satisfied with 24mm being the widest, and f/2.8 being the biggest aperture at 35mm. All depends on what you shoot.

I do love the 35L especially since it was my first prime-L. Lately, I've been interested in portrait photog and the 85 is on my camera most of the time. I just got booked for a couple of wedding this summer (first 2) and do need the versatility of the 24-70. Because i'm not using the 35 and the 16-35 as often, I thought I sell it to get the 24-70 and borrow my cousin's 70-200 camera combo. However, I love landscape photog as well and invested a lot in a filter system with NDs and CPL just for that purpose. I am not shooting as much due to kids, work, and biting cold Northeast weather. Btw, I'm currently a hobbyist doing small shoot on the side, hence the hesitation in investing in another lens. The wedding i'm shooting this summer is for a couple of friends and they are paid gig. Just wanting to get some experience.

Thanks everyone for your comments so far. Still undecided but I have plenty of time.

Perhaps you could rent the 24-70 for the wedding shoot. If you like it then maybe you may consider adding to your gear list. 35 and 85 focal length should let you cover most during a wedding but you'll need 2 bodies if you want to work quickly.

Doesn't sound like you should get rid of the 16-35 if you are going to continue landscape on and off.

I use my 24-70 much more than my 16-35. However I consider it an essential lens to have in one's kit.
It takes time (for most of us) to save up for and purchase gear for our kit.
Buy what you think you will use a lot and keep, then start saving for the next item.
BTW considering the cost a 24-105 might be worth looking into.

Tapeman wrote in post #17428617
I use my 24-70 much more than my 16-35. However I consider it an essential lens to have in one's kit.
It takes time (for most of us) to save up for and purchase gear for our kit.
Buy what you think you will use a lot and keep, then start saving for the next item.
BTW considering the cost a 24-105 might be worth looking into.

Agreed.

If you are comfortable with prime then your set up is fine.
Getting into wedding:
. Make sure you have back up for the long end just in case your 85mm stop working and back up for 5D3.
. Lots of Folks here shoot mainly with 35 & 85 for wedding. Keep in mind that they are experience wedding photographer, they know exactly when to be where so they have no fear with shooting prime only. If wedding is new to you, IMO 24-70mm is your bread and butter.

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is awesome. I use it most along with the rest of my kit. Gotta pick your battle, Landscape (for fun) or Wedding (making $$$$ for more toys)? 24mm is pretty wide btw, you can find out with your 16-35mm. Tape it up at 24mm and shoot for a week.
Have fun shopping

I have these three, but if I had to give something up, I'd first part with the 24-70II. This lens is technically superb (super sharp throughout the frame at all focal length), but you can't get that special look that the 35/1.4 can give you or the unique perspective from the 16-35 at the wide end.

Thorsten wrote in post #17428724
I have these three, but if I had to give something up, I'd first part with the 24-70II. This lens is technically superb (super sharp throughout the frame at all focal length), but you can't get that special look that the 35/1.4 can give you or the unique perspective from the 16-35 at the wide end.

That's how I feel about my 35 and 16-35. If only I hit that powerball last night.

Well, you state that you are getting more into portraits.
Perhaps the 100L or 135L used is a better option to pair with your 35L

The 100L offers IS

Here is one: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1418899

If I could have only one lens it would be the EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II. So I would do it in a heat beat. This lens is the best there is.
I use it more than any other lens and I have more than 20.