16-35, 35, 50 and 85... would you trade one for the 24?

Trying to figure out what I want to do here. I have a chance to trade with a forum member here one of my lenses for the 24. It's definitely not going to be the 85, but I really don't know about the others. There are pros and cons everywhere - I like the wide option of the 16-35 for when I need it, the 35 is really useful for events, there's minimal distortion with the 50 and I've created some very nice shots with it.

This person is eye-ing the 50. Thoughts?

Oh yeah - This is mostly a general purpose lineup. Photography is not paying any bills, just creating them. But it does make for some great vacation photos and I fill in at cultural events, martial arts, a couple of weddings and run of the mill family stuff.

I personally would trade the 35mm. I don't use that focal length much. However, some folks use it 95% of the time. Prime lens focal length is so subjective

24 2.8, or 24 1.4? I'd let my 50 1.4 go for a 24 1.4 in a minute.

50L and 24L.

Wow... I definitely don't envy you right now! This is a tough choice.

Between the 35 or the 50, I'd trade the one you shoot with the least. Both are "normal" lenses, and one of them should suit you better.

I own the 16-35, 24L and 50L. When I go out shooting, I always take the 50L, and then it's a toss up between the 16-35 and 24. Depends on if I want the width of 16mm + versatility of a zoom, or do I want the f/1.4 prime for a unique look. Both lenses have an use for me, so it'd be hard choosing between the two of them.

For general run of the mill stuff... why would you give up the versatility of the 16-35 L II for a prime that is only somewhat better in sharpness at the corners?

2 f-stops? If you were into astro, maybe would be ok.

Subject isolation? In 24 mm, I have no experience but I don't think so. You'd have to get pretty close and the perspective distortion would limit the choice of subjects.

GAS? Oh well...

MakisM1 wrote in post #17481331
For general run of the mill stuff... why would you give up the versatility of the 16-35 L II for a prime that is only somewhat better in sharpness at the corners?

GAS? Oh well...

Obvious pros and cons to each not so concerned about one lens over another... Just overall kit utility. I'm leaning toward not needing anything new at this point.

Aren't we all susceptible to GAS at some point or another? An offer to trade came up so I'm contemplating it. I'm also thinking of selling the 2nd body since I don't shoot events much anymore... And a fuji wold be more convenient to carry around daily. I was sober for a year - didn't buy any new gear.

looks like you didn't do it.
are you happy?
what is GAS anyhow?

Nope. I didn't do it. I'm pretty happy with the current line up. I don't use the 16-35 for the 35... I use it when I want to go wide. For "normal" shots, I shoot with the 35. It's an easy walkaround lens when I want to carry nothing else. I still like the look of the 50 and I don't need to justify the 85 =).

GAS is the abbreviation for what some have coined "Gear Acquisition Syndrome." Early on in the hobby, I was buying and selling and trading... not focusing enough on photography. I've reached a plateau and don't need much more beyond what I already have. New bodies and the latest mark lenses don't entice me anymore. Maybe because with this new forum format I put the gear discussions to be listed at the very bottom of the main page.

excellent update, thank you so much.

GAS, wow. that is me.
I just added the 85L back into my lineup after a year away.
I was thinking about removing a lens from my kit, maybe the 50L or the 24-70Lii.
Too much gear annoys me. It seems wasteful, and makes it challenging to pack for trips, gigs, etc.

However, part of me says: keep it all. I've worked hard to be able to afford it all.
It's all paid for.
Just keep it. this way I stop wasting time thinking/researching/w​ondering, and just shoot, as you said.

Dj R wrote in post #17656336
excellent update, thank you so much.

GAS, wow. that is me.
I just added the 85L back into my lineup after a year away.
I was thinking about removing a lens from my kit, maybe the 50L or the 24-70Lii.
Too much gear annoys me. It seems wasteful, and makes it challenging to pack for trips, gigs, etc.

However, part of me says: keep it all. I've worked hard to be able to afford it all.
It's all paid for.
Just keep it. this way I stop wasting time thinking/researching/w​ondering, and just shoot, as you said.

I agree with keep it all. So far this year I have repurchased 3 lenses that I used to own. 135L, 85 1.8, and (no laughing!) the 18-55, although this copy is STM, not IS II.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17656346
I agree with keep it all.

I don't think I agree with that. Rather, I think I should "keep what makes sense." For you, if your lineup makes (logical and economical) sense, then that's what you should have. It doesn't make much logical sense for me to hold onto my 85/1.8, so I'll be selling it soon. It also doesn't make economical sense for me to sell my 70-200 and get the mk II.

At this point in the game, I think I'm going to hold onto my L lenses until they break. I may add to the list, but I won't sell. The other upside to all this is that, now that I've made up my mind, I don't need to worry about babying my lenses to protect them from every environmental hazard. I needn't worry about resale value of a lens that has a few scratches on its body.

I like battleworn possessions, anyway. I was never the kid who tried to keep his new, white kicks white. I've seen some people wear plastic bags over their basketball shoes when it rains. Crazy.

I digressed.

I may add the 24 to my lineup later down the line after I've resolved some other financial matters. I just turned 35. I think before I'm 50, I'll have a 200/2, a 135 and a tilt-shift (or similar lenses along these lines). I think those 3 take priority over a 24 at this time in my mind.

I have all 4 lens you mentioned and dont have a 24 prime......does that tell you anything ?

The 24 is a great lens but I've often thought about replacing it with a 2.8 zoom or 35L ( to be more practical ) but I find, strangely enough, its my most used lens. I will say I've used it a lot on my 60D to give the look of a 35L but on FF its very unique and often very useful. Especially for travel.

I do not think its a replacement for an UW and maybe something that covers the 24mm FL at 2.8 would suffice but I really like having it.

All that being said I'm sure if I had the 16-35 2.8 and a 35L I would probably be happy with that too :-}

umphotography wrote in post #17657403
I have all 4 lens you mentioned and dont have a 24 prime......does that tell you anything ?

Time to buy a 24mm?!?