Three lenses makes me crazy and I need advice

I'm a little pensive. To begin with, I use two 6D cameras. I own 17-40/4L , 50/1.8 STM, 90/2.8, 70-200/4L and 150-600 VC. I almost never use 70-200, it only takes place in the bag, it's Canon's cheapest 70-200 without image stabilizer. Something that I have never owned is a 24-70 lens. Now that I have two cameras, maybe it will be different, but earlier I was satisfied with just 17-40 as an objective to walk with.

I received an offer to sell 70-200 for a good price and think highly of the two alternatives that have come up in the brain.

1. Sell my 70-200 and buy the new Canon 24-70/4L
2. Sell my 17-40 to purchase the new Canon 16-35mm f/4L

- 70-200 can be nice to have in certain situations. A few times a year for me.
- Will I find that the 24-70 is unnecessary when I have a 17-40? Or will it be the one and only lens?
- I've been happy with 17-40 and wonder if 16-35 will be worth the extra money. 17-40 I only shoot with tripod in controlled situations and I've never felt to have IS.

I can believe that 24-70 with macro function can be a good solution if you are out walking with one lens only. The advantage is that 24-70 can take both landscape images + short telephoto images.

Where should I spend money?
Until July 31 it's campaign and I will get back 200 USD for 24-70 and 100 USD for 16-35.

Help me.....

Depends a bit on what you like to shoot, but in your situation I'd probably do the 24-70.

I have the 16-35 f/4L and love it, but I like wide-angle and often use it as a general walk-around lens. If you really only use the 17-40 on a tripod then the upgrade is probably not worth it (unless you spend a lot of time looking at your pictures and thinking to yourself "if only the corners were sharper...")

If you find the 17-40 is sometimes too wide, then the 24-70 might be right for you. It is a very useful general purpose range of focal lengths. A lot of people use a 24-70 or 24-105 as their main lens.

The 70-200 is a very good lens, but I suspect that the 90/2.8 and 150-600 can take its place the few times a year you would have used it.

so... feel free to check out my gear list, but without a doubt, the 24-70 f4 IS is my most used lens, even far more than the 24-70 2.8 II that I also have. that macro feature is a life-saver too for that 0.1% of time you actually need it.

i checked out some of your website (just clicking around cause i couldn't read it.) you seem to have a good range of stuff to take pictures of, so i would not get rid of your telephoto if i were you--i'm sure you've encountered those times that having a long range is absolutely necessary to get the shot. there is a huge difference between 70mm and 200mm. keep the tele.

as for the value of having a mid-range zoom... personally i find that there are 2 ways of using a lens:

1. finding shots for the lens (prime)
2. knowing what angle and framing you want, then selecting the right focal length (zoom)

i know when i got a prime on my camera, i'm only looking for shots that would work with that lens. the zoom is different--then you are free to create any look you want.

i would say one negative though--f4 on the 24-70 isn't a very shallow DOF. it just barely gets into that region when you can isolate, but not blow the background away.

I use 17-40 only on a tripod or at least 99.5% of the time. I have never liked or rather thought of the extreme edges, but the whole picture looks great and I have sold some and made photo books in large format without problems. Just think that I "want new" when it comes to 17-40 vs. 16-35.

Regarding 70-200 so I use it rarely, but when I sit in the hide as two weeks ago it would feel empty with just a telephoto lens and not two. I think it either becomes 24-70 or maybe a 70-200 with stabilizer or 2.8. Next month I photograph a wedding and then it can be good with 70-200. But then my mind that perhaps 24-70 + 90 would be a good combination for the event.

If I should notice a difference in the collection, I believe in a 24-70 or maybe Sigma 24-105?

Of the 2 options you list then option No2 is a no brainer. I did the same thing and, much as I liked my 17-40 for the 9+ years that I owned it, the 16-35 F4 L IS is simply a much better lens in all respects except price and weight.
Option 1 is more difficult! I sold my 70-200 F2.8 L IS (and 24-105) to fund a Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 and, for me, it was the right decision. The 24-70 F2.8 L V2 is much better than the 24-105 and I simply wasn't using the 70-200.
My photography seems to need lenses below 100mm or 600mm + with pretty much nothing in between - only you can decide on your personal needs.

Okay it's hard to me to say if a 24-70 lens will work good for me and if I'm gonna use it so much. I've never owned one. I think my 17-40 do everything very good up to 40 mm so the gap from 40 to 70, is it really worth so much money? I've sold my 70-200 tonight and now I will try to decide which lens it will be. The 16-35 gives me IS so then I maybe will use my UWA lens handheld too for more pictures. A nice thing if I own 17-40 and 24-70 are that both lenses use 77mm. It's a hard decision this.

If I buy the 24-70 I got it for 890 USD then I will get back 200 USD from Canon. And the money from 70-200. In the end I pay 380 USD for a brand new 24-70/4L lens.

If I buy the 16-35 I pay in the end (after selling 17-40) maybe 250 USD for that lens.

notimetochill wrote in post #17640783
Okay it's hard to me to say if a 24-70 lens will work good for me and if I'm gonna use it so much. I've never owned one. I think my 17-40 do everything very good up to 40 mm so the gap from 40 to 70, is it really worth so much money? I've sold my 70-200 tonight and now I will try to decide which lens it will be. The 16-35 gives me IS so then I maybe will use my UWA lens handheld too for more pictures. A nice thing if I own 17-40 and 24-70 are that both lenses use 77mm. It's a hard decision this.

If I buy the 24-70 I got it for 890 USD then I will get back 200 USD from Canon. And the money from 70-200. In the end I pay 380 USD for a brand new 24-70/4L lens.

If I buy the 16-35 I pay in the end (after selling 17-40) maybe 250 USD for that lens.

The 16-35 F4 L IS also takes 77mm filters.
If there is any way that you can try out a 16-35 F4 L IS then I strongly suggest that you do it. Whilst the 17-40L was never the sharpest tool in the box it does produce VERY pleasing images with (to my eyes) the best colour rendition of any lens I have tried/owned. On colour rendition I would say that the 16-35 F4 L IS roughly equals it but is noticeably superior in every other respect, even the screen on the back of your camera will show you the vastly reduced distortion and increased across the frame sharpness. In my opinion it is well worth far more than the upgrade cost - but that is just me!
As to going for a 24-70 - I think it was a better option for me - but for you? That is the real question!

I really like my 24-70 f/4 IS for walk around, weddings (the macro is great for details without a lens change), group shots, etc. I also like that it is fairly compact and lightweight, which balances very nicely on the 6D.

I can also sell my 17-40 and buy a used Tokina 16-28 and the buy a 24-70 ?

I have the 17-40L and the 70-200F4 L. I have never really used the long zoom and only tried it out. It is very sharp, but just sat in the closet, and still sits there. I am a pack rat, and too lazy to sell the long zoom. I keep thinking that I might use it, but never do. If you don't use the 70-200, and want to sell it to get more glass, that makes sense to me.

The 17-40L is a nice lens, and I can't part with mine. I tend to use it for travel. It is just too good to part with. I like the 40 mm on the long end. It is light and relatively compact for a full frame zoom. I have read the reviews, and if I were buying an ultrawide today, I would probably get the 16-35F4IS. The IS would be useful on a day out on a trip, when I want to get architecture and then take the lens indoors to a cathedral or museum. If I didn't already have and like the 17-40, I would certainly buy the newer lens. However, I won't right now.
I am not sure why there is interest in the 24-70 F4IS. I am not convinced that it offers enough more to serve as a replacement for a 24-105L. I use a macro lens for macro, and I would rather have the increased focal length range than the slightly smaller lens. The 24-105L is a good buy right now, and can be had at a very good price. You might want to consider it.

I sold my 17-40 and picked up the 16-35. If you only shoot WA on a tripod save your money. I like to handhold the 16-35 so the IS is important to me. YMMV

I won't buy the 24-105, If I do then it will be Sigmas. Now it's a good time to buy 24-70 cause the campaign give me money back.
I've always felt (after I left crop cameras with 18-55 lens) that I've never owned a normal zoom lens on my full frame bodies. I think I will give more space for street photography and daily photography if I own a normal zoom lens that are versatile in many ways. I can shoot many types of shots with a 24-70, I think?

If you don't shoot much wider than 24 and if you only occasionally do macro, then I would also sell both the 17-40 and 90 VC and pick up the 24-70 f/4 IS. The macro is quite useful and the lens is a joy to use on the 6D.

Maybe I will sell my macro lens but I want to try the macro mode first. The tamron 90 is a good portrait lens too

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17640933
I sold my 17-40 and picked up the 16-35. If you only shoot WA on a tripod save your money. I like to handhold the 16-35 so the IS is important to me. YMMV

I like the IS too although I mostly shoot it on a tripod and love the 16-35 f4 (and sold my 17-40) but I agree with this and the others in that unless you don't like something about the 17-40 I would not 'upgrade'. The 16-35, although a bit wider, is longer, smaller and lighter.

EDIT- sorry I meant the 17-40 is longer, smaller and lighter than the 16-35 for anyone else reading this.