Does this logic make sense??

Selling a 24-105L, my 'family day out' lens that seems to produce a fair few soft shots, and my 17-40L landscape lens that I hardly ever use, to fund the purchase of a 24-70 2.8LII, I can't see any downside other than losing some reach, well, I'm on a 6D so I can crop to get closer, and I'm losing 17-24 of range, but, that's hardly anything to worry about is it.

Make sense to you lot?? Please say yes

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #17721666
Selling a 24-105L, my 'family day out' lens that seems to produce a fair few soft shots, and my 17-40L landscape lens that I hardly ever use, to fund the purchase of a 24-70 2.8LII, I can't see any downside other than losing some reach, well, I'm on a 6D so I can crop to get closer, and I'm losing 17-24 of range, but, that's hardly anything to worry about is it.

Make sense to you lot?? Please say yes

Yes, yes, yes and yes again. That's exactly what I did and absolutely NO regrets.

I believe I had a 'soft' copy of the 24-105. I was never satisfied with it. Similarly the 17-40 which I found extremely soft at the edges. You will be able to crop to your heart's content with the new lens on the 6D. I just got mine last week and took 450 images at the local duathlon last weekend with it - straight out of the box. Almost every image was a keeper - I am so happy with it. You will be too - guaranteed.

Aaaaand the perfect answer Love you!

I was running the same two lenses and I was quite happy with mine. True the 17-40 is not the sharpest tool in the box but I love it's colour rendition and focal range. Anyway after selling my, virtually unused 70-200 I had a sudden rush of blood to the head and sold the 17-40 and 24-105 as well!
After that it was out with the card and the 16-35 F4 L IS and 24-70 F2.8 V2 duly arrived! Unfortunately since I bought them I have been doing mainly wildlife photography so I haven't used them as much as I should. However I can confirm that they are both significant improvements over their predecessors.
My 24-105 was fine but the 24-70 V2 is better in all respects for me. This is not a quantum leap as my 24-105 was very good but images with the 24-70 V2 have more life, are sharper at all Apertures, better looking colours etc. etc. The only two negatives are the larger filter size (if you use them) and it is quite a hike in price. It was worth it to me but maybe not to everyone.
17-40 to 16-35 F4 L IS. You may be happy without the 17-40 but I would strongly suggest that you do not try the 16-35 F4 L IS - even the screen on the back of your camera will show many of the improvements. At it's current price it is simply excellent value IMO.
I can't help feeling that you will miss the 17-40 at the short end but the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 is about as good as it gets in that focal range - but at a price.

I suppose it depends on who you are and what you shoot.

Your logic I am sure applies to you perfectly!

For me, I rarely pull out the 24-70mm, and use the 17-40mm range all the time. It's my most used non telephoto, and has been since I got it in 2003.

Like John however, I recently moved on to the newer 16-35mm f/4L Is, and expect it to be as constantly on one body as my 17-40 was.

Well, it wouldn't work for me. Some days my 17-40 is not wide enough, so I'm not parting with that. In your shoes, I'd sell the 24-105L and buy a 24-105 STM. Less distortion at the wide end, better IS, sharper at the long end, and will put $200 in your pocket.

As far as the 24-70II goes, losing 7mm on the wide end, and 35 on the long end, and giving up IS is worth that kind of money? If you need aperture, and don't care about IS, buy 28 1.8 and 85 1.8. Save yourself $1,000.

I expect to be the lone flyer on this one.

I had 3 soft copies of 24-105, finally gave in - with a great deal of reluctance - and bought a 24-70mm f/2.8. I haven't even missed the longer reach, and the image quality is stellar. No regrets whatsoever, one of the best decisions I've made.

Like John and Jake, I will also highly endorse the 16-35mm f/4 once you decide to go wide again. It's a beaut, but I gotta say I feel guilty about how little it's used now that I've added a Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye. That lens is more fun than a full grown man should be having.

Good luck!

All good arguments, but as image quality is paramount, I'll probably make the jump. I always imagined the 17-40 woul be my most used lens, and it was till I had kids, now landscape is a very rare treat, so a mid zoom of high quality is best for family photojournalism, street stuff when we're out shopping etc. I've no doubt I'll get the 16-35 in time, if I had the money, I'd get both tomorrow

Yep, 16-35 f4 and 24-70 2.8II are perfect siblings with one another!! If the "standard" zoom range is your most used one, makes sense to get the 24-70 first.

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #17721666
Selling a 24-105L, and my 17-40L landscape lens to fund the purchase of a 24-70 2.8LII.

Well, I guess you mean "partially fund" because the most you will get for those two lenses is about $1,000 USD.

That being said, if I could buy the 24-70 f/2.8 II for $1,000, then, yes, I would do it.

I'll be selling an X100s as well, well spotted

Why not look at the Tamron 24 - 70 2.8 VC? Seems like that would be a great fif and get you closer to a potential 16 - 35 f4 as well.