Which 24mm lens to sell (in order to fund 100-400?)

I want a 100-400 II. Basically, I only have the money for one expensive lens this year but I recently went with the 24-70 f/2.8 II. Awesome lens, fills a rather important range in my lineup, but I am regretting not getting the 100-400 instead because I think I'd enjoy it more. So I currently have 3 lenses that hit the 24mm focal length, and I think one of them will be sold to help fund the 100-400:

- When I need wide, I grab my 16-35 f/4 IS. The big aperture of the 24L is useful occasionally, but the zoom has been used a TON more for wideness. Will not sell the 16-35.

- The 24-70 f/2.8 II delivers equal image quality along with zoom convenience. f/2.8 is obviously slower, but wide angle stuff for me is landscapes/cityscapes that aren't requiring the f/1.4. The 24-70 fills the role of walk around lens that is occasionally used for model/product shoot, so it's somewhat of a work horse lens (especially if I ever 2nd shoot weddings again).

- 24L II is one of the lenses in my collection that I have had the longest, so it has some sentimental value. Used for indoor, low light group shots in addition to occasional astro pics. The issue with selling is that the proceeds from an used, refurb 24L II will still leave me a good amount short unless I get super lucky and land a refurb 100-400.

Here's the kicker: I am still within my return window for the 24-70 f/2.8, which would completely fund the 100-400. I've been living without a 24-70 for 8 years up until recently (with help of 16-35, 24L, 50L, and 70mm of my 70-200), but the versatility of the standard zoom is really nice for walk around and quick situations.

I hate photography gear choices

Heya,

Sell the 24L II. You don't use it much.

If you want to get more into astro, a decent entry tracker will do far more than a few stops of aperture, and all you to use your 16-35 or 24-70 for minutes rather than seconds. These start in the $300~400 range for good working ones (SkyWatcher Star Adventurer) . Also, the Samyan 24 F1.4 is better than the 24L II for astro. So if you need that back, you just get that lens at a much reduced cost anyways (sharper, and better coma control which is more important).

For indoor low light and all that, you can use flash which is superior to just a few stops of aperture anyways.

If you're not already putting a lot of work in with the 24L II, then it's not the lens to keep.

Very best,

I love primes. I have almost never used my 24-70. Id sell that to get the tele-zoom you want

I'd sell the prime, but I am a zoom guy. The 100-400 will not disappoint, unless you don't use it.

Tough to say... I'm partial to the zoom but when I use the primes it always puts a smile on my face... but when I have the prime I wish I could zoom faster with less dust interference.

....translates to: gotta make your own decision people here are too biased and love to spend your money.

BUT... based on an equity standpoint which is how I invest in my camera gear/lenses I look at them all as rental fees. What would yield you the mimimal loss? Thats easy... return the zoom. Otherwise your looking at a loss later when you want to sell it.

From your description I would in your shoes sell the 24L and save for the zoom. This leaves you with 3 lenses you really want and will use rather than 2 you really want and will use and one you have a sentimental attachment to and may not use all that much

I can think of so many reasons I would prefer a 24-70 over my 24 but I never make the switch. I too have had it for a long time and I have so many shots that I love with it I'm almost afraid to sell it.

In your case if your sure you want a 100-400 and since you have the wide and middle covered I would get the 100-400 now and return the 24-70 and revisit adding the 24-70 later.

Since you can return the zoom without loosing any money, I suggest that you return it, buy the 100-400 and if you really miss the 24-70, sell the 24 to finance buying it again.

^ Agreed. If a return is available, that is your best financial option.

I love my primes.
But it comes down to your needs.

The 24-70 complements a longer zoom perfectly.

Whereas the 24L II wide open results in an image the 24-70mm is not capable of.

Do you use the prime wide open?

Thank you for all of your insights, it really has been helpful in my though process. Right now, I think I am going w/ returning the 24-70, but only if I can get a price on the 100-400 that won't have me paying out of pocket; the Black Friday/Cyber Monday CPW Street Price was perfect, but they literally went out of stock when I decided to buy last night

Anyways, my plan of action is to hold onto the 24-70 for the next week or two, and if a killer 100-400 deal appears, I can return it to Best Buy. Now, if a refurb deal pops up (which is a crazy deal), I'll keep the 24-70 and sell off the 24L II to partially fund, and not be too out of pocket.

primeone wrote in post #17802882
Since you can return the zoom without loosing any money, I suggest that you return it, buy the 100-400 and if you really miss the 24-70, sell the 24 to finance buying it again.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #17802905
^ Agreed. If a return is available, that is your best financial option.

I love my primes.
But it comes down to your needs.

The 24-70 complements a longer zoom perfectly.

Whereas the 24L II wide open is result in an image the 24-70mm is not capable of.

Do you use the prime wide open?

The only time I'll go wide open is for an artistic sort of shot, but for my style of shooting that leans more towards the telephoto end (50mm and beyond), I'm not grabbing my wide lenses all that often. If a wide shot comes along, I'm using my 16-35 f/4. Don't get me wrong, the 24L is one of my best performing lenses (super accurate + fast AF, razor sharp, beautiful bokeh) with a unique look when used wide open, but it just isn't used enough anymore.

The 24-70 range is super convenient, especially for model/product shoots because I am not having to change between wide/tele so frequently. Juggling the 24L/50L/70-200 gets annoying after a while when all I want to do is get the shoot over with. And since most of these shots are using flash, the 24L's bigger aperture becomes less relevant.

I think I have read some of your posts in other threads saying you were considering the 16-35 f/4? Awesome lens, I don't know why you haven't yet! It's a stellar walk around/travel lens, which I recently promoted to one of my "Never Sell" list

Little update on this decision: I'm in the process of returning the 24-70 f/2.8L II, and will be purchasing the 100-400 II

This will be the 4th time that I have owned/sold or returned a 24-70 variant over the past 8 years. Every time I think that I am settled on investing in a general purpose zoom, I always have regrets about spending the money on it because there is always something else more exciting that I want. In this case, with the type of photography I do, I know for certain that I will get much more enjoyment and use out of the 100-400 II.

A general purpose lens may eventually be added again, more than likely the 24-70 f/4 IS, but for the time being I'm keeping the 24L II. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is an insanely sharp lens, awesome AF accuracy, brilliant contrast and colors, but the price tag and heft for general walk use was a little more excessive than I am wanting (not to mention the lack of IS, but that wasn't as big of a deal). For my occasional studio/event shooting it's perfect, but it will end up sitting in the bag more often than not because most of my shooting is outdoors where the f/2.8 isn't as necessary; the f/4 IS version with it's macro capability and small form factor is the best choice for me here.

So my lens lineup will be:

16-35 f/4 IS
24L II
50L
100L Macro
70-200 f/2.8L IS II
100-400 II

Travel kit:

16-35 f/4 IS
50L
100-400

I would suggest adding the 24-105 as an all purpose. You can find it dirt cheap second hand, and you wont feel bad about it just sitting around and collecting dust.

That is how I'd play it. I have no interest in a 24-70 of any flavor. I'd love a 24L II, but can't justify the money. Seriously considering the less expensive Σ24 1.4|A, though.

look for a used one, I'm amazed at some of the prices I'm seeing.

Bassat wrote in post #17821120
That is how I'd play it. I have no interest in a 24-70 of any flavor. I'd love a 24L II, but can't justify the money. Seriously considering the less expensive Σ24 1.4|A, though.

Tommydigi wrote in post #17821132
look for a used one, I'm amazed at some of the prices I'm seeing.

Yeah, a 24-70 range zoom is great for all around (get the shot) use but it covers a focal range that I just don't consider "fun" to use, so keeping money in that range makes me feel regretful. When I buy a lens, it's for the long term, and I don't want to keep good money locked up in one around that I don't feel 100% about. I thought after a few years a 24-70 would have a home, but turns out I still can't do it haha

The Sigma trounces the 24L and does it while costing a good amount less. Even a discounted refurb 24L is costing ~$200 more than the new Sigma. Part of the reason I'm wanting to hold onto the 24L is that it's used prices are quickly dropping, so I'd rather just keep it

My 24L II is possibly my sharpest, best AF'ing lens (70-200 gives it a run), gives me astro capability, low-light indoor, and DOF artistic control. Might as well hold onto it.