What should I sell to get a 16-35 f/4?

I've blown my gear budget for the year, but still want the 16-35 f/4. Would hope to pick up either a used copy or refurbished if one pops up again. I want the wide angle for foreground in landscape, some interiors and in the city. I'm going to Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum next month and will be in Boston next year.

I'm planning on selling my 10-18, 11-22 ef-m, 18-55 ef-m, and my 40mm, but that's not enough.

So, to get closer, I'm considering selling my SL1, my 24mm, and my 55-250. That would leave me without a lightweight option, but while I like that combo's weight, the IQ and AF on my 6d2 is just so much better.

I'm keeping the 6d2, 24-105, 70-300, 100-400, 14mm, 50mm, and 100mm macro. I would also keep my eos m and the 22mm, it's banged up and I probably wouldn't be able to get much for it.

So, what do you think? Talk me out of it? Or hold my beer and watch this?

repete7 wrote in post #18472076
I'm planning on selling my 10-18, 11-22 ef-m, 18-55 ef-m, and my 40mm, but that's not enough.

So, to get closer, I'm considering selling my SL1, my 24mm, and my 55-250. That would leave me without a lightweight option, but while I like that combo's weight, the IQ and AF on my 6d2 is just so much better.

Makes sense to me! While by all accounts the SL1 is pretty good, if it needs to be sacrificed for the great 16-35 f/4 IS, it's just the way of the world (caveat: never used the SL1 myself).

repete7 wrote in post #18472076
I'm keeping the 6d2, 24-105, 70-300, 100-400, 14mm, 50mm, and 100mm macro.

Why keep the 70-300 and the 100-400, though? I guess if the 100-400 is the excellent version II, I would keep that and sell the 70-300 if it was worthwhile (depending on the 70-300 model and copy condition).

Also, painful as it might be, if you had to, perhaps the 14mm could go too if you can live with going no wider than 16?

I still have my 70-300L.. perfect condition. I paid $1400 for it... I'd be lucky to get $700 now, even in stellar condition. I am trying to get my wife to use it this coming spring for our trips to the local bird rookeries. It will be better than her 55-250 STM.

If not, I'll "loan" it to our youngest son.......... again.

jeetsukumaran wrote in post #18472496
Makes sense to me! While by all accounts the SL1 is pretty good, if it needs to be sacrificed for the great 16-35 f/4 IS, it's just the way of the world (caveat: never used the SL1 myself).

Why keep the 70-300 and the 100-400, though? I guess if the 100-400 is the excellent version II, I would keep that and sell the 70-300 if it was worthwhile (depending on the 70-300 model and copy condition).

Also, painful as it might be, if you had to, perhaps the 14mm could go too if you can live with going no wider than 16?

I have the 100-400 mark i, so it's the dust pump, but still works for me. I have the 70-300 f/4-5.6 usm ii (I paid like $450 for it refurbished). I do use them both. 100-400 for birding, 70-300 for dog park and I would use it for hiking if I give up the 55-250. I also use the 14mm for astro. Hard to let those go.

But yes, thanks. Sacrifice is the word I need to hear. SL1 is pretty good, but I'm more willing to sacrifice it and the Ef-s lenses than my other gear.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18472497
I still have my 70-300L.. perfect condition. I paid $1400 for it... I'd be lucky to get $700 now, even in stellar condition. I am trying to get my wife to use it this coming spring for our trips to the local bird rookeries. It will be better than her 55-250 STM.

If not, I'll "loan" it to our youngest son.......... again.

Gotta be careful with those "loans." Hard to collect interest!