Consolodating Lenses... am I going too far?

I've gone from an XTi with a kit lens to a 5Dmk2 and a bag of L's and Speedlights in the past few years...

I'm older and wiser, and with bills and my upcoming wedding I have been selling off gear that I rarely use enough to justify the price.

My current lens lineup is my 16-35 mk2, 24-105, and 70-200 2.8IS. I have shuffled so much in the past year; these are the second copies of all my lenses.

I ordered a 24-70 (locking in the price before the rebates are up) thinking I could replace my 16-35 & 24-105 with it and come out ahead, and shoot with only 2 lenses for now.

My dilemma is that I love these 3 lenses. I've owned the 24-70 and returned it promptly to go back to the 24-105 which I enjoy for the greater focal range. I have also tried the 17-40 in the past, but for UWA, I ended up preferring the 16. I have also owned the f4 version of the 70-200 which I preferred in many ways, but sacrificed it to go back to the 2.8 as part of a consolidation when I let my 135 go.

I shoot as a hobby, and try to make money when I can. I'll do occasional portraits, but prefer candids. I love macro, but sold my 100 macro lens, hoping to go with tubes in the future should I feel inspired to take the occasional shot. Indoor sports and events are rare for me, but I do occasionally shoot some.

With my current lineup, my 24-105 is practically glued to my camera. I don’t mind sacrificing speed for focal range with this lens; I find it to be so versatile that I rarely feel the need to take it off.

When I think I may be indoors want to go flash less, I'll throw the 16-35 in my bag as well. Occasionally I enjoy shooting ultra wide, but if I am doing people shots, I shoot it more in the 24-35 range to avoid distortion. It’s small enough that I can take it with my 24-105 easily.

The 70-200 for its size and weight is more of a "specialty" lens that I wound take out unless I know I will need it. I am trying to force myself into using it as my main portrait lens as well. I had the smaller/lighter f/4IS twice but in the end, since I already had 70-105 covered range covered with the 24-105 I just felt no reason to take it out for the extra reach.

So the question is do I keep my current lineup:

16-35/2.8 mk2, 24-105/4IS, 70-700/2.8IS

Or consolidate down to:

24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8IS (and figure about $1000+ in my pocket to go towards bills)

Any insight or advice would be greatly appreciated. My fiancée insists that if I am happy with what I have to keep it, but I want to do the right thing, both for developing my "hobby" as well as ensuring well being for my future family.

To me it sounds like you will miss these lenses if you let them go. You have a nice lens line up. If I were you I'd keep them and avoid the scenario of wishing 'what could have been' if you'd kept them.

and i thought i was indecisive!

Have you considered this?

Sigma 12-24
Canon 24-70
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS

You really have to ask yourself if you ever go wide. I have an 11-16 that barely goes wide unless i am in a night club and i havent gone to one in a year.

why dont you just trade up your 24-105 to a 24-70. I'm making the switch to the 5D in a year, and i will sacrifice my 11-16 and 17-55 for a 24-70.

If i could have my dream set, it would have to be the 5DII, 24-70, 85L, and a 70-200. I'll make my way there in a few years.

if you shoot with JUST the 24-105, why not keep it and sell the 16-35? I don't get the 24-70 jump if you like the range of what you have. It's IS makes it a better low light lens if you're not looking for shutters. If you use the 16-35, I'd also keep that as I know I'd miss it.

Personally, I'd go with a 16-35 and 70-200 combo of those lenses as it gives you the most coverage. I'd also pick up a 50mm prime in the middle if you went that route.

Don't try to cover all possible focus lengths instead your lens(es) selection should be based on your favourite focal lengths.

Do you shoot ultra-wide often enough to justify having a lens that wide? Like is it a twice a year thing, or something a little more regular... If not, you should probably ditch the 16-35 in favor of a prime in the 24-35mm range. And it doesn't have to be an L...

I don't see why you would want to go to 24-70/70-200 when you already know you prefer the 24-105

If you don't use the 70-200 much, get rid of it. Replace it with a 135 and 1.4x or a 200 if you need the extra reach.

I was going to say 16-35 and 70-200, but toxic makes a great point. If you don't find yourself using the 70-200, the 135L is an amazing lens and you will pocket a few hundred.

Sounds like you've got what you want/need. I would leave it alone...

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8411004
Personally, I'd go with a 16-35 and 70-200 combo of those lenses as it gives you the most coverage. I'd also pick up a 50mm prime in the middle if you went that route.

I agree as well - you would get ideal and versatile coverage with this lineup

I was surprised to find so many opinions and insights so quickly! thanks, and please keep them coming

Traumuh...
Had the 135... loved it, sold it ( ) because I found myself re-positioning fairly often, and occasionally missing shots I couldn’t frame. It was an amazing lens, but for my needs and style, I think I have finally decided once and for all that primes are just not a good fit for me. In the end, I felt going back to the 70-200 2.8IS (which i had previously sold to buy my fiancée’s engagement ring) would give me a best of both worlds and in many ways i think it does.

toxic...
I don’t go ultra wide often, but I also use my 16-35 as my low light walk around lens, or when I am inside and may not want to use a flash. When I was at the free nighttime outdoor screening of Jaws on the Intrepid (Air Craft Carrier) in NYC, i took it with me as I felt f4 without a flash at night may be a little on the slow side.

twoshadows
With the exception of macro (which I just sold ) I am very happy with this setup. I am trying to decide if I can compromise and go with a 2 lens setup, as I am rarely making any money off of my shots. I have to consider this an (expensive) hobby at this time, and just want to make sure I am spending maturely for a change.[/COLOR]


Incidentally, I had asked this once before, but does anyone have experience using extension tubes with either lens combos I had listed for macro shots? I recently sold my 100/macro (which I enjoyed but seldom used to justify keeping it) but may want to take a macro shot here and there in the future, and was thinking tubes may suffice (and fit in an accessory bag).

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8411004
Personally, I'd go with a 16-35 and 70-200 combo of those lenses as it gives you the most coverage. I'd also pick up a 50mm prime in the middle if you went that route.

Hmm... maybe I am smarter than I thought :P
(looks at his signature)

To the OP, I would just keep what you have and cut costs elsewhere in your life. Sure the $1k will help pay bills, but that's only a one time thing and by the way you talk about your equipment, even if you sell it to pay bills, you'll most likely end up buying them again.

You could always find more opportunities to do paid shoots, too

If you had the 50D as well as the FF 5DmkII, I'd say that going with just the 16-35 and 70-200 might work. That's actually what I do (I have the 50D & the 5D). I don't have a "normal" zoom, so when I need a little extra reach on the short end I mount the 16-35 on the 50D. Works great.

But since you don't have a two body, two format setup i would say that if you're going to get rid of one lens it should be the ultra wide 16-35. I say that especially because you seem to use the 24-105 a lot and like it a lot.

Regarding a macro solution, tubes are good if you're working off of a tripod and have a static subject. If that's the case, then a cheap 50mm f/1.8 and a set of kenko tubes will be your cheapest bet. Outside of that it's probably just as easy to go with the 100 macro again...

DeCeccoNET wrote in post #8411321
I had asked this once before, but does anyone have experience using extension tubes with either lens combos I had listed for macro shots? I recently sold my 100/macro (which I enjoyed but seldom used to justify keeping it) but may want to take a macro shot here and there in the future, and was thinking tubes may suffice (and fit in an accessory bag).

I prefer tubes to a dedicated macro as they work on ANY lens....

here's a thread I did when I had a 100mm macro on trade for a few days:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=721815

the macro will win, and the macro can also take tubes, but for casual macro work tubes work very well and they're a lot easier to always have something with you.

twoshadows wrote in post #8411395
But since you don't have a two body, two format setup i would say that if you're going to get rid of one lens it should be the ultra wide 16-35. I say that especially because you seem to use the 24-105 a lot and like it a lot.

Well, what's he gonna do for a fast lens? Particularly since he's stated he doesn't really like primes...

24-70, 24-105, and 70-200?

Talk about divine intervention.... At the-digital-picture, one of the headlines is that the 16-35 was named the Canon Lens of the month for july....

[Hyuni]
Ironically, my fiancee who worked in Chicago for a year in Americorps had the same advice...

I am going to cancel the 24-70 I have on order, and continue using my current setup which I do enjoy. My only true regret is the loss of my macro, and 100-400 but thats what extenders and tubes are for.

jacobsen1
I actually saw your thread a week or so ago as i was contemplating the tubes. Did you ever get a chance to try the full set on the 24-105?