So...Why keep the 24-70L or 70-200 anymore?

Currently, I have...

Sigma 10-20
35L
85L
135L
24-70L
Old Tamron 28-75 that still works great and is sharper than the 24-70L in center
70-200 f/2.8L IS

Here's the situation: I don't really use the 24-70L except for really fast paced situations with acceptable light where I need fast zoom, and even then I can probably work with two cameras instead. At the same time, I can't sell the 24-70L unless I replace it with something that has the 24mm focal length - enter 24L and 16-35L. Another issue, however, is that I still have a 40D which I will probably not be selling for some time yet, and which opens up the very nice option of the much less expensive Tokina 11-16 for ultra-wide, and that is very well-liked. However, if I got that and needed 24mm for anything (say, for formals with lots of people), I would absolutely have to use the 40D...which I may not want. Then, I have wanted a 24L II for a long time, but I am not in a position to add cash to any trades - so I can't do a straight-up trade of 24-70L for 24L II.

Then comes the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and the persistent question: If I only ever use it for church ceremonies, and only during the moments when the subjects are not moving, and only then when the officiant/priest refuses to let me get close to the couple...do I need it, or will the 135L do the job equally well? If so, then the 135L would finally start seeing use again (it hasn't been used since the 70-200 and 85L came along). If I sold the 70-200, and the sigma 10-20, and the 24-70, then theoretically I could get the 24L II with the sale of the 70-200 and 10-20, plus I could get the 16-35 (v.1) with the sale of the 24-70. Or, I could sell the 70-200, 24-70 and 10-20 and buy the Tokina 11-16 and 24L, and have money left over.

The question is...would I ever regret not having the 70-200? It's huge, has a very long minimum focus distance, has an aperture I almost never use anymore (f/2.8)...but it has 200mm and IS. Those are the only things I bought it for. And I do use it, but only for the ceremony with those caveats mentioned...I think the frustrating thing about 70-200 is that it has only one or two specific uses that necessitate it, but I have to keep it just for those reasons or else I might miss it.

Any thoughts? Does anyone think I would not miss the 70-200 if I sold it? I still feel a gap at the wide end, and often wish I had the 24L and 16-35 or Tokina 11-16 for the purpose.

You should just give it all to me, that would solve your problem. And ill take the camera bodies too? Then you wont have to worry about missing the lenses.

But really, i wish i could help, but i think you will find better advice for others on the board than me in this area.

Personally I would keep it if you can afford to keep it because one, it's a backup to both your 85 and 135 (and vice versa) and two, I find that it's versatility for a variety of situation makes it hard to replace for those situations where you aren't really sure of what lens you might need. If anything, I say sell the 24-70 and get the 16-35 or 11-16.

The only use I have for the 70-200 is as a 200mm lens with IS. For everything else, my other lenses do the job better. That's why it's such a frustrating lens to own - if Canon made the 200mm f/2L IS the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, I'd trade in a split second because I don't need the zoom.

If someone tries to mug you, the 24-70 makes one heck of a weapon... I'd keep it to protect your other gear

I've dropped one before - trust me, it's not as durable as it feels.

form wrote in post #9192907
The only use I have for the 70-200 is as a 200mm lens with IS. For everything else, my other lenses do the job better. That's why it's such a frustrating lens to own - if Canon made the 200mm f/2L IS the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, I'd trade in a split second because I don't need the zoom.

If that's the case and you really needed a wide angle lens, I say sell it and try to make it work with what you have if you think you can live without the 200 and IS. What about adding the 200 2.8 with maybe a monopod?

Have considered that, I would rather have f/2 or IS if I'm going to have 200mm. The focal length and the circumstances (shooting typically at 1/30-1/80 sec) really call for IS if I can't at least double the shutter speed.

Okay okay, I'll take that 24-70 off of your hands, I've got one lens per body! :Pa

Believe me, I want to sell the 24-70L - I just don't have anything to fill the gap at 24mm.

Could you replace the 35L with a 24L? They're pretty close together. Or how about using the Sigma 10-20? Between the 5D and the 40D that gives you a good wide range.

Personally i'd keep the zoom, but if money's tight and you rarely use it then I can see your point of view.

The 24-70 spends almost a full day on one of my cameras, though one of them is a 5D2 which makes this lens a little more useful. Even with only crops, though I think this would still be my #1 lens choice. I have the Sigma 10-20 and rather like it. It also stays on one of my bodies all day. It's a little slow, but is an excellent lens. Would you really save enough going to a Tokina to make it worth your while?

I've written here often about my falling out of love with the 70-200 2.8 IS. For me, either the 85 1.2 or the new 100 L 2.8 macro IS on a crop body is all I feel I need on the long side. And picking up macro capability is nice, too. I'm keeping the 70-200 for portraiture and I think it's an excellent lens for engagement shoots, but I'm not lugging it to weddings anymore.

Vs. the 16-35L, the tokina is considered to be a sharper lens in the corners - I would choose it over the 16-35 because I still have a crop sensor camera that probably won't be sold for some time...and it's cheaper than the 16-35L. The sigma 10-20 just isn't very useful with the slow max. apertures of f/4-5.6. It works for some shots, but only when there's plenty of light or it's sitting on the tripod (total environment shots). I would be able to use an f/2.8 ultrawide more often.

24-70 almost never gets used for me anymore - the primes do the job better. That's why the Tamron would be able to serve as a backup if I need the standard zoom for whatever reason.

70-200 is a frustrating lens to own because of its one-trick-pony benefit for me, that being 200mm and IS. I can't decide.

35L is similar to the 24L, but the 35L...has a look that I would miss, and 35mm gives noticeably less distortion than 24mm, which is useful sometimes. If there was a sharp, reliable AF 50mm lens for Canon, I might consider it instead of the 35L - but as it stands I consider the 50L to be extremely unimpressive, and the other options are either not sharp (Canon 50 f/1.4) or don't have fast, reliable AF (Sigma 50 f/1.4, and, in my experience, Canon 50 f/1.4).

24L would be for all those times when I wish the 35L was a little bit wider.

form wrote in post #9193015
Believe me, I want to sell the 24-70L - I just don't have anything to fill the gap at 24mm.

Is your butt glued to a pew? Why can't you use your feet and move a bit?

It looks like you're just a prime shooter now. If you only need the long end of that 70-200 occasionally, maybe just use a 1.4x on the 85 or 135? (No IS though).

There was an occasion - a first communion - where I couldn't get up and move around. Otherwise, that's a really stupid question to ask someone who uses primes 95% of the time.

I'm still looking for opinions from experienced photographers as to whether they find that they still need the 70-200 during specific times in a church ceremony.