Very frustrated with lenses, wanting to try something new

Here's the issue: I don't have money for new lenses, but if and when I sell my 24-70L I will have enough for a 24L or, if I also sell my Sigma 10-20, enough for a 16-35L. Problem is, I can't find them at the prices I want, and of course my 24-70L isn't selling yet...what's more, I don't know which route I would like better. It's a really tough call.

In all honesty, I have also considered the Tokina 11-16 instead of the 16-35L because I will be using crop sensor cameras for a long time to come...

Basically, it's a conflict, and I'm not sure what to do now. Any suggestions? At the wide point, AF isn't that important - but I do want eventually to own a 24L for certain, and either a 11-16 or 16-35 (because of f/2.8). And, if I had a Tokina 11-16, I would also probably have enough left over for the Sigma 50 f/1.4 I've been curious about...

What would other wedding photographers do?

Morning there Joey . Hey, after all the prior discussion I thought you were set for lenses for a while... the quality of your work demonstrates you've got a good handle on things. I would suggest to wait on it, and save for the 24 you eventually really want.

form wrote in post #9341953
or 16-35 (because of f/2.8).

How about the 17-55? $500 less and IS. Granted, It's not "L" built but you get a little bit more reach and it's stabilized.

This is on my list to. Hope I get a good copy when I pull the trigger though.

I'm getting rid of my 24-70L because I don't need any standard zooms; I cover that range with primes instead (and still have a tamron 28-75 if I need it). The 16-35 would give me f/2.8 in the UWA range, as would a Tokina 11-16. The 24L would give me a unique look I can't currently get and expand my style capabilities - but so would a f/2.8 UWA. That's the dilemma.

something to think about is make due with what you got.

Jerry Ghionis shoots probably 80-90% of a wedding with only the 70-200 2.8IS. Doesn't need anything else. Hasn't stopped him from winning tons of awards and getting a lot of clients and charging good dollars.

Lenses and bodies are just tools its your skill that's the most important thing. I personally only use 3 lenses right now because that's all I got and all I can afford and all I really need to do the job.

cjcastan wrote in post #9343728
something to think about is make due with what you got.

Jerry Ghionis shoots probably 80-90% of a wedding with only the 70-200 2.8IS.

Not surprising.

For me on a crop camera:

70% of the day with a 17-55
20-30% with an 85mm
10% with a 135mm if I need it.

From experience I can tell you that I own and use both the Canon 16-35mm II f/2.8 and the Canon 24mm f/1.4. Both are excellent lenses and each gets a fair amount of use at a wedding. With the newer cameras these days and their higher ISO capabilities, you can use f/2.8 in most situations, especially at the wide end. However, the 24mm does give less distortion and a bit more unique look because of the depth of field. Plus I just like primes. Nevertheless, the 16-35 is a bit more versatile and if you have to choose one, then I would recommend going with the 16-35.

I don't have the newer cameras, I still use a 5D original and 40D - so 24L makes more sense for that reason.

I would suggest saving for a 24. The DOF alone is a nice reason. They are $$$$, but worth it.

Bingo . I wouldn't mind having that 24 myself.

form wrote in post #9345894
I don't have the newer cameras, I still use a 5D original and 40D - so 24L makes more sense for that reason.

Sold the 24-70L today, now I'm really looking for something to fill the gap. Could be a 16-35L II or 24L...but not finding any at good prices lately. I used to see the 24L go for $900, and the 16-35L II for $1200. At current 16-35L II used prices, it seems like $100 difference to have a warranty is worth it.

Congrats on the sale Joey - glad it worked out for you. I agree about the warranty.

Guess what...look at Adorama for used 16-35L II lenses.

No thanks - perfectly happy with my cheap 17-40 . Matter of fact, took it out today in the 15 degree weather and shot frozen "ice trees" at the lakeshore. It also shares the same filter size as my 24-105 and 70-200.

form wrote in post #9361459
Guess what...look at Adorama for used 16-35L II lenses.

FWIW, I have both the 24 and 16-35 and when I need something anywhere near that range I always go with the 24. The IQ is outstanding and I think it makes my 16-35 look bad. I am glad I have it for specific needs but if I did not have the 16-35 I think I would be just fine.