Is having a 35L and a 50L or 24L (or even sigma 50) overkill?

Just picked up a 35L 2 weeks ago. Been loving it.

I have a Canon 50m 1.4 that I'm going to be selling mostly because I have the itch to upgrade. (and I had offers)

Now, do you think if I were to get a 50L or Sigma 50 it would be too close to the 35L? The 50L would be big cash for such a close FL. I wouldn't feel as bad with the Sigma 1.4.

Or should I go 24L mkI? Would be great but I don't see the need if I have a 17-40 and I'd be using it mostly outdoors on automobiles.

Maybe I should pick up a 24-70L? (too much overlap with 17-40?). I like my 17-40 for the wideness but the 2.8 would be amazing and it's closer to the 17-55IS I use to have.

Or 135L? Another one of my must-have lenses that I plan to own in the future.

Anything else you guys would think I would need more?
I shoot portraits, events, indoors, sometimes cars

My line up now is: 70-200 2.8IS, 50mm 1.4, 35L, and 17-40L, 15mm FE.
5D MkII body.

35L, Sigma 50, 135L would be my suggestion. Nothing wrong with a 35 and 50, but unless you need the 50L, the Sigma is close enough, and allows you to put that money towards a 135!

get rid of the 50 and go for a 85L/135L. or invest in speedlites or something

I'd get rid of the 35, and get a 24 + 50. Or keep the 35 and add an 85.

Down_Shift wrote in post #10337319
Just picked up a 35L 2 weeks ago. Been loving it.

I have a Canon 50m 1.4 that I'm going to be selling mostly because I have the itch to upgrade. (and I had offers)

Now, do you think if I were to get a 50L or Sigma 50 it would be too close to the 35L? The 50L would be big cash for such a close FL. I wouldn't feel as bad with the Sigma 1.4.

Or should I go 24L mkI? Would be great but I don't see the need if I have a 17-40 and I'd be using it mostly outdoors on automobiles.

Maybe I should pick up a 24-70L? (too much overlap with 17-40?). I like my 17-40 for the wideness but the 2.8 would be amazing and it's closer to the 17-55IS I use to have.

Or 135L? Another one of my must-have lenses that I plan to own in the future.

Anything else you guys would think I would need more?
I shoot portraits, events, indoors, sometimes cars

My line up now is: 70-200 2.8IS, 50mm 1.4, 35L, and 17-40L, 15mm FE.
5D MkII body.

why not get what you need? and if you aren't sure what, if anything, that you may need just sit on your hands. you'll go broke listening to these guys .

ed rader

35 and 50 are very close .. just a couple of steps and you have about the same framing.

And I think Ed's advice above is the best so far .. leave things alone and go shoot, if you really need something, you'll soon find out.

ed rader wrote in post #10337697
why not get what you need? and if you aren't sure what, if anything, that you may need just sit on your hands. you'll go broke listening to these guys .

ed rader

mmahoney wrote in post #10337804
35 and 50 are very close .. just a couple of steps and you have about the same framing. Exactly what I was thinking. I bought the 35L mostly because I Love the 50, but I always found myself backing up

And I think Ed's advice above is the best so far .. leave things alone and go shoot, if you really need something, you'll soon find out. Very good advice!

quite true!
I still would want a 24-70 for indoor use though.
I think I'm going to sell the 50 and get the 135L. I can't believe how crazy pics look with the 135L.

15mm FE
17-40L
35L
135L
70-200L
and possibly a 24-70L in the future. I think I'll be happy with this finished kit.

The 135L is a special piece of glass .. you do have that FL covered with your 70-200 but the IQ, speed, and bokeh are different. In a very positive way

i have different uses in mind for a 35 & a 50, so i could definitely justify getting both, though i'm considering not. we'll see. but it really depends on what you shoot. for me, the 50 is a bit slow & narrow for wedding receptions, but perfect for the rest of the day. so i could definitely see using a 35 inside, close quarters in natural light. again, just depends on your needs.

Down_Shift wrote in post #10337319
Just picked up a 35L 2 weeks ago. Been loving it.

Or should I go 24L mkI? Would be great but I don't see the need if I have a 17-40 and I'd be using it mostly outdoors on automobiles.

My line up now is: 70-200 2.8IS, 50mm 1.4, 35L, and 17-40L, 15mm FE.
5D MkII body.

You're right in that 24 is already covered by 17-40, but so is 35. If you love the 35L for its merits over 17-40 at 35, then you should love the 24L on the same token.

I think with your FF, 17-40, 35L and 50, you've got the indoor applications covered pretty much. But with your FF, you've got only 70-200 for portraits and events. It's fine except that sometimes you'd love to have a lighter lens. Depending on the distance in your events, I'd suggest 135 and/or 85 mm FLs. There are 135L, 135 f/2.8 SF, 85L and 85 f/1.8 to choose from. You can mix and match based on your needs and budget.

That said, the new 100L macro is very nice. It cannot outdo 135L for portraits, but will give you the benefit of close ups while doing a decent job for portraits.

actprivate wrote in post #10339871
You're right in that 24 is already covered by 17-40, but so is 35. If you love the 35L for its merits over 17-40 at 35, then you should love the 24L on the same token.

I think with your FF, 17-40, 35L and 50, you've got the indoor applications covered pretty much. But with your FF, you've got only 70-200 for portraits and events. It's fine except that sometimesyou'd love to have a lighter lens. Depending on the distance in your events, I'd suggest 135 and/or 85 mm FLs. There are 135L, 135 f/2.8 SF, 85L and 85 f/1.8 to choose from. You can mix and match based on your needs and budget.

That said, the new 100L macro is very nice. It cannot outdo 135L for portraits, but will give you the benefit of close ups while doing a decent job for portraits.

One of the reasons why I don't carry my 70-200 unless I really have to