24-70, 28-135 compare?

I am a 24-70 owner and a pro photographer. I am seriously considering selling it for the 28-135. The reasoning is....... I use the 24-70 a lot for wedding receptions, group portraits and other things. I have a wider zoom(17-40 L) and have several lenses that look better wide open. 85 L, and the 50 macro. (one of the best bokehs out there imho) I do not shoot the 24-70 wide open.
As for my views, I own L glass and recognize the benefits of top o the line lenses, but have no pride. (don't need the best to look and feel cool) .
I bought a 28-135 for a good friend and used it for about a month before he was able to come and get it. It performed very well. Am I forgetting anything? Is my thinking out there?

side notes: I feel the 1dmk4 that I own, has plenty of low light capability to allow for the slower glass. Also I do not anally pixel peep as my clients do not either. Thanks for your opinion.

Check out pixel-peeper.com. They basically aggregate full-size photos by lens and camera, so you can compare the 24-70 and 28-135. Thought I doubt there are many 28-135 shots out there taken with the 1d4.

If you don't need the speed or IQ of the 24-70, go for it.

You might also consider the 24-105, for better IQ and less speed.

ya 24-105, its lighter but still decently fast and has IS, and is still good sharpness wise.

thenextguy wrote in post #10830441
If you don't need the speed or IQ of the 24-70, go for it.

You might also consider the 24-105, for better IQ and less speed.

How?

alpha_1976 wrote in post #10830488
How?

Better than the 28-135.

thenextguy wrote in post #10830496
Better than the 28-135.

Oh I see and absolutely right.

I think the issue with the 24-105 is that the OP is likely (at least that's how it seems) looking to liberate some money from his 24-70. On the used market, going down to a 24-105 will probably only make him/her $200-$250. Maybe that's enough?

Another option, if money is the issue, would be to pick up a 28-70L. Comparable image quality to the 24-70, you keep the f/2.8 aperture, and they can be had for around $700. That'd probably be my first inclination, unless I needed the extra 4mm at the wide end.

vpnd wrote in post #10830269
.... Also I do not anally pixel peep as my clients do not either. ...

You obviously don't belong here.

Seriously though, I bet you'd do fine with a 28-35. I would agree with others to consider the 24-105L as well though.

Sure, the 24-105 is nice also, but to resell the 24-70 for the 105 doesn't pay. With 600-700 dollars held up in features I do not use is my real reasoning.

cptrios wrote in post #10830592
Another option, if money is the issue, would be to pick up a 28-70L. Comparable image quality to the 24-70, you keep the f/2.8 aperture, and they can be had for around $700. That'd probably be my first inclination, unless I needed the extra 4mm at the wide end.

I have wider lenses and do not use this lens at large apetures.

if you are comparing 85L and 50mm Macro with 24-70 - that's not right.

Are you sure nothing is up with your 24-70mm as it's pretty sharp wide open. I posted some here

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=10785051&pos​tcount=108

versedmb wrote in post #10830612
You obviously don't belong here.

classic

vpnd wrote in post #10830631
I have wider lenses and do not use this lens at large apetures.

Do you want the IS? Because there's also the 28-70 f/2.8-4L which goes quite a bit cheaper but apparently has pretty good IQ.