Do I really need a mid range zoom?

[steveash]

I'm thinking of trading in my Canon 24-105mm L lens for the 100mm L Macro. I shoot with a 5DII. Commercially I do product shots and whatever is needed for my graphics business while for pleasure I mostly do travel photography (I visit China quite often) and portraits. I have an (old but good) 17-35mm f2.8L, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 so I have the 24-105mm range mostly covered and I generally prefer to shoot primes if I can. My 24-105 therefore seems to spend most of its time in a bag and considering it is one of my most valuable lenses it seems like a waste. I don't desperately need the macro; I use the 85 for product shots, often with an extension tube, but it would be a nice lens to add to my set as it would suit my style of photography.

Does this make any sense at all? Is there a convincing reason why I should hang on to the 24-105? I've had a mid range zoom for so long I think I'd feel a bit naked without one!

 

[mackmgg]

If you don't think you need the 24-105mm, then there's no reason for you to keep it. If you don't think you'll need the 100mm macro any more though, why bother trading the 24-105mm for it?

 

[Phrasikleia]

Since you already have a lens that can do 100mm at f/2.8, I can see two reasons why the 100mm macro might be a good option for you:

1) Because you want to do some macro photography (which does not seem to be the case)

2) Because the 70-200 f/2.8 is such a behemoth that you rarely carry it anywhere

Otherwise, I don't see why you would have much of a need for that lens.

I have the 100mm L macro myself. It's a very versatile lens, so it was one of the lenses I used the most up until I got the 70-200 f/4L IS, which I favored over the f/2.8 version because of its great portability. I take it everywhere and mostly leave the 100mm at home now. I keep the 100mm around for macro shots and occasions where I'm likely to need f/2.8.

As for the 24-105mm: you have most of that range covered by other lenses, so it does seem rather redundant.

 

[tamasvarga67]

I had a similar dilemma and I sold the 24-105 to help funding a Zeiss MP 50.
It is interesting because it seems like the best option for the 5DII but it was my least used lens...

 

[steveash]

Since you already have a lens that can do 100mm at f/2.8, I can see two reasons why the 100mm macro might be a good option for you:

1) Because you want to do some macro photography (which does not seem to be the case)

2) Because the 70-200 f/2.8 is such a behemoth that you rarely carry it anywhere

Not so much Macro but certainly close-up photography. Both 85 and 70-200 have long min focus distances so I am making do with an extension tube. It would be nice to have full macro capability but not essential, I can always hire if I need it. The 70-200 is a bit hefty but I put up with it!!

Perhaps I should sell the zoom and put the money in the bank until there is something I need rather than just want...

I had a similar dilemma and I sold the 24-105 to help funding a Zeiss MP 50.
It is interesting because it seems like the best option for the 5DII but it was my least used lens...

Had any regrets?

 

[tamasvarga67]

Had any regrets?

Not at all... I never really liked the IQ of the 24-105.