Should I sell my 16-35 'L' lens?

I purchased my EF 16-35mm 'L' lens to go with my now replaced EOS

10D in September 2004. I could lie and say it was a match made in

heaven; but the camera and lens had to go back to Canon UK following

focussing problems and it was only after this that the two items

worked together happily. The combination went on to produce some

excellent photographs.

 

I have now moved to an EOS 5D and with this I purchased with a 24-

105 'L'. These two work together so well that I now find the 16-35

is gathering metaphotical dust in my gadget bag (Actaully it is in

its box in a cupboard). Common sense tells me to sell it. But I want

someone to persuade me not to. It is a lovely lens, just looking at

it making me feel happy! Similarly it is daft to have it not earning

its keep. A nice dilemma to be in, but it worries me to have

something that I seldom use.

I imagine that most people have things that they seldom use! :-)

 

Do you need the money from the sale of the lens? If not, then I reckon it's not urgent to sell it.

 

Do you expect to use it again? If not, then, even if you don't NEED the money, you might as well sell it and replace it with another lens that you will use more often, or put the money toward something else entirely.

 

If you do expect to use it again, then it's up to you to decide if your expected usage will be worth keeping it, compared to what else you could do with the sale money. If I didn't need the sale money for something else, I personally would keep it, but I like using ultra-wide lenses. Not everyone does.

Ah heck. . .I have more lenses in my closet than in my camera bag as well.

 

Keep it if you want. Or sell it. clearly, you are not hurting for the money.

sell it at once , you will regrett not to have done it before in 3 years

with that money you can get a perfect Singh Ray filter for your 24-105

 

or a good restaurant with a pretty girl

i have the same problem with my 20D and jump to 5D

Please, please, oh, PLEASE don't sell it!

 

(Was that persuasive enough?)

 

I can relate, even though I'm still on a 20D, and my wide zoom is a 17-40. Since I got my 24-105, the 17-40 sees less and less use. Even less than my two primes! But I'm keeping it (for now), because I know I'll still have occasions to use it. Once I switch to full-frame, however, and my 24-105 then provides a wider FoV than my 17-40 does now, I'll almost certainly sell the 17-40.

 

If you're sure you'll NEVER use it again, put it up for sale, so some lucky stiff can enjoy a no-doubt pristine quality fast, wide zoom for less than he'd have to pay for one new.

 

Otherwise, hold onto it. It'll certainly hold its value. Better to wonder if its worth keeping than to kick yourself for selling it and finding you need or want to use it later.

Hi James, You don't have photo's posted here so i don't kow your work but I would say not

to sell it.

The longer I do photography the more I make use of my 16-35 and if you are going to go

pro or semi pro at some point you will need it for sure so if you sell it at a loss now and

need to replace it in the future you will have just wasted money.

 

If it was cheap glass I would say sell it and replace it with something better in the future

but you already have one of the best and as you keep playing with your 5D you will see the

advantage to a wide lense. Take Care, Pete

If just looking at it making you feel happy, you must not sell it. If I had something which I could say the same and could afford keeping it, I would not part from it.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I wnet through this with my 10-22EFS on my 20D (Same equ. focal range) One thing to say, when you need the 16-24mm, you need it! I use that range (10-16mm) for indoor remodeling before and after photos. In a tight room, you need the ultra wide.

 

M

It's hardly worth anything now, I'll help you get rid of it...

How about donating it to an aspiring photographer.... ME!

James, swap it for a good lense like the 24-70 f2.8L. The 16-35L will go fast because most people with a 5D need one. Most pictures of the bride's dressing room are close quarters and the lighting not so good. LOL, Bill

A lot of input from you ever helpful contributors - sorry about the spelling mistakes in my original post by the way. I do a lot of work taking pictures of the insides of vehicles, but not to high quality studio standards and typically hand held; the pictures are reproduced in magazines so I get the results I need.

 

I am taking the 16-35 out with me in the morning and will see if it produces 'better' results for me. This silly post of mine is a bit like confession; I know I am wrong to hang on to something I do not need but I know hanging onto it is easier than giving it up. The suggestion of a fine meal with a pretty girl appeals, but good eating places are thin on the ground in these parts!

I think you'll find use for both. The 16-35L is the best you can get in that range, truly an excellent piece of glass.

 

Now, if you don't ever need an ultra-wide zoom I could see you selling it...to me, for a good price ;p

>>is a bit like confession<<

 

That's ok, I am an ordained priest. Any of you out there who have ANY "L" glass at home which is "tempting" you and making you feel guilty and restless do send it to me. I promise it will rid you of all temptation and guilt...

I'd hang on to that 16-35 lens for awhile. Give it some use. It seems to me that the 5D was made for such a lens. You may eventually find that piece of glass indispensable. I do.

James, how much do you shoot landscapes/cityscapes/seascapes? If you shoot these often, then the 16-35L would come in handing tons.

 

I have 9+ L primes, and 4 L zooms....the zooms I've not used but maybe twice in the last 6 months, so I too am wondering if I should sell my 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L IS, and 100-400L, as I have primes to cover all these focal ranges, and are faster to boot.

 

I never made a decision to be bias toward primes, as it just happened over time. I use the primes all the time, so now I have lots of $$ in L zooms that I almost never use....I'm torn :-(

<p>All my lenses are in one camera bag or the other, and both are in my closet.</p>

 

<p>If I looked into my camera bag one day and found my 20D had magically been replaced with a 5D, I would probably sell my 17-40. I would consider keeping it for the times when I really do need an ultrawide, but other than a few months when I had the 17-40 and a film body, I've never had anything wider than 28, so I know I can easily make do without an ultrawide. And so I would probably conclude that the 17-40 would be of less use to me as a lens that I'd rarely use than it would as a source of money to be put towards a lens which I'd use more.</p>

 

<p>But if the same fairies who upgraded my 20D to a 5D were also to fulfill all of my other desires for lenses and flashes, and I would have no need for the money I could get for the 17-40, then of course I would keep it for the times I want an ultrawide.</p>

I know that problem. Like Jon, I've got the 17-40 and the 24-105. The 17-40 is the least used lens. Yesterday I filled every CF card I have, all with the 24-105 or my 70-200 and I didn't even take the 17-40 out of the bag.

 

However, I'm keeping the wide angle. I have used it, I do like the results and I know that I will get more use out of it in the future, even if the only contribution it currently makes is to my aerobic exercise.

 

Keep the 16-35, by all accounts its a very fine lens and will give you those extra few mm and that extra stop, eventually.

 

Just my view.

 

Pete

Steve Dunn: "If I looked into my camera bag one day and found my 20D had magically been replaced with a 5D, I would probably sell my 17-40..."

 

... and put the money towards a 300/4L IS!

I will be happy with that lense, and you can use it in the lower end... sorry I cant persuade you, How about a donation ;=)

You should use your lenses, not look at them and feel happy.

I think it depends on whether you're a 16-35, 70-200 type of person, or a 24-105, 100-400 one. Consider the difference. I'm the first type, being photojournalism ingrained, with a 2 bodies and 2 2.8 zooms setup. Other than the 1 stop faster speed, though my favorite wide focal length is 24mm, I sometimes find 20mm useful (on full frame film bodies). The 24mm-ish preference is even more obvious with 1.6 crop digital bodies, since the 16-35 gives me 26mm, something I have to live with for now until I upgrade to full frame digital.

 

The second setup is for people who are more normal-wide to mid-tele inclined, so the 24-105 on one body would be adequate for most of their needs, perhaps even leaving the 100-400 home most of the time.

 

If you're really in the second type of mindset then I'd say use the grand or so on the sale of the 16-35 for some other useful gear.

 

So it's not really a dilemma after all :-)

James,

 

Sounds like you had a good experience with Canon UK service - I've just posted a question asking for feedback on them as my new kit needs tweaking. So all went smoothly first time round?

<cite>... and put the money towards a 300/4L IS!</cite>

 

<p>I just sold my 300/4L IS USM a few weeks ago (to a fellow photo.netter) because it's too long on my 20D for the uses for which I bought it on a film body. But yeah, if the fairies brought me a 5D, I'd probably need them to get me another 300; that sure was a nice lens.</p>