Sell or keep the IS EF primes?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
Flat view
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,581
Sell or keep the IS EF primes?

I'm selling my R and getting the R5. I have the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII benefiting from the IBIS of the R5.

Is there any reason to keep the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM and 35mm f/2.0 IS USM? The 24mm is only f/2.8 anyway, and usually I'm stopping down the 35mm a little anyway for best sharpness.

Trying to find arguments to keep them (I hate to sell lenses) this is all I can think of:

1. these lenses allow me to keep the standard zoom at home sometimes and shoot primes only. (however, it will be hard to decide at forehand which one  (I'm choosing  the 35mm often), and as soon as I choose to bring both the size and weight advantage is gone...)

2. the IS is could be a bit better than IBIS only (not sure if there's any truth in this thought though).

3. the 35mm gives a bit more light to the AF system even though I shoot it stopped down a bit

4. the 24mm is nice to have if I buy into lenses like the Tamron 35-150mm or the RF 24-240mm or other lenses lacking a bit on the wide end but having other strengths.

5. especially the 24mm could give less distortion compared to the EF f/2.8 24-70mm mkII zoom

6. both lenses are less weight on the camera, however, the 24mm is used very occasionally only, and even 35mm isn't a focal length for me to have it on a camera a longer time, as I'm more of a 50mm guy.... This could change maybe, however, for now I like to have wider in a zoom more than in a prime....

7. both lenses give me stabilization on the M6mkII, however as soon as low light becomes a challenge it makes more sense to bring the R5. Even the better high ISO performance of the R made up for the lack of IBIS on M. The 24mm isn't great wide open on crop anyway, but the 35mm is capable of making nice pictures.

8. For the 35mm the bokeh quality could be a bit better compared to the EF f/2.8 24-70mm mkII zoom. For the 24mm bokeh doesn't matter to me.

9. Both lenses are inconspicuous compared to the EF L f/2.8 mk II.

10. The 35mm could be a bit sharper at f/2.8 compared to the EF L f/2.8 mk II.

11. as long as I have these it's hard enough to justify purchases like the Sigma 28 or 40mm f/1.4 Art lenses.

It might make more sense to have 35mm next to the f/2.8 zoom if I change it for another 35mm.  A Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is a bit sharper, however, I will loose the benefits nr 6 and 9.  The Sigma 24-35mm f/2.0  is affordable and brighter, but not the sharpest option at 35mm even at f/2.8.  The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is a bit sharper, probably sharp enough to shoot it wide open, and it might be stabilized a bit better, however, I'm not sure if I will like the AF compared to my current 35mm f/2.0, and I can't use it on the M6mkII.

Looking forward to hear all the opinions and get some advice.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +16 more
Canon EOS R5
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Flat view
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow