Sell the 24 and get a 35 for the 16-35 and 35 combo.

What's the difference between 35 and 24? Everyone talks so much about 35 but 24 is already so sharp.

im actually trading my 16-35 for a 24L and some cash tonight haha

so...

RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Keep them both - lenses are not very expensive and you will invariably regret selling.

Exactly!

I dont see the 24L as being a replacement for the 16-35L. When you absolutely need to go wider, the awesomeness of the 24L wont help you. There is a *big* difference between 24mm and 16mm. I say keep both and make up the money down the road.

16mm is *CRAZY* wide for people pics on a 5D. If that's the style direction you want to go, then keep the zoom. Otherwise stick to the 24L.

The 35L wasn't wide enough for me, but it is mad sharp even at f/1.4, sharper than the 50L at 1.4.

WIthout a doubt: 24L.

I am actually thinking the same thing. I need to pick up a wide angle lens for this year. I'm not sure if it should be the 24 II or I

Italo Campilii wrote:
1. Apertures at 2.8 is more than fine because I can use flash when needed.

I'd keep the 24L and purchase the 17-40L if you are going to use a flash.

I'm in the same boat as you buddy... and it's just one of those ?'s you have to really ponder for a while and just pick one, or flip a coin. I'm thinking of getting a 24L, but after this thread popped up, went back to 16-35, and now back to 24L... very hard to decide.