Ruthlessrider

I am trying to consolidate the lenses that I have and at the same time upgrade a little. I have the above mentioned lens, and I am considering purchasing either a 24-70mm 2.8 or an 85mm 1:1.4 lens. If I purchased the 24-70mm I would trade the 24-105mm. If I purchased the 85mm I’d keep the 24-105mm. I guess the question is, which of the two lenses I am considering would be more valuable to have?

I also have bracketed the 24-105mm with a 16-35mm 1:2.8 and a 70-200mm 1:4 L II USM. I also have e a 45MM TS-E lens that I purchased many years ago, but have never used that I am considering trading in because I understand that I can probably get the same effect in post processing that I could get from the TS-E.

Your thoughts, please.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Most everyone prefers (a) the longer focal length range of the 24-105 along with (b) the IS support. Probably no one can assess your question without better knowledge of why you think f/2.8 over a shorter zoom, with no IS support, is more important. The 85L IS is a large, heavy lens, producing amazing images, being one of Canon's final EF models built for sensors in the 30+MP range. What is the intended use of either lens? Why would either lens be a better usage choice over the 24-105?

Either the 24-70 f/2.8L II or the 85L IS is an upgrade over the 24-105. But, the 24-105L II is no slouch. And, you'd have to question whether $1200+ for either lens option is really an 'upgrade' over the utility of an IS-enabled 24-105 zoom.

If you have an IBIS enabled MILC, all these non IS-enabled lenses become much more useful. You might be better served thinking about your camera bodies over moving around the lenses on their deck chairs.

Ruthlessrider

I am shooting with a Canon 5DIV and a Canon R5. They will be with me for a long time.

I shoot primarily landscapes, street photography, and occasionally people’s faces.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

All of these uses are handled fine with a 24-105 f/4 zoom, as well as with all the current lenses. I'd focus on RF lenses, especially the RF 28-70 f/2L, rather than moving around the EF deck chairs.

Ruthlessrider

Thank you so much for the thoughts. I’ve e been following this forum for years now and have always been appreciative of your comments and the range of subject concerning photography.

Do you have any thoughts on tilt/shift lenses given that most of the same effects can now be duplicated with post processing software?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I have all three of the lenses you mention, and slightly different versions of the 16-35 and 70-200. The word is the RF 28-70 is rather unique, where the RF 24-105 f/4 and 24-70 f/2.8L are very similar to their EF versions, so much so, that if you have the EF versions, there's no reason to get the RF, except to skip the EF-RF adapter.

I'd think you'd seek to use the 5DIV for specific situations, with specific lenses, and the R5 for other situations, possibly all lenses. I share my EF lenses with an EOS 1v film body, where the IS lenses give my film body some modern technology for use without a tripod. You might find / purpose non-IS EF lenses for the R5?

I haven't used / owned a tilt-shift lens, so I don't have good comments there.

Ruthlessrider

Thanks again for your thoughts.

MJPerini

I think you have gotten really good information here already
The only thing I would add is that only you know how you generally use your lenses and what features are most important . The 24-105 f/4 II is a very good lens with IS, the 24-70 f/2.8 II is an extraordinary lens, dead sharp and rectilinear. It is, along with the 16-35 f/2.8 III a really amazing lens.
The 24-105 f/4 II is no slouch either, and more versatile. If you could only have one lens, it should probably be the one. Since you have it, in my view you really need a clear reason to make the switch based on YOUR needs.
Similarly, the 85 1.4 is probably the best 85 Canon has ever made, I have the older 85 1.2, which is a slow focuser and not their best corrected lens, but I'll never sell it because it has a look that can be off the charts good.
Fast 85's are often bought for their speed, but if you shoot wide open for a tight head shot you can't get the eyes and the tip of the nose in focus. There is not enough DOF. You can cheat and shoot slightly down on your subject (which tilts the plane of sharp focus a bit, but you better nail it) the 24-105 makes the shot all day long, albeit not with the same look.
You have good lenses, Canon makes lots of good lenses, you should only add or trade for a really compelling reason that you can articulate.
Here is the other thing about a good 24-105, its versatility for a very wide range of pictures is unmatched. Maybe not the best possible choice, but a very good one. Now that you have owned it, I think you will miss it if you sell it.
Hope I didn't make things worse......
Good Luck

User ID

Trade the 45 for an 85.

flashdaddy Loc: Berlin PA

Why not get the RF24-105 2.8?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Could just be the $3 grand solution!!

User ID

Thousands of very solid reasons why not.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

The 85 is bested used for outdoor portraits when extremely shallow DOF and bokeh is desired. Since you are primarily a landscape photographer I say skip that purchase and stick with what you have. Your 24-105 is an excellent lens.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

I have an older version of the 24-105 & while the range is fine, I have not been happy with its sharpness. Not sure if newer versions are better.
I’ve always opted for more light so the 24-70, f2.8 is a clear advantage over f4 and I recently upgraded to this lens and have been extremely pleased at how it approaches my primes in sharpness.
I have an 85 f1.8 which I use for indoor sports (very fast & sharp) so while it might not fit your needs from that respect, it would be excellent for portraits.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Paul said it ALL .......the only reason I can imagine for the 24-70 is if you were doing a lot of indoor/low light work. If you have an R body, the 85 f2 R macro is a GREAT lens which I would prefer over the EF 1.4 version - just sayin'
.