to trade in, to sell or not to?.....

Hi!


Here's a quick list of my photographic gear:


>Canon 40D w/ 18-55 IS kit lens


>Canon 50mm 1.8 II


>Canon 85mm 1.8


>Canon 24-70mm 2.8 L (UX date code)


>Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L non-IS


>Manfrotto tripod w/ 804RC2 head


>Leica DLux 4





Im planning to sell/rade in my 70-200mm 2.8L for something Im not really sure if Im thinking the right way. I want to have something like a 135 f2 L. But the thing is...135mm is already covered in the 70-200mm focal length. On the other hand, sharper images ( im not sure compared to 70-200), faster lens, llighter & not attracting a lot of attention compared to the "big white". With the 70-200mm, better reach w/ the 200mm at the end, versatile subject framing, weather-sealed.


Im really confused right now!


Here's what I'm wishing for:


>fisheye lens ( canon or third party)


>60mm macro since Im on 1.6 body


>UWA 14mm L/15mm prime, 17-40 f4 L, tokina 11-16/tokina 10-??mm


>135 f2 L (as mentioned above)


>Flash (580ex II or Metz 58 AF-1)


>70-200mm 2.8 L IS II





Im more into general field, hence Im using my DLUx 4 for wide angle purposes & sometimes still macros (generates quite nice photos after PP). Its doing better than my kit lens actually! Using 50mm & 24-70mm as walkaround lens & 85mm 1.8 / 70 -200mm 2.8 for landscape & action photography.





Any suggestions? I hope im not doing a decision which I will really regret in the end.





Thanks in advance guys1

I'd say keep the 70-200mm f/2.8 L and save up for an ultra wide like the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. I'm not a fan of variable maximum aperture lenses, however, I own the 10-22 and love it regardless. If you don't think you'd use the ultra wide that much, then I highly suggest saving up for the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. No, it isn't built like an "L," but it produces superb images that even bests some Ls. I own the 17-55, and it is the most useful lens I own. Granted, you've already got that range covered in your gear bag, but the 17-55's constant wide maximum aperture coupled with IS make it far more useful.

I think you are right! But how about dust issues as indicated in other posts? Should I have the 17-55 IS in my kit? I might upgrade soon on a full frame body in the future. How's the resale value of 17-55 IS?





Thanks for the eye-opener!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhc_1

I want to have something like a 135 f2 L [...] sharper images, faster lens, llighter
& not attracting a lot of attention compared to the "big white".

---

It will indeed be slightly sharper, as well as the other advantages you mentioned. It also has excellent bokeh, even better than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. If you are willing to give up the flexibility of the zoom, I say go for it. Personally, I've decided that a zoom in that range fits me better, but there's certain flexibility in f/2 itself.


If you're not sure, it may be a good idea to go for one of your other ideas instead, such as a wide angle lens. I don't recommend the 14 or 15mm primes at all -- they are way too expensive to use on a crop camera. I suggest the Sigma 8mm fisheye over the Canon 15mm fisheye, much better value. There are lots of excellent zoom choices, though, like the 11-16 f/2.8 or Canon 10-22. The EF-S 60mm is also excellent.