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

[sirhc_1]

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

[Sean Setters]

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.

[sirhc_1]

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!

[Daniel Browning]

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.