I need assistance asap!

[ddt0725]

Hi All -

I am INFAMOUS for sellers remorse and now I have the opportunity to buy two used lenses. Both I had bought new and sold not all that long ago ...but I miss them! Only problem is, I can only afford to get one and I need to make a decision quick on which one before they sell to someone else!

Lens #1 - Canon 17-55mm for $740 (I got him to come down from $800). He purchased it new in Sept. and it comes with everything. He says it doesn't have any dust which most sellers say their's has. I have the Tamron 17-50mm but less face it, it's not the Canon 17-55mm! I can come down on my selling price more and hopefully it would sell so I am not with two lenses in the same range.

Lens #2 - Canon 135L for $825 (will only come down $25 from original asking price). UX date code, comes with everything. I really miss this lens! I love the bokeh and sharpness of this lens! He says it's like new. I do think his asking price is slightly high for what it is going for currently but he'd be shipping from Canada.

My current lenses consist of the 70-200mm f/4 IS (another one I bought new, sold and rebought used), Sigma 85mm, Canon 100mm macro IS, Canon 200mm 2.8L II, Canon 100-400mm, Tamron 17-50mm (non VC), and I have the Canon 50mm 1.8 II coming today.

Decisions! Decisions! HELP!

Denise

[neuroanatomist]

Hmmm..... I'd probably be inclined to the 17-55mm, assuming you use the Tamron 17-50mm often. Tough decision, though...

[Joel Eade]

I am the opposite, you have the 17-50mm focal length already and assuming you're happy with it, I would get the 135L.

(An added bonus could also be that in many instances the value of L lenses will not decrease much over time because the new versions are so much more expensive.)

[Kayaker72]

Agreed...given everything you just rattled, off, I'd probably go for the EFS 17-55 as well. A couple of reasons:
1. You have the 100 mm L Macro. Which is a great lens itself. Somewhat similar to the 135 mm and only 1 stop slower.
2. If you replace the Tamron, you only would have one wide lens. Plus selling the Tamron makes the net purchase of the 17-55 much less than the 135 mm (I assume you wouldn't sell another lens if you bought the 135 mm).
3. Make sure you have the best of the lenses you will use the most. I know you posted a lot of photos using the 17-55 when you had one. I don't recall seeing too many from the Tamron. And, even above, you indicate you prefer the 17-55.

That said, I can see this being a tough decision.

[ddt0725]

Thanks, it really, really does help "typing out loud" so to speak, that is why I posted this thread and secondly the feedback sure does help as I bounce back and forth on this!

I am leaning toward the 17-55mm I think (at least at this moment)! I don't use that focal length a real, real lot but when I do need or want to, I guess having previously owned the 17-55mm, I have developed a negative attitude toward the Tamron and don't reach for it. I know that sounds wierd because it is a perfectly fine lens it's just hard to use it and love it after having the 17-55mm. I don't know, I can't explain it ...LOL! Plus, it will leave me with extra $ in my pocket and I can always pick up the 135L later I guess. Also, with the 135L coming from Canada, it will take forever to get here and I am not a patient person by any means! And I do have the 135mm pretty closely covered length wise with the 70-200mm and the 100mm ...but the 135L is so addictive!

Ok, I am a grown woman and can figure this out right!? My luck both are selling as I try to make up my mind ...errrr!!

[neuroanatomist]

Down the line, might you consider selling the 200/2.8 II to fund the 135L?

[ddt0725]

Down the line, might you consider selling the 200/2.8 II to fund the 135L?

It was a HUGE debate when I sold the 135L whether to sell the 200mm instead. The 135L is a better focal length for me but at the time and a panic of losing my job out of the blue, I sold the one that I could get the most $ for.

So yes, that is a huge possibility!

[Jayson]

Put the plastic down and take a deep breath. Ok, with that out of the way, how much would you use either of the lenses that you plan on purchasing? Do you use the 200 often. I think John had a great point in selling the 200 to fund the 135L. You can do that later. I would get the 17-55 if you must trade off something and then sell your Tammy. I still have my Tammy and think it is a great lens that I use for indoor purposes only. I have the 24-70 now and it preforms close to the same, minus the little buzz from the AF. I think the whole decision would be how much would you use the lens that you plan on purchasing and go from there. Look back at your photos and see the focal length you used the most out of the pictures you have and there should be your answer. Good luck!

[Sheiky]

Out of the two I would think the 135mm f2 could give you the most. For me personaly I hardly use a wide-angle lens wide-open. Your Tamron should be just as good for the landscape shots etc. as the 17-55 would be at narrower apertures. The IS is a definite benefit for me, but if you use your tripod more often than I do(very likely) IS plays a smaller role. By the way I guess where talking about days of longer delivery with the 135L right? Not weeks or months I hope?

In the end I'd say buy what you need/want the most.

My current lenses consist of the 70-200mm f/4 IS (another one I bought new, sold and rebought used), Sigma 85mm, Canon 100mm macro IS, Canon 200mm 2.8L II, Canon 100-400mm, Tamron 17-50mm (non VC), and I have the Canon 50mm 1.8 II coming today.

To be fair I don't really see the logic in your lens line-up. The differences between the 100-400, 70-200 and 200 are so small that these would have to have a very special individual purpose. I assume the 100-400 would be the primary wildlife lens. The 1-stop faster aperture of the 70-200 would not really make it a low-light wildlife lens. The weather-sealing would then be the bigger factor. The 200mm would make more sense for a low-light lens, however lacking IS makes it less usable as a walkaround lens. Trading the 200mm and 70-200 F4 for the F2.8 70-200 would make sense to me. As well as selling your 200mm to fund the 135L.
Since you mentioned your back-problems I assume you're not taking your entire gear with you everytime you go hiking. What lenses stay at home or in the bag the most? Build your kit from that base I would say. But that's just me

[ddt0725]

Jan, you are throwing a wrench in my thought process and to be honest I really do appreciate it! You force me to think logically just as my daughter does at home ...I call her my mother because she is the more sensible one!

Yes, so far there has been no logic to my reasoning when it comes to photography gear. So let me try and type this out and hopefully come to a decision ...

You are right, the Tamron is good enough I guess and I do have the 50mm 1.8 II coming today (from what I've seen it is sharp but not the greatest background blur) but I really don't use a tripod too often.
I have the 70-200mm f4 IS mainly for the IS and the weight as opposed to the 2.8. The zoom range is great for running grandkids and dogs and the take-along weight is great for going to the park and I don't have to run around with them as much for a shot as I would have to with a prime. But the 200mm prime is great for low light when needed and blurring the background and again a nice weight for me (so the two sort of make up for not having the weighty 70-200mm 2.8).

So, hmmm ...looks like now the logical decision (and I am trying real hard to be logical on this one) would be to keep the Tamron, sell the 200mm and get the 135L.