EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

flatheadfisher

I can't decide which to get. I have a the following already:

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 the first one
EF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the first one
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens

The EF 28-80 is an old lens I have had for years and the AF quit working on it. I sent it back to Canon and they don't even repair them any more. The 75-300 is also an old lens but it works good and I use it if I am climbing or doing something "risky." I got the kit lens just because it wasn't too expensive. I like its light weight but that is about it. It just feels cheap.

I really love the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L. It is way more lens that I will ever be worthy of. But, I can't drive my mustang as fast as it can actually go either.

The lens will be my primary carry lens for general use - trails, zoos, dogs, landscapes, tourism, my 2 yr old nephew, and other people. Is the extra length best or the extra brightness. Decisions, decisions.

BTW, after this purchase, I am interested in getting a good lens for close-up work of flowers and insects.

Thanks for your input!

pathfinder

You have not listed your camera in you profile, so....

I think for your needs the 24-105 f4 IS L will be a better overall lens than the 24-70 f2.8. It is smaller, lighter, as sharp, and the IS is great. A little cheaper by almost ~$100.00 It will be sharper than the 28-135 IS also.

Use the money to purchase a 500D 77mm screw in macro atttachment and your are good to go.

You can then sell your 28-80 for a little extra cash.

flatheadfisher

I have a digital rebel xti and an eos elan 7e that I don't use much now.

I didn't know about the screw in attachments, I am a rookie. Thanks for your suggestion!

claudermilk

I'll go with Pathfinder here. The 24-105 is more suited to your uses. This from a very happy 24-70 user, too. The 24-70 is more aimed at low-light use while the 24-105 is more of a general walkaround lens--like what you intend to use it for. Heck, with the 24-105 you could sell off both the 28-80 and 75-300 and still maintain focal length coverage with fewer lenses (18-55, 24-105, 100-400)--and end up with IS on 2/3 of them. Yep, 24-105 is the way to go IMHO.