New lense ??

[Bruford]

I now have these lenses: EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. It is nice to have IS in low light but would not a faster lense say 2-2.8 without IS also give me the same or better results.
I do mostly landscape. And have been thinking of selling these to get either Sigma lenses: 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF, and 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM
or Canon lenses: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
Any suggestions.

[FlyingPete]

I have been eyeing off the 24-70 2.8L as well for simular reasons as you have, it is fast. You do raise a good point about IS though, but you will loose some focal length, and at 950g that lens will give you a good work out as a walk about lens (the two main things after cost that put me off it).

[tim]

I'd suggest keeping the existing lenses, as you wouldn't get a lot for them and they'd be good walk around lenses - especially the 28-135. Remember larger aperture means less depth of field, so sometimes you're better off with IS than a fast lens.

If you decide to sell the 28-135 anyway, send me a PM :)

[Bruford]

Thanks for your comments Tim and Peter. The weight of the canon 24-70 is a factor as well as cost. Also I find sometimes I want the shallower DOF but can't get it. What about the sigma lenses is the picture quality good? I can get both for the price of one of the "L" glass.

[Pyromaniac]

Bruford if you decide to sell the 75-300 let me know I might be interested in it. I have the older non IS/USM version and wouldn't mind upgrading if the price is right.

[Jon]

Canon claims IS will give you 2 stops improvement in hand-holding, on average; the f/2.8 lenses you're looking at will only give you 2 stops at the long end over the max. apertures of your existing lenses, and the long end isn't as long as what you have now, for either lens. So, theoretically, the faster lenses wouldn't be faster for you. What you would get is the fabled Canon L quality, or a fairly close approximation with the Sigmas (but test the Sigmas carefully; based on posts here the Sigma QC is, um, variable ).

[gramps]

Thanks for your comments Tim and Peter. The weight of the canon 24-70 is a factor as well as cost. Also I find sometimes I want the shallower DOF but can't get it. What about the sigma lenses is the picture quality good? I can get both for the price of one of the "L" glass.
I was a little concerned about using the 24 - 70 as a walk around lens before I bought it. Now that I have had it for a couple of months I find theat the weight is no big deal. Don't let the weight "issue" stop you from getting it. It is a greeat chunk of glass.

[Andy_T]

Also consider the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI.

Very sharp lens (comparable to the 24-70 L, though maybe not completely up to it) at 300$. Also, the smallest & lightest 2.8 lens available.

Best regards,
Andy