Redundant? 28-135mm and 20-35mm...

[Steve Parr]

So last night I picked up the 28-135mm IS USM, and I'm diggin it. I'm beginning to think, though, that I might be awfully close to replicating the 20-35mm.

Are those extra 8mm on the short end that important? I rarely shoot that wide, and the f-stop range is only slightly faster.

I really like the 20-35mm. It's a nice, sharp copy, but my thought is I could sell the 20-35mm, get it to someone who would actually use it, and put the money towards other things (there are always "other" things, aren't there?).

Thoughts?

Steve

[tim]

That's a question only you can answer. Use both for a while, see what you like. Personally i'd prob sell the 20-35 and get a 10-20 or 12-24.

[Steve Parr]

That's a question only you can answer. Use both for a while, see what you like. Personally i'd prob sell the 20-35 and get a 10-20 or 12-24.

I thought about the 10-22mm, but that's a bit more than I can bite off at the moment...

Steve

[Dante King]

if its collecting dust, sell it.

[weasel]

The additionial 8mms are, for me, easily needed. If the 8mm difference were at the end of your tele range, perhaps not so needed, but at the bottom of your wide range, it may be missed. This is why, while I have a 24-70L, I still have my 18-55mm kit lens (at least until I can replace that focal length).