owning more than one lens for the same focal range and aperture

Just curious : how many of you guys own more than one lens for the same focal range and aperture?

In my case, I have the 70-200 IS II. It's absolutely awesome and I love it.
But sometimes I wish it wasn't white and a bit lighter, in another word : less attention-grabbing and easier to carry. Yesterday I accidentally saw this guy was selling his almost new tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens. I immediately contacted him and bought it for $400.

The lens is quite a bit lighter than 70-200 IS II. The canon weighs 30% more than the tamron. Also the tamron is black, which I prefer. Only did some test shots, initial impression : it 's a sharp lens, much sharper than the sigma 70-200 EX HSM I had before at 200mm , f2.8. When stopped down to f/4 it's about the same sharpness to the IS II at f/2.8. AF is on the slow side, but I don't plan to shoot sports with it, primarily just for candid shots. For shooting event I will still bring the IS II.

Now let me hear your stories

I'd get the 135mm f/2 instead if I wanted a lighter and smaller telephoto lens.

Rush87 wrote in post #14918907
I'd get the 135mm f/2 instead if I wanted a lighter and smaller telephoto lens.

Yup, that's one option. Just that I sold the 135L and replaced it with the 100mm f/2, which is lighter and more stealthy than 135L, and with the same aperture. But I found that myself prefer zoom more because of the flexibility

I own two copies of the Sigma 150 Macro. With and without optical stabilization.

Hows that for duplication?

That's a stupid reason if you ask me, getting another lens just because it's black. You mind as well spray paint your 70-200mm f/2.8 II. There are many custom painted lenses out there. But to be on topic: No I wouldn't do that. It's a complete waste of money to even do so.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

ZeroSkylineX wrote in post #14919181
That's a stupid reason if you ask me, getting another lens just because it's black. You mind as well spray paint your 70-200mm f/2.8 II.

A paint job doesn't address the weight issue.

I have a 50mm CM and a 50mm f/1.8 (MK1)

Even though I have the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 MK1, I've kept my sharp copy of Tamron 70-210 F/2.8. I figure I'd only get a few hundred Tamron, and I'd just keep peace of mind that I have a very decent backup if my Canon goes down.

I use my 135L or 85mm f/1.8 if I need a more inconspicuous lens (smaller and black).

I'm probably going to get the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC just because it has VC, despite already owning the 24-70mm f2.8L. Canon won't give me IS so screw 'em.

cdifoto wrote in post #14919228
I'm probably going to get the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC just because it has VC, despite already owning the 24-70mm f2.8L. Canon won't give me IS so screw 'em.

Do you think you'll sell the Canon if you are happy with the Tamron?

Why would you want a stealthy black lens ? Can't imagine wanting a black stealthy lens myself... Oh, wait- most of my lenses are black..

You know- I was doing good till I got the Canon 70-200 IS II USM. Up till then, the wife thought they were all the same ( all black.. ).

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14919366
Why would you want a stealthy black lens ? Can't imagine wanting a black stealthy lens myself... Oh, wait- most of my lenses are black..

You know- I was doing good till I got the Canon 70-200 IS II USM. Up till then, the wife thought they were all the same ( all black.. ).

I know my wife noticed when I first got my 70-200 IS MKI (mine were all black until then too - except for one Kenko 2X TC), funny thing is though she never said anything. Plus she gets the bank statement.

IMHO a generalization with any 70-200mm f/2.8 (black or white), stealthy is not exactly a good descriptor.

frugivore wrote in post #14919334
Do you think you'll sell the Canon if you are happy with the Tamron?

Possibly. It's kind of rough looking after 7 years of use though.

Here is my story. About candid photos.

I like candid photography. Started with 70-200. Quickly realized my photos were looking like people zoo but not candid like.

Started to read about candid photos. Realized, 28, 35 and 50mm on 35mm cameras are candid range. And preferably primes. I have MF 28mm and 17_40mm for close candid action. As close as one meter. For DSLRs.
Continued to read more about candid photography. And look at another candid photos. This is why I have now three 50 2.8 and two 50 2 primes among three RF film bodies.
Still learning how to develop b/w film properly, but candid photos from them are so much better compare to digital pictures. Not technically, but naturally.
End of story, for now.

genjurok wrote in post #14918870
Just curious : how many of you guys own more than one lens for the same focal range and aperture?

I have two of something which has no aperture and no focal range, but does come in two colors! I have a Canon 1.4x-II telextender in off-white, and the Kenko 1.4x DG in black.

I can stack them
I can put the Kenko on my 100mm f/2 lens
I have a black teleconvertor that matches black lenses, while also having off-white teleconvertor that matches the off-white lenses

I've got a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and Canon 50mm f1.4 (in addition to the 1.2 )

My preference is to keep the Sigma, but it's good to have the Canon handy.