Hey guys, I need some help!

I'm shooting a 40D and I have a 50 1.8, a 17-55, a 35-135 a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 70-300 IS USM plus a 1.4 extender. I'm getting antsy - I want a new lens but I can't figure out what to get. The 17 is wide enuf and with the extender so is the 70-300. I'm thinking of a 28-135 IS to replace the 35-135. I handhold exclusively so I like light lens with IS. Thots? Thanks, Harry

What about the EF-S 18-135 STM IS? The STMs are supposed to be showing remarkable results compared to their older counterparts.

What do you shoot primarily? Are you looking for a fast lens that's good in low light, or is a farther reach your need? That will govern your choice.

What you really need is a new body to unleash the potential of your existing lenses....

i'd get another prime...

I have the 28-135. It is my 'go to' lens on my 5Dc. I like it on that camera. I tried it on my 60D and do not care for it much on that body. It just seems mushier. I don't know whether that is because of FF/APSc or 12/18 MP. In any event, I'd consider the 15-85 or 18-135 STM instead of the 28-135. I have the 15-85 for my 60D. Nice lens.

100-400mm... there are no substitutes for cubic inches!

joeseph wrote in post #16362346
100-400mm... there are no substitutes for cubic inches!

This one also gets my vote. Embrace wildlife and sports photography.

I own a 28-135 IS and never use it. 28mm is not wide enough for. For that matter, the 24-105L is also not wide enough for me. I would be more interested in the 15-85 (I personally went with the 17-85 IS back when I owned a 350D).

Otherwise, I like the other suggestion of upgrading your DSLR body. Higher ISO than the 40D can do is very useful. Get a 70D bundled with the 18-135 STM. If you keep the 40D, you would now have the option of running around with two DSLR bodies with two focal lengths at the ready.

Seems like you have too many lenses already...

Sounds like you want to replace a current one though so a more modern equiv with IS may suit or a wide IS prime.

I'd pass on the 28-135. I had one a few years back and replaced it with the 24-105. The difference was like day and night. I agree with LeeRatters. You seem to have lots of lenses.

James P wrote in post #16362522
I'd pass on the 28-135. I had one a few years back and replaced it with the 24-105. The difference was like day and night. I agree with LeeRatters. You seem to have lots of lenses.

James P,
I really like your signature tag line. My wife was a high-school chemistry teacher. One of her class-room mottos was: "If better is possible, good enough isn't... good enough."

I vote new body. If you've already got the focal lengths you like, that seems like it'd be a better upgrade. Better autofocus, better low-light/ISO performance would greatly enhance your existing lenses.

Thanks guys! I think that I'll take a look at the 70D and the 18-135. Or maybe a prime. Back in the day I shot a Nikon with the 85mm 1.8 - for everything. I got it primarily to shoot dance but I liked it so much that I used it for everything. 85mm. Hmmm, doesn't Canon make a lens like that? <g>

What do you normally shoot? Portrait, wildlife, landscape, etc..?

WaterVsAnchor wrote in post #16362933
What do you normally shoot? Portrait, wildlife, landscape, etc..?

I'm pretty eclectic but I don't shoot portraits. Candids of people, but no portraits.