Got an L and now what.....

Got my first L about a month ago and now I want to start upgrading my other lenses (Gear list \/) , Which would you get rid of? any keepers? I want to get a 35L soon but there are none to be had.

Well it seems like you could ditch the 18-55 for either 17-40L or 24-70L. That way you can get rid of the 28-135 IS, because 100-300 would be double covered as you'd have a 70-300 and 100-400...

Just a thought.

I hate to give you the answer you didn't ask for. But I think a full frame camera is in order for what you have (sorry).

The 24-105L makes a nice upgrade from the 28-135 while keeping a similar focal length. My 28-135 was really crisp, so I didn't really get a sharpness boost, but I did get better contrast and much more pleasant bokeh.

+1 for the 24-105. This lens would replace you 28-135. Then I'd get an EF-S 10-22 to cover the wide angle.

Work on ditching the 18-55 for something better in the wide range that suits your needs...

10-22/12-24 and the rest are primes

The 70-300 and 100-400 are redundant unless you need a highly portable telezoom.

The 28-135 is not a good fit on any 1.6X body IMO.

And while the 18-55 is an OK range, it is slow.

Perhaps sell all three and add the EF-S 17-55?

Or as someone else here suggested, sell all three and get a 5D kit with the 24-105? That would be a nice setup.

It depends on what you shoot. But that 70-300 seems a little redundant now that you have your 100-400L. If you want a good walkaround lens, sell all your lenses besides the new L and consider something like a 17-55 f/2.8 IS or 24-105L.

Collin85 wrote in post #6172994
It depends on what you shoot. But that 70-300 seems a little redundant now that you have your 100-400L. If you want a good walkaround lens, sell all your lenses besides the new L and consider something like a 17-55 f/2.8 IS or 24-105L.

I like Collin's suggestion. You could probably sell your others lenses, keeping the 100-400, and pick up something like the 17-55/2.8, 24-70/2.8L or 24-105L depending on your personal preference. Later you could add a 10-22.

Ditch the 18-55, 28-135 and 70-300. Get the 35L you wanted and add the 24-105L. You'll be covered very nicely between the 35, 24-105 and 100-400.

You wouldnt need anything beyond that unless you want ultra wides.

Get the 24L instead...

Ditch the 70-300 for a 70-200mm f/4 IS (or the f/2.8 if you can swing it)
The 100-400 would be for long wildlife type shots, and the 70-200 would be your portrait/event/people/​whatever telephoto zoom. If find the 100-400 a bit difficult to handle if I'm covering an indoor event (or even outdoor where I'm dealing with people) whereas the 70-200mm f/4 IS is much lighter, more discreet, and works fine indoors with a flash. 100-400 comes out where I know I'm going to see wildlife, 70-200 for everything else.

Unfortunately, now that you''ve experienced L, it's going to be hard to buy anything less (except for a few excellent non-Ls such as various Sigma EXs and the EF 85mm f/1.8 )

I'd agree the 70-300 is redundant. As far as the rest of your lenses are concerned, I'm not going to suggest what to get rid of and what to get because I don't know what or how you like to shoot. You should be able to figure out what lens suits your needs from that. The 24-105 IS as suggested is a nice lens but you lose anything wide so you could combine that with a wider lens if you needed it. Alternatively you could get something like the 17-55 2.8 IS. But again, what/how do you shoot? Figure that out for yourself.