Got an L and now what.....

if i were you, i would probably try to get rid of all the other non-L lenses and replace them with one or two L's. which ones would depend upon you and what you want to shoot.

ditch all your non-L then get 24-105L & 10-22.

you'll cover 10-400 with the new setup.

And then you'll finally have an answer to the "How much zoom is that?" question.

Answer= 40x optical zoom!

engrmariano wrote in post #6173887
ditch all your non-L then get 24-105L & 10-22.

you'll cover 10-400 with the new setup.

Yep, you don't have anything very wide. So, a Canon EF-S 10-22 or Tokina 12-24/4 or 11-16/2.8 might be in order. Unless you just don't have any use for wide lenses.

F2.8 is about a lot more than just light. It's also about bokeh. I chose the 24-70 over the 24-105, couldn't live with f4 in these focal lengths. This was to replace a 28-135 IS that I'd been borrowing (and found an excellent lens choice on my 1.6X cameras).

I love IS on longer lenses, and appreciate it on shorter ones when it's included, but don't really find it essential on anything shorter than about 100mm (on crop sensor cameras). That's just me. 30 years shooting I can hand hold a steady shot pretty well. That could change tomorrow if I develop the shakes, of course

IS also can't stop subject motion, only camera shake. A faster lens is essential in lower light, if your subjects tend to move. Give me f2.8! Heck, even f2.8 isn't all that fast, IMHO, so give me primes!

In fact, I applaud your thoughts about getting a prime instead. In fact, I prefer primes whenever possible and 10 out of 13 of my lenses in my Canon kit are primes.

Now, I grew up shooting when zooms, well, sucked. So anyone who was at all serious about their photos would basically avoid them. There were a few good zooms, but most cost way to much in terms of IQ and speed.

Today's zooms are a lot better in terms of IQ, and can be better sealed against dust and moisture and even nearly as durable as a prime lens (but still have a whole lot more moving parts and more to go wrong). However, I still feel primes can help anyone develop their shooting to another level, by forcing them to move around and look at their subject from different perspectives, and by making them think in terms of specific focal lengths and how those lengths can effect.

Still, there's a time and place for zooms as well. That's why I have several, and they see lots of use.

With primes you can get much faster lenses. Primes are still faster, and sometimes even sharper than zooms, even at the more affordable, mid-grade level. 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are all important lenses in my kit.

A lot depends upon what you shoot, or would like to shoot. There's been little or no discussion here of subjects. That's what really should be driving your selections. What do you miss? What can't you get with the lenses you have now?

Personally, the 35mm focal length on 1.6X cameras is not something I need. It works out slightly longer than a "standard" lens with the crop, and I tended not to use the ubiquitous 50mm lens very much in my film shooting days, still don't find it particularly appealing today. That's why I opted for a slightly wider 28/1.8 instead (along with a 20/2.8). And, now that a 50mm is a great, short tele on 1.6X cameras, mine sees lots of use for portraits.

It would be different if I were shooting full frame cameras. There I'd definitely want a 35mm lens, and the 50mm would go back on the shelf.

And, while I've tried to not "load up" on crop-sensor-only lenses, I also think it's silly to buy for some possible future camera, if it means compromising on lenses needed with current cameras.

Don't fall prey to lens envy or "L-Lust" (which I sense is happening here). Get what you need and shoot with it. There are many fine lenses that aren't L's. And all lenses are tools, nothing more. The reason there are so many different lenses are because each fits a particular job or perhaps spans a few purposes. Pick the tool you need for the job you want to do.

Duplicated focal length ranges in zooms are useful for backup, in case something gets lost, broken or stolen. And, overlapping zoom focal lengths might mean fewer lens changes, which can be important when shooting in fast moving situations (where zooms, in general, are more useful).

However, paring your kit down and eliminating duplication and/or minimizing overlap lightens your load, frees up moneys to use on other necessary tools and also allows you to better focus (pun intended) on each piece of your kit to learn how to get the very best out of it.

If you really don't know what you need, then you really don't need anything at all.

Thank you all for the suggestions, looks like the 70-300 is going to go....... anyone interested ?

well you're on a cropper so it's a bit tricky since the EF-S lenses aren't Ls but probably should be. Not that a siLly letter matters IMHO.

but if I were you I'd be moving toward these upgrades:
18-55 -> 17-55
28-135 IS USM -> 24-105
70-300 IS USM -> 70-200 IS (pick the aperture to suit)

but personally if you're a zoom guy in a crop body I'd go with a 10-2x, a 24-105 or 24-70 and a 70-200. Personally I'd make it the 10-22, 24-104, 70-200 f4 IS. Then call it a day. But there are strong arguments for the 17-55 over the 24-105 and or 24-70 and even 10-22 depending on what you shoot.