I've overthinked this, now I need some third party perspective

I've been thinking, analyzing, and changing my mind back and fourth. I've gotten to the point where I need to step back and get a fresh perspective on a lens shakeup and that's where YOU come in.

For those that will ask what equipment I have:
5D, 30D, 17-40L, 70-200 F/2.8 IS, and 100 F/2.8 Macro.

For those that will ask what I shoot: I'm dropping weddings from the mix, and I'm not shooting wildlife or sports. I will be focusing on personal work and stock photography. I want to travel light, shoot indoors & out, and in varying light. Vague I know, for a better idea feel free to hit up my flickr or website in my sig below.

Here's the facts and what I am looking to accomplish:

1. gain a walkaround zoom as I don't currently have one. I'm set on the Tamron 28-75. I've owned this and the brick in the past and I'm ready to accept the compromises for the smaller, lighter, cheaper lens. I've been renting a standard zoom for all of my jobs lately.

2. lighten my telephoto load so that I actually take the bloody thing with me when I go shooting. I'm selling my 70-200 F/2.8 IS for this reason, and I've decided to step away from wedding work so I can sacrifice some speed.

3. Add a fast prime to my bag. I tend to favor the 35mm focal length over 50mm, but I'm not sure if that is simply because I just really want the 35L and I've convinced myself that's my preference. When reviewing my stats I do have more images on average below and above 50mm.

Here are the options I am considering:

A. Tamron 28-75, 50mm F/1.4, 135L. The 50mm would be my compromise from the 35L, and the 135L is just a lens I lust after. My concern here is that I lose the flexibility of the telephoto zoom. I also question whether I'd be content with the 50mm and not secretly wanting the 35L.

B. Tamron 28-75, 35L, 70-200 F/4 non-IS. To do this I'd have to sell my 100mm Macro leaving me with no fast glass above 75mm. The other concern is losing image stabilization on my telephoto.

C. Tamron 28-75, 50mm F/1.4, 70-200 F/4 IS. Seems pretty solid as long as I can pry myself away from the 35L & 135L. I guess the only concern here is whether I'll be content with the 50mm, and whether I'll regret not chasing my lust for the 35/135.

D. Completely chase lust and go for the 35L, 135L, and if I can stretch it the Tamron 28-75 leaving me with no telephoto zoom and possibly accomplishing only 1 of my 3 goals.

So thanks for reading, I just needed to think out loud and type this out. I understand that I'm a bit all over the map, however if you have an opinion or perspective I'd welcome it to get my refocused and back on track.

Cheers!

Only comment I can make is that the 35L is my absolute favorite. However, this is probably due to my history. When my Leica was my primary camera, the lens I used 90% of the time was my 35mm Summilux (f/1.4) so I probably have a psychological bias somewhere in there. Having said that, it is a great lens, low and normal light. Sharpness, color, flexibility cannot be beat.

Oh I should add an important footnote - I do not have a great deal of experience with primes so I am not certain that I prefer to work that way. That being said I took a trip this summer where I used my zooms @ 35mm and my 100mm macro as "two primes" and I did enjoy the challenge and results.

Cheers!

I would do a 35, 7-200 4is, and then add a midzoom as needed later...
Maybe sell the 100 for the mid zoom...

I use my 50L more than any other lens by far...

Thanks for the input fellas. I can certainly see the 35L becoming a favorite. That's an interesting option iqbal, I had not previously considered it. I do have the 30D + 17-40 for a general purpose combination, I think having a telephoto with me is more important than bridging the gap between 40mm and 70mm on my 5D. Thanks.

Having just purchased a 70-200 f/4 IS, I heartily recommend it as your longer zoom. I had to sell my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 non IS because the weight had become too much - I have worsening arthritis in my hand, wrist and shoulder. The f/4 IS is much, much lighter and the image quality is just awesome.

You can also get the 135L and a TC I had it and it was great IQ is not compromised another option you can consider. The only reason I got rid of the 135L is because I'm fairly new at this and still need to get my technique down so I cam use a FL that long without IS.

Ugh, just noticed your in NS(absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's that I just looked at Newegg.ca and for some reason no Canon lenses hence the ugh).

I was going to say Newegg has the 35L, 135L, and the f/4L IS running with the zero interest for twelve months with the preferred accounts(it's probably always running but I just started using them so IDK). I would have said say you got $1500 for the 2.8L IS, drop that as your first payment and the rest would be $165~ for the next year. Not to bad to take considering what your getting.

So maybe instead pick up a used 35L, 135L, and non-IS f/4 and just keep the tripod in the trunk for the longer SS stuff. Hopefully the sale of the 2.8 would net you enough to fund the f/4 and 135 after fees and shipping.

Then again I'm of the mindset of it's only money and I can always make more of it. Maybe not the healthiest ways of looking at it but I'm doing ok with it so far.

Good luck deciding.

20DNewbie wrote in post #8891584
Ugh, just noticed your in NS(absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's that I just looked at Newegg.ca and for some reason no Canon lenses hence the ugh).

I was going to say Newegg has the 35L, 135L, and the f/4L IS running with the zero interest for twelve months with the preferred accounts(it's probably always running but I just started using them so IDK). I would have said say you got $1500 for the 2.8L IS, drop that as your first payment and the rest would be $165~ for the next year. Not to bad to take considering what your getting.

So maybe instead pick up a used 35L, 135L, and non-IS f/4 and just keep the tripod in the trunk for the longer SS stuff. Hopefully the sale of the 2.8 would net you enough to fund the f/4 and 135 after fees and shipping.

Then again I'm of the mindset of it's only money and I can always make more of it. Maybe not the healthiest ways of looking at it but I'm doing ok with it so far.

Good luck deciding.

Darn right there's nothing wrong with NS, Maritimers unite!

Thanks for the input - if I run shy of coin on whatever path I choose I'll just save up for what I need. I'm still set on the IS version of the 70-200, I'd sacrifice the 135L today for the flexibility that zoom affords.

If you sell the 30D, does that free up more $$ to allow you to get the 35L? The 5D with 17-40, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 IS would be a very versatile system. Or maybe you aren't a big UWA fan and could replace the 17-40 with the Tamron 28-75.

The 135L is a small light telephoto and the IQ is great. IQ in the 7-2 f/4 IS is also fabulous. 135L plus a TC is a way to force it to be 2 lenses in one.

n1as wrote in post #8891861
If you sell the 30D, does that free up more $$ to allow you to get the 35L? The 5D with 17-40, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 IS would be a very versatile system. Or maybe you aren't a big UWA fan and could replace the 17-40 with the Tamron 28-75.

The 135L is a small light telephoto and the IQ is great. IQ in the 7-2 f/4 IS is also fabulous. 135L plus a TC is a way to force it to be 2 lenses in one.

Sorry, big UWA fan here. I'll be selling my 70-200 and a rebel XT body, along with a few other items. I'll be holding on to both the 5D and 30D. Thanks!

Just thinking outloud again. The Tamron, 50mm, and 70-200 lineup seems like the most logical - the most bang for the buck if you will. I keep telling myself that the 50mm is a good way to see if I like working with a prime, but man that 35L is calling me! The 35L + 70-200 is a little out of my budget, but I suppose I could scrimp and save. Get one lens now and one a bit down the road. Bah. decisions decisions!

I don't see the point in getting a 50mm if you prefer to use longer or shorter focal lengths.

28-75, 70-200/4 IS, 35L. If you can't afford that, get the 35/2 or 28/1.8 until you can afford the 35L. As an added bonus, you'll figure out if you really do like the 35mm focal length or not without spending as much.

toxic wrote in post #8893172
I don't see the point in getting a 50mm if you prefer to use longer or shorter focal lengths.

Simply because the 50mm is an easy way to see if I enjoy working with primes. The only primes I've owned are the 35mm f/2 & 50mm f/1.8 only on crop, and the 100 macro.

I have nearly the same lineup, but I also have a 24-105 for walk around / studio and a 35 f1.4 L for a fast prime. I love the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but maybe a good sub would be the 135 f2 or the f4 zoom.

See this would give you-

17-40
24-105
70-200 (any flavor) and/or 135 L
35 L
100 macro