To trade or not to trade? (Drainpipe for 24-105L, that is)

So, I've been home for a few months after a year of living in France, and at the end of the month I'll be moving back for another year. Since I've been home, I've replaced my 40D and Tamron 17-50 with a 5d2 and, well, nothing yet. I need a walkaround before I go back!

My big temptation right now is to trade in my Drainpipe (and a bit o' money) for a 24-105L and be done with it. I love the Drainpipe but its size/weight and the fact that I simply don't use it enough prevent it from attaining the "from my cold dead hands" status that it deserves. Considering the fact that I've budgeted myself $400 in cash (plus a bit more if need be), I've come up with two options (both keeping my Sigmalux):

1. Sell the Drainpipe for around $650 net (they go for a lot higher than that but mine ain't perfect), add in $150-$200 for a 24-105L. Then use the remaining money for a Samyang 85mm for portraits and maybe an old 70-210 just so I can have at least a cheapo option for longer shots.

2. Keep the Drainpipe and pick up a beat-up 28-135 IS as a walkaround for situations where super IQ isn't necessary and an old Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 for times when I need critical sharpness for landscapes.

So the questions are: is the 24-105 good enough to merit getting rid of the fantastic Drainpipe? And, is the 28-135 bad enough that I'd be a fool to get one? Oh, and by the way, the various 3rd-party 2.8 zooms aren't really an option at the moment...I really want IS.

A few of you may recall that I've contemplated letting the Drainpipe go before...this may just be another one of those keep-it-in-the-end situations!

Thanks a lot to anyone with input!

keep your drainpipe. i wonder why people would get the "drainpiple", for only a few hundreds more they'll can get 70-200 f2.8 and it's 10mm wider. it just makes no sense to me.

For me the 24-105mm is a great walkaround lens but it depends what you want it for. I have no personal experience of the drainpipe but i am sure the 24-105mm will be better. Invest in quality glass, you will not regret it!

MrLA wrote in post #10851980
keep your drainpipe. i wonder why people would get the "drainpiple", for only a few hundreds more they'll can get 70-200 f2.8 and it's 10mm wider. it just makes no sense to me.

If you don't need the weather-sealing or the ring USM (though the Drainpipe's focus is decently fast), the Drainpipe is a better lens than the 70-200 f/2.8. At least in terms of IQ!

The 70-200 f/2.8 non IS isn't weather sealed anyway, so it is down to only the 10mm and USM

cloose wrote in post #10852105
The 70-200 f/2.8 non IS isn't weather sealed anyway, so it is down to only the 10mm and USM

I didn't know that. Well...score one for me!

By the way, I agreed on the "too narrow" thing when I had a crop camera, but I've been surprised by how much more useful 80mm has become on my 5d2.

You mention you do not use the drainpipe very much, but I'll bet you'll use the walk around A LOT!

If this is indeed the case, it makes sense to have the better lens in the range you use the most.

In other words, get the 24-105L.

The time spent enjoying it will outweigh the time spent missing the drainpipe

cloose wrote in post #10853761
You mention you do not use the drainpipe very much, but I'll bet you'll use the walk around A LOT!

If this is indeed the case, it makes sense to have the better lens in the range you use the most.

In other words, get the 24-105L.

The time spent enjoying it will outweigh the time spent missing the drainpipe

That's kind of my thinking at the moment. My Drainpipe will probably be in the shop until next week, though, and in the intervening time I've ordered a 28-135 for a RIDICULOUS price. So I'll play around with that and see if it's good enough for what I want. If no, out goes the Drainpipe and in comes a 24-105!

Actually, even if it does turn out to be good enough, I may still swap the Drainpipe for a 135L, which is smaller/lighter and for me will serve just about the same purpose.

MrLA wrote in post #10851980
keep your drainpipe. i wonder why people would get the "drainpiple", for only a few hundreds more they'll can get 70-200 f2.8 and it's 10mm wider. it just makes no sense to me.

Because when I bought my drainpipe it cost half of what a 70-200 f/2.8L did and had better image quality. I'll probably never sell my drainpipe.

casaaviocar wrote in post #10857055
Because when I bought my drainpipe it cost half of what a 70-200 f/2.8L did and had better image quality. I'll probably never sell my drainpipe.

Yeah...used prices seem to have fallen a bit on the 70-200 2.8 and RISEN on the Drainpipe, so now you're looking at probably an average of only $200 difference between the two. And now that I've learned that the 70-200 doesn't have weathersealing, then its ONLY advantages are USM and the fact that Canon will still repair it. The Drainpipe's IQ is pretty undeniably better than the newer model. I myself am horribly reluctant to sell it, even though I rarely use it. In fact, despite my constant intent to sell it, I'd say there's a 75% chance that it'll still be in my bag at the end of the month.