Should I sell my 'kit' lens?

[ifi]

Hi,

I am new to photography. I purchased a Canon 7d and it came with Canon 28-135mm lens. Then I purchased a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC to use with my new camera and this is the lens that I use all the time.

Now I am thinking of buying Canon 70-200 f4 IS as my second lens and I am thinking if I will ever use 28-135?

Do you think I should sell the kit (28-135) lens? Or I might need/use it for casual (zoo, etc.) usage?

Thanks

 

[Dao]

I think ... it does not matter what we think. It only matter what you think.

 

[ifi]

I think ... it does not matter what we think. It only matter what you think.

What you think matters to me
Would you sell it if you were in this situation?

 

[KmH]

Lenses I don't use get sold to help finance lenses I want. The trouble is, there are more lenses I want, than lenses I have I don't use.

 

[Big Mike]

If you can get a decent amount for it, then go for it. The trouble is that the market is flooded with cheap 'kit' lenses (although the 28-135mm is a decent mid-range lens and not just the 18-55mm 'kit' lens).

I've got some pretty good lenses, but I still have my 17-85mm IS, which I pull out when just playing around or at a family gathering etc.
I've also still got an 18-55mm, and if I thought I could get anything for it, I'd sell it, because I haven't used it in many years.

 

[Dao]

When I told my wife she do not need that many hand bags and should sell some of them ...... then I got into trouble. So I figured different people see things differently (~_~; )

 

[ifi]

When I told my wife she do not need that many hand bags and should sell some of them ...... then I got into trouble. So I figured different people see things differently (~_~; )

Man you asked for it...

 

[ifi]

Lenses I don't use get sold to help finance lenses I want. The trouble is, there are more lenses I want, than lenses I have I don't use.

I am just starting this as a new hobby, maybe one day my approach will change

 

[bigtwinky]

When I told my wife she do not need that many hand bags and should sell some of them ...... then I got into trouble. So I figured different people see things differently (~_~; )

I usually sell lenses that I dont use if i can get some decent coin for them. I wouldn't sell a lens for $100, as that is a drop in the bucket when you are looking at upgrading.

Will you use the 28-135 if you have both the 17-50 and the 70-200? All you are missing is the 50-70 range. The 70-200 f/4 IS is a stellar lens... you will totally love it and I doubt you'll go back to the 28-135.

I also carry around 2-3 lenses when I go out on a photo walk, I rarely just have 1 lens with me, so I would go with the selling the 28-135. And you'll like the 135-200 range on your 70-200 over the 28-135 when you are at the zoo...you'll even want longer for some shots, but rarely wider

 

[ifi]

...I've got some pretty good lenses, but I still have my 17-85mm IS, which I pull out when just playing around or at a family gathering etc.
I've also still got an 18-55mm, and if I thought I could get anything for it, I'd sell it, because I haven't used it in many years.

Are you suggesting that I might need a "test" lens down the road?

 

[reznap]

I sold my Canon 18-55 IS kit lens today for $80. I barely used it before I got my Tamron 17-50...

I'd try and sell the one you have, could get a little more for it. You can put the money towards a flash or something, or a decent prime, like the 85mm 1.8.

 

[ifi]

...I also carry around 2-3 lenses when I go out on a photo walk, I rarely just have 1 lens with me, so I would go with the selling the 28-135...

As far as wider is concerned, I might buy 10-20/22 down the road. But before that I am thinking of buying a 50mm 1.8 II.

 

[bigtwinky]

The 50 1.8 for Canon users is a no brainer. Quality vs cost... go buy it now.

I have the Can 50 1.8, Can 10-22, Tam 28-75, Can 70-300. I'm not a telephoto fan so I didn't buy any of the L telephotos, and I somewhat regret my purchase. Having L lenses is a whole different ballgame. Problem is when I picked up the 70-300, it was the most my budget could afford, and is the same price as the 70-200 f/4 without IS. I wanted IS.

Looks like you are a good lens roadmap there, they are great lenses.

 

[reznap]

...I also carry around 2-3 lenses when I go out on a photo walk, I rarely just have 1 lens with me, so I would go with the selling the 28-135...

As far as wider is concerned, I might buy 10-20/22 down the road. But before that I am thinking of buying a 50mm 1.8 II.

I've barely touched my 50mm 1.8 since getting my Tamron 17-50.. and yours is the better one with the vibration compensation. That's a nice piece of glass you have there... the 70-200L as well.

If you're going to go with a 50mm prime may I suggest the Sigma 50mm 1.4? It's $500 but I've read countless statements proclaiming it's super sharp even at f/1.4 (something the Canon 50mm 1.4 is not).

Unless you want a cheap piece of glass you can break and not care about, then get the nifty Canon fifty. Beware though, it sucks at auto focusing (at least mine does).

 

[ifi]

I've barely touched my 50mm 1.8 since getting my Tamron 17-50.. and yours is the better one with the vibration compensation. That's a nice piece of glass you have there... the 70-200L as well.

If you're going to go with a 50mm prime may I suggest the Sigma 50mm 1.4? It's $500 but I've read countless statements proclaiming it's super sharp even at f/1.4 (something the Canon 50mm 1.4 is not).

Unless you want a cheap piece of glass you can break and not care about, then get the nifty Canon fifty. Beware though, it sucks at auto focusing (at least mine does).

I understand what you are saying, I do not have any experience to comment on either of the 50mm lenses but I will ask you this one question: If you had Sigma 50mm 1.4 and Tamron, do you think you would have used your Sigma. If not then you saved yourself $400, right