...should I dump it???

[JMWallace]

I tell ya, as I am stepping into the wedding world it's making me re-adjust my whole bag.

I know it's only $400ish and a lot of debate is had about the 28-135 vs. 28-105, but, but, but...I LOVE my 28-135 as a bang-up walk around lens that I really only consider using for family snap-shotish type shooting. It's really a GREAT focal length.

I would really like to see something like an EF-S 28-135 f/4 IS. (mostly since a lot of the shooting I do with it is outside and there probably wouldn't be much of an interest from PRO shooters)

I think it could be a decent gap filler. Right now I am semi-actively trying to get rid of my 17-40 to help fund a 17-55. I really couldn't do without the 17. Now, to make up the difference, I struggling with letting go of the 28-135 too!

Next save up is for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM.

But, I think I would really miss the good general focal length coverage the 28-135 hits.

Sure I could fill that little gap with a nice 60mm macro, but as much as I would love to fill my bag with fast primes and solely shoot that way, right now it's just not practical. ESPECIALLY if I am out with the family or at a family event. Not to mention the possible amount of attention the big white attachment would attract AND the impracticality of carrying the 3 lbs monster around at say, and amusement park.

Right now, 17-40 is just a little short (same for 17-55), 70-200 is WAY to much of a lens for the everyday snap-shot stuff. That 28-135 length is just...handy!

Thoughts??

[cdifoto]

I would keep it for now.

[coldrain]

Well, like cdi says... keep it. Since you will be unhappy without it. Only other solution I see is getting a 70-300 IS USM. That will be as sharp, longer range, just not f2.8... and a lot less heavy, and now white.

So... keep the 28-135 and go for a 70-200 f2.8 L, or get a less obtrusive, lighter black 70-300 IS USM.

It depends on what you will use it for, I guess.

[JMWallace]

Well, like cdi says... keep it. Since you will be unhappy without it. Only other solution I see is getting a 70-300 IS USM. That will be as sharp, longer range, just not f2.8... and a lot less heavy, and not white.

So... keep the 28-135 and go for a 70-200 f2.8 L, or get a less obtrusive, lighter black 70-300 IS USM.

It depends on what you will use it for, I guess.

It's not that I am saying I can't adjust my shooting, it's just that the 28-135 covers such a nice range. I really only use it when it comes to family time/events outside. The 17-55 will cover well indoors and is needed for the wedding events. The 70+ range pretty much has to be the 2.8 (preferably IS) as I'll need it for weddings too.

The 70-300 while attractive because of IQ, +100 focal length AND price just isn't fast enough for dimly lit churches.

The 15mm gap really isn't worth quibbling about, the concern is losing the 56-135 convenience.

I'm not opposed to saving more $$ for more lenses. I wanna be like CW when I grow up!

Maybe this isn't so much of "I'll miss it..." as it is "I just wish...". I think I know what I need to do. Sometimes duty overpowers convenience.

[Vich]

I would keep the walk-around.

Wait until you have $350 cash, sell the 17-40 for $550 (or more) towards a 17-55 IS.

I agree the 28-135 IS is perfect for outdoor family outings when a monster just looks silly, and the difference between 105 and 135 is pretty big.