# So much redundancy...



## jdramirez (Feb 9, 2014)

So I have officially gone nuts between the 85mm and the 200mm focal range. I have the 24-105 which in no way shape or form is a true portrait lens... but there is overlap between 85 and 105. Then I have a very nice 85mm f/1.8 that I'm quite fond of. I sold my 100mm f/2.8L when I bought my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii... and I missed the minimum focusing distance, and the incredible sharpness that I bought the 100L back... at slightly less than I sold it for... so that's a plus. Then yesterday I bought a 135L for around $650ish. And I have the aformentioned 70-200mm.

I have to start getting rid or somethings or my family will start to call the hoarders tv show. I know the 85mm has to go... and I know the 70-200mm isn't going anywhere....

But that leaves the 100L and the 135L which feel like they are so close in focal length that they are practically the same lens. 

The 24-105 might get upgraded... but I don't spend a ton of time in the wide angle... so having the best lens for that doesn't intrigue me much. 

I'd like the new 50mm sigma art lens that is coming out soon... so I would have my two zooms and a 50mm, a 100mm, and a 135mm. It still seems redundant. I just bought back the 100... I don't want to sell it again and I literally just bought the 135... so it is crazy to buy something and then sell it a month later without really experiencing what it can do. 

Is there gear head valium?


----------



## distant.star (Feb 9, 2014)

.
I don't really have an answer, but I can say the 100 and 135 are very different lenses. Both outstanding, but different uses. I'd use that 135 for a month or two before making any decision -- maybe not as much redundancy as you think.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 9, 2014)

Different lenses suit different purposes differently; it's not just a focal length difference.

The 135 is the one that I can do most easily without because I carry the 70-200 so much more often, but it will be different for you. As long as you have a different use for each lens, then there is no redundancy.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 11, 2014)

The 85mm sold... so there's a little less redundancy in my life.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Is there gear head valium?


Now that you have sold the 85mm I wouldn't get rid of anything else as long as you can afford it financially.
As mentioned before the 100L and 135L are for different purposes IMHO. 
For your FF body:
100L: macro specialist and portrait every now and then 
135L: portrait specialist with much better bokeh
also a good "stealth" lens at celebrations and parties 
compared to the relatively big and white 70 - 200LII

And as you’ve already said:
The 70 - 200LII is without any discussion.

Maybe after a few months you can make a clearer decision.

Edit:
I forgot the 24-105: Keep it unless you become addicted to primes. Because you won't find more flexibility and convenience for this price.


----------



## tron (Feb 11, 2014)

So far I have sold 11 lenses/tcs (7 canon, 3 sigma, 1 tamron) and 1 camera (5D2).

I still have some redundancy but now the list of lenses that are possibly next is short:

Canon EF1.4X II, 28mm f/2.8 are on sale and maybe 24mm f/2.8 next (The 1.4 II if sold will be replaced by the III version...)

My current "redundancies": 

1. 24-105 f/4L 24-70 2.8L II 28mm f/2.8 (on sale) 24m f/2.8 (the latter will probably be put to sale before Summer).
2. 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 70-200 f/4L IS, 135mm f/2L
3. 85mm 1.8, 85mm f/1.2L II

4. Since I had Zeiss 21mm, 14mm 2.8L II, TS-E17mm and TS-E 24mm II my 16-35 f/2.8L (version I) was not getting any use. So it was one of the Canon lenses that I sold.


----------



## Zv (Feb 11, 2014)

There's something about a lens in your collection that never gets used and is, as you say redundant, that gnaws away at the back of your brain. The 85mm 1.8 was like that for me. 

I feel like I have just the right amount of overlap between the zooms now with just a few choice primes at carefully chosen focal lengths. Finding those focal lengths was (is) a bit of a mission though! 

Having the 135L I often wonder if I would also benefit from the 100L or if I should swap. Focal length wise the look is kinda similar and potentially the 100L could kill two birds with one lens. Portraits and macro. But there's just something about 135mm @ f/2 that is soooo creamy and bokehlicious that you just can't give it up! 

Keep them both I say.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 11, 2014)

Zv said:


> There's something about a lens in your collection that never gets used and is, as you say redundant, that gnaws away at the back of your brain. The 85mm 1.8 was like that for me.
> 
> I feel like I have just the right amount of overlap between the zooms now with just a few choice primes at carefully chosen focal lengths. Finding those focal lengths was (is) a bit of a mission though!
> 
> ...



I remember the first time I heard about the 135L. I couldn't ever imagine paying that much for a lens... especially at 135mm.


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 11, 2014)

I upgraded from the 85/1.8 to the 100/2.8 IS about 3 years ago, after having owned the 85 for 6 years. I wanted the IS and a little longer FL. (I also disliked the hood mount on the 85.)

I'm routinely tempted to buy a 135/2, but since I have everything I _need_, I've decided not to buy any more non-IS lenses. I'm currently holding out for a 50mm with IS (at which time I'll sell my 50/2.5CM) and the long awaited 100-400 IS II.


----------



## tron (Feb 11, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> I upgraded from the 85/1.8 to the 100/2.8 IS about 3 years ago, after having owned the 85 for 6 years. I wanted the IS and a little longer FL. (I also disliked the hood mount on the 85.)
> 
> I'm routinely tempted to buy a 135/2, but since I have everything I _need_, I've decided not to buy any more non-IS lenses. I'm currently holding out for a 50mm with IS (at which time I'll sell my 50/2.5CM) *and the long awaited 100-400 IS II*.


I do not want to sound negative but I think that Canon's CEO tries to save your money ;D


----------



## sdsr (Feb 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> The 85mm sold... so there's a little less redundancy in my life.



Good; now you can buy an 85mm L....

The fact that you have lenses of similar focal length and/or that overlap doesn't necessarily mean that any of them are redundant. You'll figure out soon enough if you don't need/want both the 100L and 135L (I could imagine having the former and deciding I didn't need the latter, but not vice versa, but they're different, I like them both and thus keep both - but that's just me), or any of the others. The only one I would consider dropping is the one you're most reluctant to part with, the 70-200....


----------



## JPAZ (Feb 11, 2014)

This is all a "tough problem to have." But, I, also, have the 70200 f/4 IS and the 70-200 II 2.8. While it is redundant, I keep both because:

- the 2.8 is as great as all say but it is relatively big and heavy, so, 
- the f/4 is part of my trek and travel kit

So the bottom line is that what you own depends on what you do and how you use the lenses.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 11, 2014)

Back in my formative days I listed to a friend of mine complaining (ranting) that his 28-70mm lens and 80-200mm lens left a gap between 70 and 80mm and he id not know how to fill that gap. He was quite upset about it. I pointed out the gaps between 0 and 28mm and 200mm and infinite, but he explained nobody needed to shoot wider than 28mm or longer than 200, but, what if he needed a 75mm one day!…

Anyway, I don't think there is a problem owning 2 lenses that have the same focal length as long as those lenses each serve a purpose. Just don't be obsessive about it. If a lens is not being used ever, then by all means sell it.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 11, 2014)

JPAZ said:


> This is all a "tough problem to have." But, I, also, have the 70200 f/4 IS and the 70-200 II 2.8. While it is redundant, I keep both because:
> 
> - the 2.8 is as great as all say but it is relatively big and heavy, so,
> - the f/4 is part of my trek and travel kit
> ...



I have the 70-200 II 2.8 and have been considering picking up an f4 for just this reason. If a good used copy comes up on my radar for a good price, it's mine.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 11, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> Back in my days formative days I listed to a friend of mine complaining (ranting) that his 28-70mm lens and 80-200mm lens left a gap between 70 and 80mm and he id not know how to fill that gap. He was quite upset about it. I pointed out the gaps between 0 and 28mm and 200mm and infinite, but he explained nobody needed to shoot wider than 28mm or longer than 200, but, what if he needed a 75mm one day!…
> 
> Anyway, I don't think there is a problem owning 2 lenses that have the same focal length as long as those lenses each serve a purpose. Just don't be obsessive about it. If a lens is not being used ever, then by all means sell it.



That's funny. I'd be more concerned about the 16-28 and the 200-400... than the 70-80 gap. 

Speaking of... when is the 200-400 1.4x coming down in price?


----------



## J.R. (Feb 11, 2014)

Sh*& ... After reading your post I had to look at the lenses I had to check whether I had an overlap anywhere and it seems that I have ... 85L + 135L + 70-200L II IS (makes me look like a fool). But then I realized that I bought the primes because of the awesome shallow DOF the primes offer. Also, I recently purchased the 17mm TSE which overlaps with the 16-35 II but would you call that redundancy? 

IMHO, overlap in focal lengths is acceptable as long as the lenses offer something different to each other for the sake of creativity / functionality. If it doesn't ... put it up on the local CL and get something that you really want / need.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Speaking of... when is the 200-400 1.4x coming down in price?



If you get any hint then please do let me know. I'm getting one of these heavyduty babies in April and it would be good if I could save some $$$ (I don't expect it to come down in price though ... and I'm not getting the Tamron)


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 2, 2014)

So I sold the 85mm... and now someone has made an offer on the 135L... so I don't have to worry about the redundancy any more.


----------



## tron (Mar 2, 2014)

I do not see a redundancy. It would be a redundancy if you had a *light and small* ... 70-200 f/1.2L IS ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## tron (Mar 2, 2014)

tron said:


> I do not see a redundancy. It would be a redundancy if you had a *light and small* ... 70-200 f/1.2L IS ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


 ... and ... *black* ;D


----------

