Canon, over coverage between 70-200mm...

[silverstangs]

I was looking at the Canon Lens line up & I realized they have alot of over coverage, especially in the 70-200mm range. Granted they need entry level, mid range and high end, but still, they have alot of over coverage. So I was thinking, if I was head cheeze, what would I eliminate from the current lineup. Here is the list of lenses that I would keep.

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 100-400mmf/4.5-5.6L IS USM

[Photoskipper]

I had similar dilemma as you before.
I got the 28-80 F3.5 -5.6 and 70-300 F4-5.6 old lens from the EOS 500N 10 over years ago. When I bought the Rebel, it cames with the 18-55 mm F3.5 -5.6. I bought the Sigma 18-200 for business travelling then the Tamron 11 -18 for the landscape and fireworks.
Before I added the 5D, I spent many nights to search for the suitable lens. the 17 -40 was my first choice but it seems a a bit too short. Luckily, there was a promotion of 24-105 with 5D. It solved my problem. After using the L series, I could not go back to other lens. I got the 70-200 F2.8 L IS to complete the short range then just bought the 2X TC to extend the coverage. Hoping to get a 17-40 to cover the wide angle and the 500 mm F4 to extend the full range soon.

[claudermilk]

I don't completely agree. Some of the overlap makes sense to me, such as the 70-200L's. You have every permutation covered. I personally wouldn't appreciate being forced into an IS lens if I didn't need or want it. Some of the 24/28-80+ consumer lenses make sense as well, not everyone can afford the $1100 the 24-70L costs, but may want that focal range--it's a nice usable mid-range zoom. Others I haven't considered, so cannot really comment on.

[edge100]

I wouldn't scrap the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. Sure, with the 70-200 4L IS, you can eliminate camera shake and use lower shutter speeds (as you would with the 2.8 non-IS), for about the same cost.

But, if you shoot moving subjects (sports, for instance), IS does you no good. You need that extra stop of light that the 2.8 provides you.