How should I spend my money?

[bobthebrick]

I'd sell your current wide, then buy a 5d classic with a 16-35f/2.8L. And I think you're underestimating the 28-135 lens on FF, I prefer it (as do several others) to the 24-105 f4L!!!!!!!! It's lighter, got a better zoom range than the L, so as Ken Rockwell puts it 'unless you spend all your time looking at images at 350%, or you need something to brag about that isn't being skilful, get the 28-135'. It's an awesome, underated lens.

Hope I helped,
Thomas.

[K-amps]

I'd sell your current wide, then buy a 5d classic with a 16-35f/2.8L. And I think you're underestimating the 28-135 lens on FF, I prefer it (as do several others) to the 24-105 f4L!!!!!!!! It's lighter, got a better zoom range than the L, so as Ken Rockwell puts it 'unless you spend all your time looking at images at 350%, or you need something to brag about that isn't being skilful, get the 28-135'. It's an awesome, underated lens.

Hope I helped,
Thomas.

True for the money the 28-135 is pretty good, but I had both tested them both, the 24-105 is sharper, higher resolution, cleaner. In his case he wants wider... thats where the 24 has it beat hands down. 

[whatjaimesaid]

I am happy with the 28-135 on my crop body. Just assumed it would disappoint on FF.

[smirkypants]

I think you're underestimating the 28-135 lens on FF, I prefer it (as do several others) to the 24-105 f4L!!!!!!!! It's lighter, got a better zoom range than the L, so as Ken Rockwell puts it 'unless you spend all your time looking at images at 350%, or you need something to brag about that isn't being skilful, get the 28-135'. It's an awesome, underated lens.

I accidentally grabbed my 28-135 instead of my 17-40 for a shoot with my 1d4. At the site I realized my mistake and shot with my siggy 50/1.4 for most of the shots but I needed wider for a few. The 28-135's shots just looked sort of washed out by comparison. It's a serviceable lens, but don't confuse it for something you can trust for photos that wow clients.

Now as a travel lens, it's great.

[katwil]

I’ve been using my Sigma 8-16mm f/ 4.5-5.6 for about a year now, and getting good results.  The range of 8-16 is interesting as towards 8mm I can get a lot of really creative shots.  Above 10-11mm it acts like a normal wide angle lens.  That combination worked well from me, as I wanted the wide angles, which I got, and wanted to see what happens at ultra-wide ranges without going the fisheye route.  And yes, it is a rectangular lens.  The only potential downsides are the convex element at the front of the lens (no filters allowed), and the fact that it’s very slow.  The latter point would be an issue unless you can employ a tripod for your night work.

Of course, you will do better with a FF camera and L lens package, but probably not for $700.

[K-amps]

I am happy with the 28-135 on my crop body. Just assumed it would disappoint on FF.

Just try it against a $100 50mm 1.8 mk.ii and see what we mean...

It is great for $250 used... but it has it's limitations, these will be exposed by the FF. However keep it till you have the FF and then decide for yourself.