Also interested in what you are selling, if it is Canon pro series.

I used to buy/sell from/to KEH all the time. They changed hands a couple of years ago and some things changed, like taking longer to get paid for gear that I sold to them. I did by one lens from them about a year ago and returned it to them because it just wasn't the right kind of lens for my style of work and they handled that just fine. Other people have had good things to say about mbp (or mpb, I can't remember which). Both Adorama and B&H also buy and sell used equipment and are VERY reputable companies and are easy to deal with. Good luck.

I always use B&H or Adorama, friendly knowledgeable people, good prices, and generous return policies. Just easy to deal with all around and if they don't have it, you probably don't need it. Over 15 years experience with them and not one problem.

What Camera please. I am very close to selling my Canon gear and buying this lens and a Nikon body. I can sell my gear, buy this lens and a good Nikon "crop sensor" body and have some money for a medium quality "walk around lens".

I pretty much agree with DavidC1. You already have perfect lenses and a good little camera. I would keep the 18-55 with me, too, for wide angle stuff. You might get a circular polarizing filter for each lens, too.

Your D3300, at 24.2 MP, is a great little camera for street photography. I would think about a Nikkor 24-120 f4G if you want to go "high end" at almost $1,000. It has vibration reduction and is a "pro" quality lens. If you decide to go to a full-frame camera down the road, this lens will work on that, too. The other lens that I would recommend if you don't want to lose anything at the "wide end" is a Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140 f3.5-5.6 ED VR lens. It will not work on a full frame camera if you go in that direction later. This costs just under $500. Each of these lenses is what is known as a "walk around" lens, meaning they cover the lens lengths that most people use the most. However, you already have lenses that cover these lengths and more. I would stay with what you have and carry that 18-55 and the 55-200 for street photography.

I have been looking at large monitors, too, as I am working with an older Dell 24" HD monitor. I like Dell monitors because they are so damn reliable. You will wish they will die so you have a good reason to buy a newer, cooler one, kind of like old Volvo cars. I have been looking at a 34" curved Dell and prices on the original one are dropping with special deals in play. There are a few different Dell 34" monitors out there and they have different resolutions. I look at the specs of each one of them and I look at three critical things. The first is overall resolution and for 34" monitor you want at least 3440 horizontal resolution. The other thing I look for in the specs is "pixel pitch", meaning how big is each pixel. The smaller the better. This will correlate with the resolution. Smaller pixel pitch = higher screen resolution. The original 34" Dell curved screen has a pixel pitch of 0.233 X 0.233 and the resolution is 1440 x 3440. It also has 1.07 billion colors. Many of the monitors have a lot fewer colors. This monitor, Dell UltraSharp U3417W, started out just over $1,200 when it was first launched a few years ago. It is now available for $700. The refresh rate is a pretty common 60Hz. Unless you are doing hard core gaming, this will be just fine. Dell has 4 monitors at this size, but one, the U3418W which costs less, has a lower resolution 2460 X 1080 along with 16.7 million colors and I wouldn't recommend it for photo work. It does have built in speakers though. The other two Dell 34" monitors are built for gaming and are basically the same two monitors I have talked about with refresh rates that are twice as fast. I am not necessarily recommending the Dell 34", but the four different Dell 34" monitors illustrate the differences that you will find in monitors of the same size from the same company. They all have a reason for being in the market place, but the best one, without going bonkers is usually the one with a pixel pitch that is about 0.233 or smaller for photo work. Refresh rates are not that important and the higher ones will set you back and in the case of these Dell units the high-speed refresh rate at 120Hz will cost you an extra $499. So that is a basic primer. I personally am probably going with the $700 one because I get the most bang for the buck. Your 32" TV was a 720 HD or a 1080 HD (the vertical resolution) TV. I used to use a 32" 720 HD TV for teaching Photoshop classes at a local camera store and for slide shows of the shots I took at rodeos so that contestants could look at a slide show of photos of their event, pick out the photos they liked (the file # was displayed with the photo) write it down on a form, pick out a size and quantity and and put the form and a check or cash or credit card info on the form in an envelope and put it through a slot of a wooden box chained to the table. They could see the photos on the screen about 20 minutes after each event was over. We would deliver the photos at the next rodeo. Anyway, the screen resolution on a TV is not as good as a computer monitor. A computer monitor will look sharper with much more accurate colors. Also, do not buy your monitor at a Big Box Store. You will get a terrible selection. I buy from one of the big online camera retailers (B&H or Adorama) or at Newegg or Tiger Direct who specialize in computer stuff. That is my ten cents and it may be a nickel overpriced. Good luck with it all.

As far as the 17-40 L lens versus the 10-22 non-L lens, the 10-22 has an excellent reputation for image quality, but you give up two things with it. First, it is not a "weather sealed lens". Second, if you move to a full-frame camera in the future, it will not work on any full-frame camera. True "L" series lenses will work of crop-sensor cameras or full-frame lenses. If there is a possibility of upgrading to a full-frame camera (5D in any of its incarnations, 6D or 1DX), then the 10-22 will not work. Keep that in mind.

The canon 28-80 "L" series lens is a VERY OLD lens and may not have the resolution for a camera that is 18mp or higher. It may not even work on a digital camera. Some of the older lenses won't.

Your 70-200 is a full frame lens, as are all "L" series lenses. They will work on full frame or crop sensor cameras.

The canon is a 17-40 f4L, not 17-50.

The "Canon 28-80 f2.8L" does not exist, at least not in anything that Canon has produced recently. It might be an old FD mount lens that will not fit on your camera or a very early EF mount lens from 15-20 years ago. In any case, if anyone says that it is a new lens, then get away from that site. They are trying to steal your money. eBay is notorious for people who are totally ignorant about what they are selling or they are scam artists.

You didn't say if you were looking at new or used lenses. Right now, every lens in my bag was bought used/refurbished and they are all "L" series lenses. They were bought from B&H and KEH (before they were sold). I have had no problems with either of those two lenses. The the other three lenses were bought from a very good friend who I would trust with my soul. Replacing a lens that is 17mm at the short end with a lens that is 24mm or 28mm at the short end will make a huge difference in what and how you shoot. If you use your old lens at the 17mm length very often, a lens that only goes down to 24mm at the short end will be a big disappointment to you.

I only buy used equipment from B&H Photo in NYC, Adorama in NYC, KEH in Atlanta (I have not bought anything since they were sold a couple of years ago), or good, trusted friends. There is a new outfit called mpb.com that sells used equipment but I have not dealt with them. I also buy refurbished lenses from Canon's website or B&H and Adorama. All of that being said, if you are looking at new lenses, then go to one of the bigger retailers on the internet (B&H and Adorama are the biggest and are very helpful and reliable. Calumet is also pretty good).

If you still want a true wide angle (16mm or 17mm) you can buy either one of those focal lengths new, used or refurbished (Canon 17-40 f4 L or 16-35 f2.8 L). The 17-40 can be bought relatively cheaply (about $800 new) but the 16-35mm is going to set you back well over $1200, new. I have the 17-40 and it does fine for me and it is a lot less expensive and the 1mm difference is not enough for me to worry about. If I wanted wider, I would go VERY wide to their new 11-14mm zoom at somewhere around $2400.

You might also look at Sigma's line of "Art" lenses. They are all relatively new (last 4 years) and you might find one that fits your needs. Also, I would go to B&H or Adorama's websites just to get a good handle on new/used costs and to Canon's website for refurbished availability/costs.

Good luck in your search

No!! Canon extenders are designed only for use with certain Canon lenses, all in the "L" series line, and not even all of them. Because of the protrusion of the extender and how it actually goes into the base of the lens it is attached to, it is limited to certain lenses that have enough space for the protrusion without coming into contact with the most reward lens element in the lens during zooming and/or focusing of the lens. If it is used on a lens that does not have that space, lens elements could come in physical contact with the forward-most element in the teleconverter and damage both. Also, the optics may not be compatible in other ways and the electronic signals that are transmitted from the lens through the teleconverter (signals that control autofocus and aperture and exposure information) may not transmit properly to the camera. I would not ever try to use a Canon TC on anything other than a Canon lens specifically designed for its use with a Canon TC.

I think I left you a reply when you originally posted, but I just got an email from Sigma that has newer lower prices for their 150-600mm lens.

I have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS and a Canon 2X III TC. I have a friend who had the original 100-400 "L" series lens and he let me borrow it all the time and I found it to be significantly sharper than the 70-200 w/ 2X TC, and it was a smidge lighter. As far as the Tamron 150-600 goes I am clueless outside of taking a few test shots at a camera store and I didn't like the way that the IS worked. The IS on the Canon lenses worked much more smoothly, but it would not fully disqualify it if it was a "must have" lens. If the extra 200mm reach is a critical need for you, then I would explore the Tamron and the similar Sigma. Sigma's quality has been improving a lot lately. As far as searching for the lowest price, take care. I will only buy from well known dealers. Saving $50 or $100 dollars if you need to return it and there is a "return charge" or if you buy it and have a problem with it and the dealer starts giving you the run-around or you find out that the lens is a "grey-market" lens, then that extra $50-100 will mean nothing to you. You generally get what you pay for. If you do decide to buy the Tamron, save for another month or two and buy from a source that has a great reputation. Buy where the "pros" buy. Their living depends on speedy service, a quality product and great customer service. If you are okay with the current 100-400 you have and the extra 200 isn't a major factor then stay with what you have. If you do have "new lens disease", and it happens to all of us, and 400mm is fine for you, go to Canon's website and look at "refurbished" lenses for the new Canon 100-400 series II lens. It is on their site right now for $1759. Refurbished lenses are usually returns or "Demo" lenses that were used at trade shows and/or used by sales reps, then checked and returned to factory new specs and they come with everything that new lenses come with - hood, caps and case. Good luck.