Is there such a thing as 'too much glass'?

I'm no professional photographer -- I wont even say 'yet'; while it would be nice to make some money on the side with photography, I'd prefer to keep photography 'fun'. One thing I do like though is quality, and I like doing things well.

So, when I finally started shooting again earlier this year, I very quickly realized I wanted more focal distance than my T1i's 18-55 kit lens would provide. Along came my 28-135 that I got locally from CL for $200. I slapped it on to check it out, and I pretty much instantly loved it.

Fast-forward about a month, and I came across a good deal on a 17-85 here on POTN (got it in trade for my 18-55 plus cash from me). If you check my older posts, you'll see this being the lens I was asking about Perspective/Barrel Distortion and its presence, but that's not all that important. It too felt and looked great, and I felt I was getting a good value for an OK investment.

Skip forward a bit, and I had some gift cards from B&H Photo... I ended up using those to pick up a 70-200 F/4L. Then, about a month ago, I picked up a used nifty-fifty and loved shooting with it, but ended up selling with my T1i and grip, so I replaced it -- with the 50 f/1.4...

My bag's pretty full, and I dont switch back and forth much when I'm out shooting. IN fact, most days I go out shooting, I wont change my lens at all if I'm just walking around. I've done this with my 17-85 and my 28-135 (haven't really had a chance to walk around with my 70-200, I plan on using that for more specific things though). The 50, I just received yesterday and that's going to stay on my camera in the bag.

I know it's a big clumping of focal lengths; I really like the 28-135 because it's a bit faster than the 17-85, and it's always given me very nice IQ. The 17-85 shoots well, but I feel like there's too much distortion to correct at the wide end (and again being slightly slower).

Long story short (too late, I know!) -- all this glass isn't necessary. The logical thing seems to be to keep the 17-85, 70-200 and 50, but the monetary side of me realizes that I'd get the least monetary value out of selling/trading the 28-135 as compared to any of the other lenses.

So, fellow POTN shooters, what would you do? Of these lenses, what would you keep? What would you sell?

Another option I've been toying with is selling both the 17-85 and 28-135 and putting those towards 17-40, but I'd almost prefer to go 24-70 to keep 24-200 covered and have a faster (albeit much more expensive) lens.

keep the 50 and 70-200mm. Get rid of the others and find a good wideangle prime (would be my preference) or zoom. And don't be afraid of leaving some small gaps in the focal length. That's what all those pixels are for -- to crop here and there. You can also shoot panos to keep yourself compeltely covered -- and more.

There's no need for overlapping focal ranges unless you have a special purpose lens like a macro or prime portrait lens. I bet if you sold all the extra glass you could buy one of Canon's best lenses, the 24-105L.

I'd take a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non-VC) and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lenses, as well as the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS lens. All of these offer great image quality at a relatively inexpensive price. I had the 28-135mm briefly but sold it. From what I remember it was pretty decent but nothing special. I prefer to use f/2.8 zooms for general purpose use since they are much more versatile than f/3.5-f/5.6 zooms, especially since the f/3.5-f/5.6 zooms aren't that sharp until they're stopped down some.

And don't get caught up in quantity over quality. You'll eventually realize that most lenses that cost $300-800 are well worth the price compared to the $100-300 lenses.

To be more specific, I think 10-22mm (or some other nice alt. prime) plus your 50 and 70-200 would the lenses you will ever need.

Sounds like a good range to me!

shoenberg3 wrote in post #12092568
To be more specific, I think 10-22mm (or some other nice alt. prime) plus your 50 and 70-200 would the lenses you will ever need.

Is there such a thing as too much air?

Bokehlicious wrote in post #12092587
Is there such a thing as too much air?

This.

Also: Too much Money, Too much sex, Too much freedom...

Thanks for the suggestions! I had forgotten that I was considering a 10-22 as well too, that might be the way I go.

One suggestion I received (not listed here) was to pick up a Sigma 30 and a Canon 85 f/1.8... Another was the Sigma 17-50. I feel like if I were going to go zoom, it would either be 24-70 (I feel like having the 2.8 at the wide end would make the lens more usable for me than a 24-105 f/4)... decisions, decisions

I often feel I have more than I need, especially with the 17-55 since I can only use it with the 7D. The problem is that I have taken some of my best pics with it and can't bring myself to part with it - sentimental value...

"Is there such a thing as 'too much glass'?"

The answer to that would be highly individual and depending on any number of things like what and how you shoot, whether you're a pro or a hobbyist, what your budget is and more. Only you can answer it for yourself, you know your needs and wants better than any bunch of strangers on the Internet.

4 lenses is too much?...you obviously have never clicked on gasrocks gear list....

i'd use what you have for a bit...and if something becomes covered with dust you'll know what to get rid of...if you use it all a bit, and you don't need the money i'd hold on to them...if i were in your shoes though...i'd swap the 17-85mm for an UWA...

I'd sell the 17-85 and 28-135. Replace with 17-55 or 17-50

reprazent wrote in post #12093139
I'd sell the 17-85 and 28-135. Replace with 17-55 or 17-50

this. if you don't need fast aperture consider 15-85mm.

I don't think there's such thing as too much glass, all it matters is if you're going to be using them. Like if you have couple lens that you don't use at all then it means you don't need them so sell it.