Should I shuffle? Will I benefit ?

Hi Everyone,

I'm not a pro photographer. My current set of lens are fairly sufficient for my needs, may be I will add a fast 35 / 50mm prime for indoors. my interests are people and landscapes. But during my last vacation, I realised that 17mm wide is not wide enough for my taste. This triggered me to analyse the focal lengths I use the most. I realised when on vacation, either I'm @ 17mm or beyond 50mm. For events / weddings etc it is a fair mix of 17mm / 24mm / 35mm / beyond 50mm (now 'beyond 50mm' will be replaced with my 100mm, Canon 100mm F2). For most of the landscapes I clicked, I felt they lack the 'juice' that UWA brings into the picture. Also f2.8 was not sufficient enough for indoors.

Question: I was thinking of 12-24mm (I will need 24mm for indoors) + 35mm (either f2 or f1.4) + my current 100mm f2
instead of
17mm-50mm f2.8 + 30/35/50mm (1.4) + 100mm F2.

My logic is, I will do most of the landscapes during day, so f2.8 is not that necessary. I'm looking at 3 lens kit max.

Am I missing anything from the equation? Will I loose to much of flexibility without 17-50mm? What else I should think of? Or should I go ahead with my plan of UWA + indoor low light + portrait lens.

I'd say keep your 17 - 50, keep your 100mm and add a sigma 10 - 20 of some description, or the canon 10 - 22... though, you could consider expanding beyond the "3 lens set-up"

Just add an UWA as said above. The Tamron is a general purpose lens and it definitely has its use. You'll regret if you sell it imo.

Add a flash if you don't have one. A fast lens is not a replacement for a flash.

Add the UWA, any 10-XX will work. The Canon 10-22mm is probably the best IQ by just a tiny bit, Tokina 11-16mm is the fastest at a constant f/2.8 (not really a big deal for daylight landscapes IMO), and Sigma 10-20mm is the least expensive of these.

I would not get rid of the 17-50mm, this would be in addition.

If you do not have an external flash, they are nice.

bob_r wrote in post #15449220
Add a flash if you don't have one. A fast lens is not a replacement for a flash.

Agreed, but for now, I have made a DIY mirror reflector for bouncing the in built flash. Tentatively this is sufficient. The reflector works fine for most of the time. For indoor group shots, I'm normally below 30mm @ f4-5.6. With f2.8, for indoor single portraits, I cannot get the separation that I need, therefore the thought about f1.4 lens.

jimewall wrote in post #15449249
I would not get rid of the 17-50mm, this would be in addition

&

kin2son wrote in post #15449092
Just add an UWA as said above. The Tamron is a general purpose lens and it definitely has its use. You'll regret if you sell it imo.

&

Ilovetheleafs wrote in post #15449077
I'd say keep your 17 - 50, keep your 100mm and add a sigma 10 - 20 of some description, or the canon 10 - 22... though, you could consider expanding beyond the "3 lens set-up"

Cannot afford UWA + 17-50 + fast indoor potrait + 100f2 at the moment. Also I want to limit myself to 3 lens set-up. Thankyou for sharing your views.

Pupu wrote in post #15450970
Agreed, but for now, I have made a DIY mirror reflector for bouncing the in built flash. Tentatively this is sufficient. The reflector works fine for most of the time. For indoor group shots, I'm normally below 30mm @ f4-5.6. With f2.8, for indoor single portraits, I cannot get the separation that I need, therefore the thought about f1.4 lens.


&


&

Cannot afford UWA + 17-50 + fast indoor potrait + 100f2 at the moment. Also I want to limit myself to 3 lens set-up. Thankyou for sharing your views.

So you don't have to do it all at once. do it in parts, and why do you want only a three lens set-up it seems limiting

& = The the 10-XXm mentioned in my same thread.

To make it clear! Get the 10-XXmm in addition to keeping your 17-50mm, not to replace it.

@ Ilovetheleafs : I have 17-50 f2.8 and 100mm f2 now. I do not want to own too many lenses. By affordability, I meant in terms of adding another lens which I may not use extensively. I'm trying to get the most out of the least # of lens May I'm asking for too much... lol

@ jimewall : If I keep 17-50 as well as UWA, then I will have to avoid fast indoor prime, this where the confusion / doubt is. Not sure if that will suit my need.

maybe a 15-85mm to replace your 17-50mm...but i'd also add an external flash

If you want to limit the amount of lenses and swapping then replace 17-50 with a 15-85 since its during the day and UWA and long enough.
For indoors and lower light add a 30/35 and your 100 and you are all set.

Also get a 430exii flash and then you can use your 15-85 very effectively indoors as well.

People trying to get the most out of the least number of lenses, rarely buy primes. A 10-22, 15-85 and one of the 70-200 variants would give you complete coverage from 10-200mm with no gaps in coverage. Add a decent flash and you will be within your "3 lens max" and cover a much wider range than you could by adding primes. If you want subject separation while shooting portraits, make the 70-200 an f/2.8 and you should be set.

You can't own too many lenses. That concept is as absurd as having too many cats. Neither is even possible.

bob_r wrote in post #15452571
People trying to get the most out of the least number of lenses, rarely buy primes. A 10-22, 15-85 and one of the 70-200 variants would give you complete coverage from 10-200mm with no gaps in coverage. Add a decent flash and you will be within your "3 lens max" and cover a much wider range than you could by adding primes. If you want subject separation while shooting portraits, make the 70-200 an f/2.8 and you should be set.

I don't mean any disrespect. Please read my question (first post) once again. Your suggestion is all over the place.

70mm f2.8 for indoors ? and f2.8 on crop will give the subject seperation ?

TSchrief wrote in post #15453602
You can't own too many lenses. That concept is as absurd as having too many cats. Neither is even possible.

If you do not have a constructive suggestion to share, please refrain yourself from blarerring.