should I, or shouldn't I?

Current lineup:
17-40L
24-105L
50 f/1.4
70-200 F/2.8 IS L
100-400L

Should I ditch almost everything for:
24L
keep 50 f/1.4
135L
400 f/5.6L

this would leave me almost $1000 left over to either keep one of the lenses or get 1 more.

I also have a 1.4x and 2x TC for inbetween stuff.


What would you do?

Actually, I could swap the 50 that I have for the L version and come out even.

This completely depends on your own needs and desires...

Are there lenses you don't use today?
What shortcomings of the glass you have today are you trying to address?
Are there lenses you wish you had?
For what you shoot, do you need wide or long?

For example, one such question: what do you think the 50L is going to do for you that the 50 1.4 isn't currently?

to answer your questions in order:

I don't use the 24-105 very much if ever. it's definitely going to go. I use the 17-40 but am always frustrated with f/4 maximum. I don't often use the 70-200 or the 100-400, but I do like to dabble with nature shots, just haven't had time since the baby was born.

I want wider apertures. I always find myself turning up ISO and being frustrated with grain or sacrificing shutter speed and getting motion blur. I'd also like to be able to get more background blur than I currently can. Also, I don't shoot any of my zooms wide open, because I am unhappy with the results. I shoot the 70-200 at f/4, and the 100-400 at f/8.

I wish I had a lot of lenses. don't you? I would love to have an 85 f/1.2, but can't justify the expense, so I am rearranging the prime lineup to have minimal overlap, starting with the 50mm which I already have.

I have a new baby, which the 50 is great for. it's almost all that is on my camera. I'd definitely like a wider and longer option for different circumstances though. that's why I was thinking 24 and 135. I like the interval of focal length.

lastly, I think the 50L will go to f/1.2 instead of just f/1.4. Also, it should be sharper at all identical f/stop settings. The only reason I am considering trading out for the L is because according to my math, it is feasible without investing any more money.

So, do you have any thoughts on the matter? I know it is my choice and everything. I've already thought through my own issues, that's why I am asking what other people think. Not looking for counseling here, more just opinions on the matter.

I know you said the 24-205 is going. But as the baby grows up you might find yourself on little day trips where a one-lens solution is desired. Thats where the 24-105 shines, as a walkaround lens.

I have many of these lenses ( 24L, 50L 100L 135L and 400L ) but I also own the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-300L. There are times I don't need fast aperture so I like the combo of primes/F4 zooms. Do you use flash at all? Do you shoot for travel? landscapes? It really depends on how you shoot.

On the wide end the 24L is awesome but if your shooting landscapes I usually prefer the 17-40. I also like 17-40 for travel. Many seem to prefer the 24-70II over the 24L.

For midrange I like the 50L a lot. Especially for kids. Strangely enough my favorite kid lens is 24L on my 60D. Just fast and super sharp. I don't use my 24-105 much but I like having it. Its a great lens if you do any kind of studio portraits and I like it for travel or casual outings.

On the long end I could see using 135 and 400 over any of the zooms. I just love these 2. I personally hated the 70-200 2.8 ( I owned 2.8 non IS and IS II ) Just to bulky for me. IMO 24LII and 135L are 2 of the best lenses you can buy.

Again it really depends on you, I have gone back and forth with changing things up too and its hard to know without trying.

Thought about a 35mm? The Sigma's sweet.

Thanks Tommy, good information in there.

Moose, 35mm too close to 50mm. I was also considering doing a 35mm, 85mm, 135mm, 400mm lineup, but I would have had to keep the 17-40 and I can't afford to invest that much money in lenses right now. plus I am really curious to try a fast wide lens.

Tommy, it's interesting that you mention the "bulk" because I am thinking that if I have a 135 and 400, it would weigh about half as much (probably exaggerating) as the 70-200 and 100-400 combo that I have currently. I don't mind carrying multiple lenses with me. Plus I have 2 cameras, so I can have 2 setups fairly easily.

Why not go slow, you mention a fast wide lens so maybe give the Sigma 35 a try. Its pretty affordable and gets great reviews.

well, considering a 35 doesn't fit into my lineup, I won't be doing that. I think the first thing I am going to do is sell the 24-105 and get a 135. I know I will like that lens, and I know I don't use the 24 to 105, so that is a safe one. after that, I'll ditch the 17-40 and get the 24. I will also consider selling the 70-200 if I can justify it with my potential newfound love for the 135. After that, I just have to swap out the 1-4 for the 400 prime, and the 50L for the 50 and I'm all done!