Bare Minimum Lens Collection: what to look for?

I know this thread is over one year old, but I am updating this thread with decisions I have taken over the past year. I bought a Canon 70-200 F4 L USM (non IS) for about $500 today. It's 4 years old and condition seems to be 7.5/10. I bought it from a friend.

So the collection now stands at:

Camera Body: continues to be EOS 500D (T1i)
Lenses:
Canon EF 70-200 F/4 L USM (non-IS)
Canon EF 50 F/1.8 II
Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 ASPH (non-VC)

Currently not being used much
Canon 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 IS 'kit'
Tamron 70-300 F/4.5-5.6 LD-Di Macro.

Obviously the first three lenses find place in my bag. I also know both Tamrons only work on APS-C, which means I might just keep an APS-C set-up primarily with 500D and 17-50 if I ever go full-frame. The 70-300 I might just leave.

Next thing to buy is a flash unit.

Of course I am also shooting with a Nikon FM and 50/1.8 which was bought by my father-in-law in the year of my birth, 35 years ago.

Sell everything you've got. Or keep it for vacations.

Buy a 5D, 17-40, 50 1.4, and 70-200 f/4. Used all of it will run you $1800 or so. Subtract the $3-400 you can get for current equipment, and you've got a much better setup for less than the 16-35, alone.

IMHO, 16-35 on a crop is just weird.

Just updating this thread as 2015 was an eventful year.

In the last post, I had mentioned buying a Canon 70-200 / f4 (non IS). I added some more used stuff to my collection. My Father-in-law has lent me his Nikon FM with Nikkor f/1.8 (1980 vintage) and his Yashica 12 TLR (roughly 1969 vintage). The TLR works well (though meter is faulty) and the FM has recently developed a sticky shutter. Then I got more used stuff.

So now I have the following:
Bodies:
Digital:
Canon EOS 500D (Rebel T1i)
Fuji X-100 (bought used from Adorama)
Film:
Nikon FM SLR (borrowed)
Praktica Super TL SLR
Yashica 12 TLR (borrowed) with 80 mm f/3.5 lens

Lenses:
Fujinon 23 mm (on X-100)
Helios 44M-6 58 mm f/2 (with Praktica body but also being used on Canon DSLR with M42-EF adapter)
Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 non VC
Canon 70-200 mm f/4 non IS
Canon 50 mm f/1.8

Flash: Sigma EF 500 DG Super

Now, my plan is to buy a full-frame DSLR and a wide angle (because the Tamron 17-50 is crop only, so will probably keep it with 500D. I am contemplating a 6D with either a 28 mm f/2.8 USM or a 24-70.

Adding a photo of all used stuff bought in 2015. The Nikon FM and the Yashica TLR are technically not mine, have been lent to me.

Get a Tamron 17-50 non vc and Tamron 70-300vc. I have both and they're great.

I already have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC. And I don't really need a 70-300 since I have a 70-200 L (non IS).

This is a fascinating thread. It seems photography in India is very expensive making the entry into the market high in my opinion. From that fact, I would say there is a demand for someone who can use a camera and really knows his equipment? I'm thinking high end clients for weddings, commercial, etc or am I being too naïve?

architect.delhi wrote in post #17858124
Lenses:
Fujinon 23 mm (on X-100)
Helios 44M-6 58 mm f/2 (with Praktica body but also being used on Canon DSLR with M42-EF adapter)
Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 non VC
Canon 70-200 mm f/4 non IS
Canon 50 mm f/1.8

How do you like the Helios 44M? It looks like a fun lens to play with.

The 'swirly bokeh' effect is rather mitigated in the M6 version (the M2 had the best swirly bokeh it seems). Also, because of using it in an APS-C I haven't seen a lot of the swirl since the swirl is more prominent on the edges of the frame, it seems. However, when I tested it on the 6D of the guy who sourced this for me, it was there.

I am using the same lens on the 35 mm film Praktica Super TL camera. I might see if the swirly bokeh is there once the roll is developed.

Besides that, the lens is sharp, it is a joy to manual focus and since the 'aperture stop down' pin has been disabled, the viewfinder 'lightens / darkens' as you change aperture (both in film and DSLR). This helps in metering. Depth of field is really thin... attaching an example. At f/2.0, you can count the hair on my wife's head, which is something my nifty-fifty doesn't seem to do as well. Also the bokeh is more pleasing than the nifty (you can see how nicely it blurs the door which is barely 3 feet behind my wife's head) and manual focussing is much easier. For a total price of US$60 for both lens and working Praktica super TL I am not complaining.

Maybe as you seem to be enjoying manual focus you might consider a Sony full frame mirrorless when you decide the time is right. You can still use your canon gear (eg via a Metabones IV adapter) and you get to really fully utilise and enjoy manual focus lenses as well with fairly elegant focus assistance techniques. I shifted over from a canon 6D to Sony not long after the A7ii came out and have really enjoyed it. I shoot both canon autofocus and a range of manual focus lenses. Perhaps try renting one with an adapter and playing around for a few days, which is what I originally did. You also get the benefit of image stabilisation in these newer Sony camera bodies, and this applies to your non IS canon lenses, and any manual focus lens as well, like the Helios and a whole host of others...

I agree with everything Alan says, except the 28-135. It is crap past 100mm on apsc. I had two of them. Shot them both on T1i and 60D. I've never used a 24-105L (I have the STM, love it), but it has to be better than the 28-135 at the long end.

Bassat wrote in post #17864133
I agree with everything Alan says, except the 28-135. It is crap past 100mm on apsc. I had two of them. Shot them both on T1i and 60D. I've never used a 24-105L (I have the STM, love it), but it has to be better than the 28-135 at the long end.

It is.

And, btw, outdoors in good light, the 28-135 IS is excellent across the focal range - but, IMHO, only on full frame. Which is odd because it used to be kitted almost exclusively on the 7D - so you'd think it would perform well on the crop bodies.

For me bare minimum means quality zooms from 24-200mm. Canon's best zooms are awesome.
If you have a particular interest you may wish to add primes suited to your style.

I like to shoot wildlife and events and I feel that my gear fits the bill. I don't own much that is seldom used.

Eastport wrote in post #17864676
It is.

And, btw, outdoors in good light, the 28-135 IS is excellent across the focal range - but, IMHO, only on full frame. Which is odd because it used to be kitted almost exclusively on the 7D - so you'd think it would perform well on the crop bodies.

Agreed. I used the 28-135 on 5Dc and 6D. It holds its own a lot better on full frame than on apsc. I sold mine because the 24-105 STM is better in every regard. Well, except price. Oddly, the 24-105 STM is just as good on apsc as it is FF.

Just noticed you got yourself the Fuji X100, great camera, had sellers regret the minute I sold mine, as per the thread title, that is a nice minimum collection in a tidy package, enjoy it.

tntadroit wrote in post #17859371
This is a fascinating thread. It seems photography in India is very expensive making the entry into the market high in my opinion. From that fact, I would say there is a demand for someone who can use a camera and really knows his equipment? I'm thinking high end clients for weddings, commercial, etc or am I being too naïve?

TnT: a very valid question. India is a country with huge disparity in income, so it is difficult to say what is expensive, because one man's treasure is peanuts for another. I am a working architect and photography is my hobby. My entire kit listed in the above post has cost the equivalent of something like $3,000 (and this, remember, with a used flash, used 70-200, used X-100 and 'gifts' of the Nikon FM and Yashica TLR body). That is about 2-3 months of salary for me.

Now, regarding professionals, there is a huge flourishing market with hundreds of photographers in Delhi itself who are shooting with really good equipment. It is not uncommon to have weddings where you will have two regular photographers to cover the events ('big fat Indian weddings') and one 'candid' photographer. A typical set up like that costs about $3,000 -$3,500 to cover the entire wedding function over two days and the favourite camera / lenses are 5D mark III and 70-200 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8. So, in that sense, the big cities are very much up there in terms of equipment and photography. In fact, the market is actually getting saturated but with some smart marketing people are succumbing to the peer pressure of spending a huge amount of money ($ 3000 is 2 months salary for a well-placed executive in his late 20s in an Indian MNC) on wedding photography,

The high-end weddings, glamour, fashion is a different ball game altogether and I won't comment. But suffice to say that a really good photographer (say the top 50-100 in the country) make about $5,000- $10,000 for a high-end wedding easily. For even more high-end, nobody even divulges the rates.

When we got married, we got a photographer to click photos and videos as "attendance record" of guests and spent a total $400 for a VHS tape and an album. A shame, considering the combined photographic abilities of my wife, myself and my father-in-law and all the equipment.