Any holes in my lense lineup

Hello All. Looking for opinions on my lense lineup. See any holes? I shoot landscapes, macro, astrophotography, family pics, motorsports, birds/wildlife and just about every other thing imaginable. I have a 40d and XSI.

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Kit LenseEF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Kit LenseEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo
Sigma 15mm Fisheye

Thanks

diegodog,
If you have to ask then probably no...

If you can do what you want with what you've got...then it's watertight.

Bob

Edit....How about a TS-E ?

Can't say I see any holes, but I'd find some of the gear redundant if that helps you out.

John_B wrote in post #6125929
diegodog,
If you have to ask then probably no...

Yup, if you can't find one then you don't have one.

If you're simply looking for more gear then there are plenty of lenses that you do not own.

35L

diegodog wrote in post #6125865
Hello All. Looking for opinions on my lense lineup. See any holes? I shoot landscapes, macro, astrophotography, family pics, motorsports, birds/wildlife and just about every other thing imaginable. I have a 40d and XSI.

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Kit LenseEF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Kit LenseEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo
Sigma 15mm Fisheye

Thanks

holes, plenty
everything between 71 and 199mm is lacking a f2.8 version (lets face it, ignore the 55-250 and 200 f2.8, get a 70-200 f2.8 and be happy. IS at those distances on an xsi is just going to slow down focus, and if you are decent, camera shake should not be at the level where focus is made more difficult), and you're lacking a t-ring adaptor and 10" telescope.

if you want a really good low light candid/ awesome astrophotography lens, look no further than the 35L. Amazingly sharp, and at f1.4, great for the norther skies.

Personally, the 18-55 and 50-250 are a noticeable step below all of your other lenses in IQ.

I would rather have a hole between 22-24 and 70-100 than fill them with lesser quality lenses (only for the fact that you do have really nice glass, not that I don't think the other lenses are bad or anything).

Personally, the 18-55 IS and 55-250 are decent lenses, but why compromise when you can grab nicer lenses that cover roughly those same focal lengths?

Dorman wrote in post #6126026
Can't say I see any holes, but I'd find some of the gear redundant if that helps you out.

agreed