Too many lenses - what to sell?

I just got a pretty decent deal on a Tokina 50-135 that I've kinda been wanting for 2 years. Originally, it was my alternative choice as second lens together with the Tamron 17-50.

Right now, this has become my line-up. I'll try to categorize what I shoot with it.

• Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (bought new)
  Urban, cityscapes, landscape work, poker tournaments, generic wide angle.
  
• Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (bought new)
  All purpose zoom, wedding and family shots. Don't use it on a daily basis, but works really well for me whenever I need it. Front focuses in tungsten on my 40D which keeps me from using it in dim light, but stopped down and with flash it works perfectly.
  
• Canon 28mm f/1.8 (bought used)
  Low light prime, love it for this, great bokeh at f/2.0 on short shots / tight framing.
  
• Tokina 35mm f/2.8 macro (bought used)
  Handheld macro (flowers), occasional workaround nature outings, product shooting.
  
• Canon 50mm f/1.8 II (bought new)
  Family and pet portraits and headshots, though i prefer the 100mm macro if I have the room. Tokina 50-135 might take this over altogether.
  
• Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (bought used)
  Don't have it yet - but i plan to use it as an additional walkaround - street lens. It also excels at portraits.
  
• Tokina 80-400 f/4.5 - f/5.6 AT-XD (bought used)
  Haven't had this for long, but it's a cheap 400mm option and already got some nice shots out of it. I'm not much of a tele shooter though. Not 24/7 anyway.
  
• Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro (bought new)
  My baby... Serious macro (mostly from tripod/monopod and/or with flash bracket), headshots, pets... everything. The 50-135 might take some of it's workload though. it has a more versatile length and slightly better bokeh under portrait conditions.

i didn't know too many was ever possible...

Well... it's probably still a modest amount compared to most people here... I just find it quite wasteful to be sitting with a bunch of €300+ lenses that I don't or barely use.
Also, I think that most of the lenses I bought used, I can sell again without much (or any) loss.

It seems like each lens fills a niche and has a purpose. I think your main concern is not selling a lens, just deciding what you need for a trip and don't simple bring everything. That will all be determined based on where you are going and what you can shoot there. The answer could be different every time.

If you had to remove a lens from your collection, i would take out the short tokina macro. 2 macro lenses is redundant. Next would be the 50 f/1.8, although this is a cheap lens and isn't tying you down significantly money-wise.

Daedalus34r wrote in post #10588873
If you had to remove a lens from your collection, i would take out the short tokina macro. 2 macro lenses is redundant. Next would be the 50 f/1.8, although this is a cheap lens and isn't tying you down significantly money-wise.

True, while the Tokina has the most overlap in functionality (rival the 100mm macro for macro work and the 28 1.8 as a normal prime), it's also my lens with the highest keeper rate, and it's so much easier to shoot in natural light than the 100mm, especially around the f5.6 - f8 @ 1/100 or so (usually around 1:2 magnification), that's usually where I start to struggle in natural light and start using flash or tripod.

Still, you're right that it's a candidate

Might sell the 50 1.8 to a colleague or family member though. It's a great expansion for everyone who started off with kit lenses. 3 1/3 stop faster has to be a nice change for everyone. I feel like my kit has outgrown it a bit. Whatever I used to shoot with it, I now usually have a better option.
On the other hand, it barely does anything for the size in my day bags or cash in the wallet

Not to sound condescending, but which lens do you get the least use out of? There are certain lenses that I would never buy, because I'd never make use of them.

For example: I would never in a million years buy the Canon 85mm f/1.2... some people might gawk at this statement because it's one of Canon's most revered lenses. But I have "zero" interest in doing Portraits, and that's really the main purpose of that lens. I'd just as soon pick up a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and have zoom capability without sacrificing much except a couple stops in aperture.

What I wouldn't do, is have other people tell you which lens you should sell. That's going to be based on their needs/experiences, instead of your own.

realmike15 wrote in post #10589003
Not to sound condescending, but which lens do you get the least use out of? There are certain lenses that I would never buy, because I'd never make use of them.

Very valid question, not condescending at all. It's hard to say though.
At the moment definitely the 50 1.8 and the 17-50, but that's very situational... 11-16, 28 1.8 and 100mm macro are my steady shots, I use that trio all the time. I think they make up around 75% of my lightroom catalog. However, less than a year ago, I shot a wedding almost entirely with my 17-50 (only a few shots with the 28 1.8 and some with my macro). Results were really good - better than I expected even, so the Tamron can really produce... It's also my go-to lens for family events, but I'm growing kinda tired of the front focus in tungsten, especially since none of my other lenses do that. Outdoors or in other light the focus is fine though, it's just the tungsten that messes it up somehow...

realmike15 wrote in post #10589003
What I wouldn't do, is have other people tell you which lens you should sell. That's going to be based on their needs/experiences, instead of your own.

Hehe, I'm certainly not planning to blindly follow some stranger's advice, but sometimes in situations like this when you are discussing / defending / hating on one of your lenses, you can get that epiphany.
Like 17-50 + 35 macro + 50 1.8 ==> 17-55 which is what I'm leaning towards now. I'm also still not sure about the 80-400. I'll wait and see whatever options there are though. Tamron still has to come out with their potentially interesting new 70-300 VC.
Another alternative is to just ditch the entire > 135mm focal lengths. I just bought the 80-400 because I wanted some camera time with a longer lens. Maybe I'll just sell it again after the next trip to the zoo ^^

The one lens that jumps out at me is the 35mm macro. You already have 2 primes in that range with the 28 and 50, plus true macro is covered in your 100.

8 lenses is a good start...

Shadowblade wrote in post #10589829
8 lenses is a good start...

Oddly - and surprisingly contradictory to the existence of this topic - enough, I finally feel like I have a kit that can cover just about anything I want to shoot as an allround shooter.
All that's missing is a fish eye, but I don't really plan on getting one of those any time soon ^^

Anyway, I'll see what I use and what I don't use over the next few months.

Personally, I'd be missing the tilt-shifts, the superteles (longer than 400mm) and an ultra-ultra wide... don't really use fisheye at all.

I have thought of selling off lenses too, I have a few lenses that I use most always and others that mostly sit. Problem is when you need that specialty lens you will miss it, at least I would. If you really do want less decisions, you can probably sell the Tamron 17-50, 28 1.8, Tokina 35 and maybe even the 50 ( I would keep this because its so cheap and will give you a small fast option ) and pick up a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS.

The Canon focuses better then the Tamron and the extra stop of the 28 will really be negated by the IS, I have no experience with the Tokina but I have to think the Canon is better and you have a macro lens already that is spectacular.

KEEP the 50-135 no matter what..You wont find another one again....

Sell the 35 macro and 50mm 1.8 and get a 50mm 1.4 with the money.

After that i wouldnt get ride of ANYTHING...it is a GREAT kit.

sell the one you use the least?

Shadowblade wrote in post #10589864
Personally, I'd be missing the tilt-shifts, the superteles (longer than 400mm) and an ultra-ultra wide... don't really use fisheye at all.

I'd love a tilt shift, and I'm sure I'll get one one day, but at the moment, that's a lens I'd rather rent some time (90mm for product photography, 24 or 17mm for playing around with landscapes and crazy miniature gimmick shots)
Same with super tele's really. I can't justify spending 2 paychecks on one of those (and that doesn't include another tripod/head). Renting for 2 - 3 days is a very good option imo.
As for ultra-ultra-wide, I can see myself picking up a 5Dc (or whatever is the older generation body by then) some day and using a 14mm on that. At the moment I don't really miss it. For the occasional shot I can always stitch

Tommydigi wrote in post #10589878
... you can probably sell the Tamron 17-50, 28 1.8, Tokina 35 and maybe even the 50 ( I would keep this because its so cheap and will give you a small fast option ) and pick up a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS.

The Canon focuses better then the Tamron and the extra stop of the 28 will really be negated by the IS, I have no experience with the Tokina but I have to think the Canon is better and you have a macro lens already that is spectacular.

I've seriously considered this, but I'm not convinced about it. Sometimes the 17-50's AF pisses me off, but I don't find it as bad (or loud) as many reviews state. I use my 28mm at f/2 almost all the time, and it does give me a nice shallow depth of field that I'm not sure I can get at 2.8 in the same room. It's a subtle difference though.

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #10589929
KEEP the 50-135 no matter what..You wont find another one again....

I know right I'm delighted I finally found one and wasn't outbid. Delivery estimate is tomorrow morning, so I can only hope it's tip-top. The seller bought it new and only took about 100 shots with it and then moved to full frame, so it's basically brand-spanking new.