Should I consolidate my lens collection?

I am thinking about going to a minimalist lens collection. Give me your thoughts on what lens you would get rid of (in my sig) or get.

The 17-40 will stay as I use it for my landscaping.

The rest are all up in the air. I am really thinking of getting rid of my 300 and get a 100-400 to replace it. ( I want something a little longer and want to use for wildlife and the occasional zoo/wild animal park lens)

I really don't know what to do about the 35L and 135L. I haven't really used the 135L all that much, but it is such a stellar lens and I am thinking on keeping the 35 for indoor portraits, where I may not have a lot of light or room.

If you were to narrow this lens collection to cover from 17 to 400ish, what would you pick?

Thanks,

Richard

I don't really know what I would cut... but I personally love more more more, not a minimalist by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, replacing one lens with another one isn't really consolidating. If you just want to get rid of something, it makes sense to get rid of the one you use the least. If I had to pick one, I would get rid of the 300, but I can live with 135mm as my longest lens.

What about this:

Keep the 17-40L and 35L, buy 85LII and 100-400

or

Sell all but the 17-40L, buy 24LII, Sigma 50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 100-400L

My 2 centavos

It already looks like a minimalist list to me , i'd just keep what you have .

so you only take landscapes! keep the 35 1.4 for family events and such. why dont u get a crop body to supplement you, a 300 f4 would be a good wildlife lens/sports on 1.6 body.

maybe drop the 135L and 300 and get the new 70-300L

robonrome wrote in post #11356188
maybe drop the 135L and 300 and get the new 70-300L

Or a 70-200 f2.8 IS II + 1.4 TC

I'd dump the 135L and 300L and look into the 70-300L

Leave the rest as is...

[QUOTE=twoshadows;1135​6098]What about this:

Keep the 17-40L and 35L, buy 85LII and 100-400

I was really thinking about this combo. The only reason I was thinking about getting rid of the 135L was because it would be a little bit of an overlap if I got the 100-400.

Camera Nerd wrote in post #11356144
so you only take landscapes! keep the 35 1.4 for family events and such. why dont u get a crop body to supplement you, a 300 f4 would be a good wildlife lens/sports on 1.6 body.

I am really starting to get into landscape, but I also really like wildlife as well.

maybe drop the 135L and 300 and get the new 70-300L


Thought about this one too, but since it was so new I hadn't heard much about it and it is just a tad too short I think.

You have a small but outstanding set of lenses. If I were you, I'd keep what you have and add the very sharp 400mm 5.6 prime to your arsenal?

I would sell the 135 L and 300 f4 IS. Keep the 17-40 and 35 L, then add a 70-200 f2.8 IS MK II and a 1.4X TC. This would consolidate you down to three lenses and would cover everything from ultra wide, low light, portraits, telephotos, etc.

Keep them all.

You need a 50 f1.2..............ever​yone with a ff camera should have a "normal" lens. I use mine for over 80% of my shots. Depending upon what you use the 35 and 135 for, I might think about dumping them and getting a 70-200 f2.8 IS II. The 50 can easily take the place of the 35 with a little bit of footwork and the 135, although a great lens is somewhat of a singular use lens. In the end its all about what you use the lenses for, not having an arsenal that covers all of the focal lengths.