Wide to normal lens overlap? Consolidation 101

[jwhite3.0]

Recent posts comparing the 50mm f/1.8 + f/1.4 + f/2.5 have prompted me to

rethink my own arsenal of lenses. From wide to normal I have a 35mm f/2, 50mm

f/1.4, and 17-40 f/4L. I was originally selling my 17-40 f/4 but the deal

didn't go through so I am thinking about whether or not to sell it. However,

thinking it was going to be sold I picked up used 50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2

lenses. Having these primes appealed to me because I don't shoot wide too often

and the 35mm and 50mm would be good, light-weight, fast normal-plus lenses on my

20D. Now with all three I have a little bit of overlap here (for me 40mm vs

50mm isn't significant). Softness at 40mm is fine. Excluding the low-light

abilities of the primes would I be better off keeping the "L" zoom? I don't do

portraits. The primes were to be used for low light photography but I am happy

using a tripod nowadays. I don't have to sell any of them as these are all

that I have plus a 100mm f/2.8 macro. I rent everything else. Just wondering

if it is worth keeping everything or sell the primes because the L zoom is

pretty decent on a 20D & above. What would you do? Thanks

[aaron_lam]

I would keep the 17-40mm and 50mm.

[johnson_d.]

I also own the three lenses you mention. I can tell you not what a would do but what I have done, which is keep them all! The reasons being pretty much what you run through above (low light vs. convenient walk-a-rounder). Since it doesn't sound like you're pressed for cash, why not just hang on to them all and see what gets used? I've surprised myself a number of times with things that I thought would be useful but ended up never leaving my bag.

[goldwyn_t]

The 17-40mm and 50mm are absolute keepers - since there's essentially no overlap in that case. I would try and keep track of how often the 35mm is on the camera compared to the 17-40mm. If you find yourself using one much more than the other (eg. one lens gathers dust), then by all means sell one.

 

I have an even larger overlap actually... 17-40 and 24-105. Both see their respective uses on a 1.6x crop sensor. I was really afraid that one would be relegated to the bag (or worse the shelf!) but have so far found very useful applications for both. As for the 50mm... well, it's f/1.4

[PuppyDigs]

Of the 3, I find the EF 35 2.0 to be the real gem and the lens I always have in my bag no

matter what. It's

small, light, fast and sharp as a tack, and a nice walkaround as well. I often travel with it and

the zoom but find the 35 2.0 on my camera 75% of the time due to low light abilities. I

ditched my EF 50 1.4

USM as both my 17-40 4L and 35 2.0 were sharper and more surefooted for low light AF.

[pjmeade]

I have that same 17-40 and 24-105 overlap that Goldwyn has, plus the 50/1.8.

 

 

I like the adaptability of the 17-40 and zooms in general, so that one would be a keeper.

 

The 50 mm I use as a shortish portrait lens, so it's a keeper because of the specific role it has asigned.

 

I think if I also had the 35/f2, it would be the one I never used and would sell. Acquisitiveness would say keep that one too, the size and weight of my camera bag would want me sell.

 

If you think you would use it regularly, keep the 35/f2. If it's just going to build up a layer of dust, think about what you would do with the money.

 

Just my 2p

 

Cheers. Pete

[yakim_peled1]

Keep the lenses you use, sell the ones you don't.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[roger.a]

I have the 17-40, 35/2.0 and 50/1.4.

 

I needed the 17-40 to get wide angles while I had a 20D.

 

Now that I have the 5D I don't use it any more, so I am getting rid of it.

 

The 35/2.0 is noticeably better.

[jwhite3.0]

Thanks for all of the advice. I didn't think so many others would also have the same 3 lenses. It is hard to predict what one will need in the future and it seems all three lenses are popular among Canon users. I'll keep them all and depending on the situation pack one of them per trip. I picked up the 35mm f/2 based on Bob Atkins indicating it was a sleeper lens and I haven't been disappointed yet.

[yakim_peled1]

My 35/2 was indeed a sleeper. Its AF was very sleepy... :-( I ended up selling it just because of that.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jim_larson1]

I also have all three, along with the 24/2.8

 

The 17-40/4L and 50/1.8 are in my kit at all times, while the 24/2.8 and 35/2 are on the shelf. The 50/1.8 really has a different function as a portrait lens.

 

The two wider primes are only used (in my kit) when low light (non-tripod) work is needed.

 

Follow Yakim's advice: Keep what you use.