So I'm on spring break with my daughter hanging our at home this week. I've been shooting a little and working with photos in Lightroom. I gazed upon my acquisition of many lenses over the last couple of years that started with a few low-grade non-L quality lens and slowly grew one at a time until I have what I have now (it's in my signature). I took a cursory glance at all the glass I've bought, tried and sold over the last 4 years since I got immersed in this new "hobby" and the list is long (http://thephotographerslens.com/gear/). What I'm thinking is...maybe it's time to sell off and simplify. Let me preface this whole thing to say that I recognize that in the grand scheme of things, I'm still a relative newbie here and appreciate the thought processes and wisdom of the collective here on this forum. To frame what I do: I shoot mostly sports (soccer) and some motorsports (auto racing)...a bit of portraiture and a fair bit of landscape and cityscape.
So here's what I'm thinking and I'd appreciate any advice or wisdom on whether or not it is sound:
I'm thinking of getting down to the holy trinity of zoom lenses at the expense of most all my primes I've worked to acquire over the last year. I would seek to buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, the 24-70mm f/2.8 II and EITHER the 16-35mm f/2.8L or the 16-35 f/4L IS.
I would give up (sell) the following in pursuit of the above: 70-200mm f/4L IS, 70-300mm f/4-5.6L, 17-40mm f/4L, 24-105mm f/4 IS, 35mm f/2 IS, 100mm f/2.8L IS, 50mm f/1.4
My rationale is that I think I'd be more effective with few lenses rather than more. Also the quality of these zooms is highly regarded. I've subscribed to the notion (and it's only a notion) that one can zoom with their feet, but when I pack a bunch of zooms in my bag, it requires too much fore thought and effort and have the assurance that one can "get the shot" when it materializes. I am often frustrated with fumbling around with my bag and other lenses trying to swap. I absolutely do love the simplicity of shooting prime, the low-weight and my perception that the quality is better.
Apologies for the large quantity of words here. I just have to believe that others have been through this endeavor and I don't want to overlook some sound logic as to why I may be chasing something that lands me in the land of buyers (and sellers) remorse.
Many thanks in advance for those who take the time to digest this and respond.
Greg
So here's what I'm thinking and I'd appreciate any advice or wisdom on whether or not it is sound:
I'm thinking of getting down to the holy trinity of zoom lenses at the expense of most all my primes I've worked to acquire over the last year. I would seek to buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, the 24-70mm f/2.8 II and EITHER the 16-35mm f/2.8L or the 16-35 f/4L IS.
I would give up (sell) the following in pursuit of the above: 70-200mm f/4L IS, 70-300mm f/4-5.6L, 17-40mm f/4L, 24-105mm f/4 IS, 35mm f/2 IS, 100mm f/2.8L IS, 50mm f/1.4
My rationale is that I think I'd be more effective with few lenses rather than more. Also the quality of these zooms is highly regarded. I've subscribed to the notion (and it's only a notion) that one can zoom with their feet, but when I pack a bunch of zooms in my bag, it requires too much fore thought and effort and have the assurance that one can "get the shot" when it materializes. I am often frustrated with fumbling around with my bag and other lenses trying to swap. I absolutely do love the simplicity of shooting prime, the low-weight and my perception that the quality is better.
Apologies for the large quantity of words here. I just have to believe that others have been through this endeavor and I don't want to overlook some sound logic as to why I may be chasing something that lands me in the land of buyers (and sellers) remorse.
Many thanks in advance for those who take the time to digest this and respond.
Greg