# What's in my bag (and what I should removed/condense).



## RiCKL3s (Apr 22, 2013)

Hey all,

First time poster here, but I have been a lurker for a while now. I have been dealing with the internal debate about my current lenses, and if I should try to condense my set into 2-3 lenses. 

What I shoot:
-Portraits (mostly animal)
-Landscapes/nature
-Macro
-Street

My bag:

Canon 7d
Canon 70-200m F/4L IS
Canon 50mm F/1.8
Canon 40mm F/2.8 STM
Canon 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM

I mostly use my 70-200 and my 40, but it is nice to have the 10-22 around every once in a while. I have had a hard time getting results that I like with a wide-angle, but that is more than likely because I am just using it poorly.

My question is: sell the 50, 40 and 10-22 and put that toward a 24-70(or anything else in that range)?? 

I love my primes. I hate having so many lenses to choose from when I go out.

Thoughts?


----------



## J.R. (Apr 22, 2013)

Sell the 50 and the 40. Get a 17-55 or the excellent value for money 15-85. Retain the 10-22 if you can ... It is a nice lens. 

A 24-70 on a 7D will give you an equivalent FOV of a 38mm lens ... Usually not wide enough.


----------



## RGF (Apr 22, 2013)

Sell the the 50. You say you are using the 40 so stick with that. For a zoom, keep the 10-22 and then add 24-105. Less than 1/2 the price of the 24-70 II, gives you IS and is sharp.


----------



## RiCKL3s (Apr 22, 2013)

Thanks for the responses, I really appreciate it. 

So the 24-105 or the 17-55...but am I limiting myself too much by not having really fast glass? I know that 2.8 is still pretty fast, but not 1.8 fast.


----------



## RGF (Apr 22, 2013)

RiCKL3s said:


> Thanks for the responses, I really appreciate it.
> 
> So the 24-105 or the 17-55...but am I limiting myself too much by not having really fast glass? I know that 2.8 is still pretty fast, but not 1.8 fast.



How often do you shoot with 1.8 or 2 or even 2.8 for effect (vs need to keep the shutter speed high)? I like to shoot atleast F4 and happier at F8 to gain sharpness a bit DOF.


----------



## RiCKL3s (Apr 22, 2013)

RGF said:


> RiCKL3s said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the responses, I really appreciate it.
> ...



40mm=mostly at 2.8, though I will bump it up to 4.0 or higher, depending on the situation
50mm=1.8 for a long time, until I learned how much sharper it was when stepped down a bit.
10-22 is iffy, until you get to 5.7-11, so that is where I hover with that. 
70-200mm=mostly 4.0

I was always under the assumption that a 50mm 1.2 @ 4.0 would be faster than a 50mm 1.8 @ 4.0. Was I wrong in assuming that? With that in mind, I would assume getting the larger-aperture lens was enviable, even if I wasn't using the largest aperture.

Be gentle


----------

