Lens Upgrade, what to do...

[Issie]

Hello!

I'm looking for some advice to help figure out my lens collection. I'm reconsidering which to keep in my collection and whether they should be upgraded/replaced.

A little bit o' context about my kit:

Firstly, I use the Canon 77D and will be considering going FF in the next year or so.

- 10-18mm: primarily for astrophotography and landscapes but recently I've found the sharpness disappointing for video. I can't decide if I want to let go of the wide...ness

- 24mm: absolutely love it and I hope to primarily use it for filmmaking

- 50mm: The one lens I'm never letting go of. When I have the budget I will absolutely consider the f1.4 version instead though (what a gem)

- 55-250mm: it's always blown me away but I've been thinking it's time to transition to a 70-200 or my dream 100-400 to increase the quality of my pictures and start the transition to full frame (starting to consider this).

For the last year or so I've been feeling like I'm missing a general zoom but I've never been able to decide whether it's worth it. I have different purposes for my lenses but I've been told by many fellow photographers that having so many lenses isn't the way to go, especially as I shoot in professional scenarios (another reason for upgrading). My current considerations for general zooms are the 16-35 or the 24-70, both I know are exceptional lenses.

My only concern is, will getting a general zoom make some of my lenses redundant and is it just an unnecessary purchase when I have such a range already?

Apologies for the book! Any advice about these lenses is welcome, just need some help deciding what's best.

Thanks

 

[Cagey75]

The problem with the 10-18 is that you won't get a lot for it, it can be got pretty cheap even new. You may as well hang on to it, as you do like it for your astro.

A 50mm is always nice to have, again you'd get very little for it selling on anyway. And that will be nice on a FF body when you do upgrade. But then the 10-18 and 55-250 won't be much use. if you are shooting professionally then I think a fast zoom is an essential in the bag. I don't know enough about Canon to help you any further but the 16-35 2.8 does look a very nice lens. It'll be as wide as your 10-18 on FF. Though you probably mean the F4 version? Still a good lens, either one should be great for FF - What FF body are you considering?

 

[supergeeman]

There is not a lot of difference between the 50mm f1.8 and 1.4....not to warrant me spending the extra money....just my opinion

 

[hashcake]

The Canon 100-400 mk1 is still a good lens but you can get a Tamron 100-400 new for less than cost of a used Canon.
I've owned the Canon but now own the Tamron version and imho it's as sharp as the Canon.
I was recently considering the Canon 70-200 L IS f4 as I've also previously owned one.
I wanted a decent reach lens for our holiday and didn't want to take the 100-400.
However, the Canon 70-300L IS can be picked up used for a similar price to the 70-200 and after reading a few reviews I opted for the 70-300.
It's a heavy lens but the IQ is well worth it and the extra reach is handy.
I'm not planning on moving to full frame and I ignore the snobs who say EF lenses should only be used on full frame bodies.
Unless you need the extra reach of the 100-400 I would have a look at the 70-300.

 

[woof woof]

I wouldn't be looking at a FF 24-xxmm lens for APS-C, I'd go for a 17-50mm f2.8 from either Sigma or Tamron which will cover the FF classic focal lengths from 28 and through 35 to 50mm and give you a constant f2.8.