What am I missing? (Help a OCD nut out)

[Field]

I work only in film for now (until I get rich to buy non-amateur digital stuff).

I have a current project that I basically am going to be doing more on the go shots, and hence despite the quality of medium format (not a film price issue), I feel setting up shots and affording a camera with lenses is out of the question. 35mm is going to be what make sense. Here is my list of equipment for traveling and on the go, and thoughts on things I'm wondering about.

Minolta XE-7 (love the action on it, sort of an AE SRT with a better shutter and winder)
16mm Zenitar (wanted)
30mm Pentacon (owned, my favorite wide lens for some reason)
50mm 1.7 MC
58mm 1.4 (wanted, preferred for contrast over 1.2 and body portraits)
135mm Vivitar Close Focus (almost no one knows or cares about this, I thought about getting a Bokina but frankly infinity focus and portrait characteristics are a plus, also longer focal length is good)
300-400mm I don't know what? I need a head shot portrait lens. I could go M42 (adapters are available, XE-7 meters stopped down with a press of button) I can't find any consensus on good lens for Minolta/M42 in this focal length that are f5.6 or lower.

Minolta XD11 ? Comments? Second body? Or get another XE-7? I have an XG-A cheap-o (but it can do everything, it has 9 stops of compensation possible, but was thinking something more rugged).

Olympus OM-2n (love it, but scary to use a flash on since the hot shoes are a bit of a joke, also no 3200 speed. It lacks wide angles in price and or quality I want as well. This isn't really my project camera per say, but usable for anything when needed)
28mm f3.5
50mm 1.8 MIJ
Should I get a 200-400mm for head shots in OM mount instead of Minolta? There is the 300mm 4.5. I had a 200 f4 and it was a great lens until I dropped it and the aperture stopped working. This is complicated because the newer (expensive) 300 and 400 2.8 lenses are swank, and no older lenses had that speed. The 200 I had still gave a bit of the big nose affect for head shots. Lower DOF and sharper with a longer lens has appeal.

P&S night/no bag carry
Olympus Stylus 35mm 3.5 (great camera, sure I want a 2.8 but whatevs)
Yashica T4 (not a super but same lens and system)
Olympus Pen D3 (got to have CLA'd, full functioning though, thinking for fun photos, film economy)

Anything else I might want, in a not too extreme budget? I obsessively look at cameras... and lenses. Where are my gaps? If I had money I'd have an M2 with voigtlander lenses (35mm color skopar, 90mm lanthar, etc), but that is going to have to wait. Right now I am just picking and choosing the best of what I can get.

 

[hipsterdufus]

From your post, it sounds like you want to travel lightweight and have a wide range of options available to you. I'm not sure what zooms are available in the Minolta lineup, but what you're talking about here is exactly the reason that zoom lenses were made in the first place. When you're "on the go", changing lenses turns into a lot bigger pain in the butt than you might think. That's why I like to go with one lens for travel photography. The slower you can go, the more lenses you can take with you. My $.02

Edit: Here's a spectacular zoom that my wife used in Canon FD mount. This is really all the lens you would ever need for most things.

 

[Jockos]

For 'on the go' and travel, I'd pass on the long tele lenses (unless on safari). Carrying a +200mm 2.8 lens wouldn't be all that fun I'm sure.

One wide angle (16-24), one fast standard (35-50) and one short tele (90-135) with a slow aperture will cover most of your needs and be light enough for travel. No use getting a fast tele, since you'll be using the fast standard or your p&s for low light.
With the Olympus, you could cut the tele altogether as the 50mm focuses down to .45m, if you only want the tele for headshots, it can be pretty useful for landscape tough.

 

[Field]

When traveling I would only carry one lens on the Olympus, and a couple for Minolta. That or have two Minoltas so all the lenses swap. The rest would just stay sitting.

The long tele for head shots isn't for traveling, just for doing stuff for people/myself. There are no 2.8's in legacy lenses so I don't have to worry about size (in 300/400). The thing about head shots with short lenses is they are too 3-d. you get big face tiny ears. That is why longer tele's do something special for head shots; the compression is desirable for typical portrait head shots.

I have an aversion to zooms usually but Minolta has a few Leica used because they were good. My thing is that the primes are just better. I like swapping lenses too. I plan to make a plate with bayonet holders for the bottom of my camera bag so I can swap super fast with the Minolta. Plus Zooms are large a lot of the time. The 35-70mm isn't too short in either direction, and the 70-200mm would be nice at 200mm if it was sharp wide open, but the rest of the range I don't care much about except limitations in where I stand for shots.

 

[Field]

What about Tamron adaptall 300mm 2.8?