Would you bother with the 12mm F2, 17mm f1.8 or 45mm f1.8 if you had the 12-40 f2.8 Pro?

EyeMac wrote:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

No need to apologise about liking to get new gear; everyone on this forum is in the same boat

Not sure about the time frame - how long it took you to acquire all this gear - but you seem to have enough gear for the moment and certainly enough gear to answer the question of whether primes could play a role in your photography, or not. Stick the Panasonic 25 on the camera and see whether it doesn't provide a different shooting experience than your 12-40. You can always acquire a new prime later, but since you have that lens now see how you like it. The 40-150 "pro" is too expensive for FLs you use only occasional. Besides the 40-150 R is a pretty decent lens (particularly between 50-100 mm) in its own right.