Is this a big mistake? Carribbean for a year with the X-A2 27mm & 18mm, instead of 16-50mm

uniball wrote:

I live within walking distance of the beach in Florida. Have all 3 lenses. Here's my view:

The 18 is my favorite. Lovely draw. Good AF in either CDAF or PDAF, highly immune to hunting in any kind of light. Small and light. My carry everywhere, indoors and default night lens until I bought the 16.

16-50, my beach/dusty/sandy lens. Nice draw (an under rated lens). Small and light enough that's it's an easy all day carry. Slow apertures are no big deal in the tropics. No changing lenses. Cheap enough that if sand/salt/water mess it up, it's not a big loss. OIS helps with low light still's with no movement in the frame.

27: Inherited from my wife. Sharp. Small/light. Can't close focus. A touch long for indoors, a bit slow for low light. I could easily live without it.

As you can tell, if it were my call I'd sell the 27 and keep the 18 and 16-50. They're all good lenses. But consider the environment your shooting in. My experience in the islands is there's no such thing as "sand free". It's everywhere and changing lenses with a stiff offshore breeze and sand is not a great idea. Don't forget filters, lens caps, hoods, zip-lok bags.

I would keep all 3.  I love the 27mm and I disagree with the close focus.  I get within a few inches of the subject without an issue.  I guess its how you define close.  But it is a great lens as is the 18.  I miss my zoom a lot and I am considering the the 16-50 as an add on.  I already have a 14,23,27,35,56.  All great glass but a lot to carry for a day out.   I would like to have the 16-50 plus my 27 or 35 for walk around shooting.