Thinning the herd: am I dumb to sell my most valuable lens?

Hi,

The eternal question.......  It's personal and there's no right answer.  I'm into landscape and nature, and could easily argue to have both the 14mm and the 16mm.

To me they're different enough in FOV to justify both.  I bought the 14mm because it was available first, but I have a lifetime's preference  for 16mm, partly because I grew up on 24mm lenses on FF and partly because I find the 14mm enlarges the foreground too much and pushes relief into the background just that bit more.  The 14mm is nevertheless a great lens, and more so when stopped down a little.

I find the 16mm FOV just that bit more natural in perspective.  I might buy the 16mm as well if I can pick up a mint used one for a good price.  Then I'll see which I'll use more.  Conversely to you, I have no interest in using the 16mm at f1.4, and I prefer the 14mm FOV for interiors when I travel.    I also prefer the balance of primes on the camera.  So, if it were me (and it isn't) I wouldn't sell the 14mm too quickly.  I've yet to try the 10-24.  I'm not averse to zooms, but I have no interest wider than 14mm and prefer primes at the WA end.

I wouldn't part with my 23mm and my least used FL is in the standard range - your 32mm & 35mm lenses.  I can't see a point in having both......

At the other end.....  I love the output of the 55-200.  It's an excellent zoom, and better @ 55mm than my 18-55 @ 55mm when compared at each aperture.  Ironically I don't take it hiking much.  If I have to carry a heavy pack, I have to prune down, and I take the 60mm over the 55-200 for both general tele and macro work.  If you can carry two bodies and the 55-200, that's what works for you, but I don't think I'd enjoy the two body approach.  For me it's an ILC and a compact.

Don't know if any of that helps.

Enjoy your decision!

Cheers, Rod