Are 35 & 50 too close together?

Snap Happy wrote:

Been trying to have a 3 prime light lens set for my X-T2.

The bigger picture here is I had to rationalise (aka release some cash) in order to buy into GFX.

My thinking was to simplify my X series lenses to 2 sets:

The 'do most things superbly well' zoom set

• 16-55
• 50-140

The compact, light 3 primes 'this is why I got into X series' set

• 16 f/2.8
• 35 f/1.4
• 50 f/2

Here's the problem: 35 & 50 feel too close together for me. So do I:

• Take one or the other, but not both, with the 16
• Ditch the 50, replace with the 90 (heavy, expensive)
• Ditch the 50, replace with the Viltrox 85 (heavy, but probably close to cost neutral to change)
• Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

Any other light, economic AF prime options >60mm?

If simplifying the lenses is the ultimate goal and you don't care about the weight of the setup and loss of fast aperture of the primes, then I would say Option one ( go zoom).

Picture quality ( micro-contrast, sharpness and color)  of the 16-55 is equally good or better  than the f/2 primes at f/2.8. I didn't really compare the focus speed but it feels a little faster than the f/2 primes. The only weakness to me of the 16-55 is that distortion on the extremes FL are quite noticeable. But that can be corrected more in PP.  With that lens you basically got covered for 16, 23, 35, 50 with just one lens... The 35/1.4 still have a bigger advantage as it is f/1.4 and it's color rendering is more pleasing to my eyes.

To 50-140 or not, it's up to your need. Personally, I don't want to lug around the big heavy lens that I know I don't use much.  I would choose the 90/2 to cover any mid tele purpose. I would also pair the 90/2 with 35/1.4 for the shadow FOV, low light and portrait needs.

With the 16-55/2.8 and 35/1.4 and 90/2, I don't think you will miss the 50/2 much.