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

Disclosure up front: I'm a data nerd even more than I'm a photography nerd. That said, I spent a little time using the Metadata filtering tool in Lightroom to look at my lens usage, specifically my keepers, as I self-rate all my pics. And I’m glad I did-- there were definitely some surprises and I think I can now safely sell a few lenses. But I'm also thinking about doing something crazy-- selling the tool that's gotten me the best results so far. Below are the stats as well as a photo from each FL so you can get a sense of my ability level (admittedly quite amateur-- these ratings are relative to my photos) and usage.

Are graphs the cure for GAS?

8mm Rokinon- I haven’t mounted this on my camera to do anything but take samples since I got it for Christmas. I should at least try to do something with it before selling it, but it appears its days are numbered. But before I get rid of it I’m going to latch it to my X-Pro2 and not take it off until I get at least one keeper.

14mm- I’m not at all surprised my 14 gets the most keepers, but I am surprised by its dominance. Although I aspire to do more street photography, my best pics are landscapes (followed by portraits) and it’s the obvious tool of choice for the job. It’s actually a really cool tool to take pics of kids as well since the distortion it causes doesn’t look bad (poofy cheeks!) and can be used to push/pull the background/foreground around the edge of the frame. It’s limited by f/2.8 when indoors, but that's the only complaint I have about it.

Petra, Jordan

18-55mm- I only ever use this a) when I’m traveling, and b) when I absolutely don’t want to change lenses. Not a bad lens, I just greatly prefer my primes at all of its focal lengths. 11 out of 12 months it’s in the drawer.

Wadi Rum, Jordan

23mm- It actually underpunches its weight since it’s what’s always on my camera. It's a great lens for everyday carry, but I have better tools for landscapes and portraits, which is where I take my best shots. It's a keeper for sure as I really do want to become a decent street photographer some day.

LA Witch at SXSW 2016

32mm- This is the first shock to me. Yes, it’s slow to focus, but when given great light it’s got a certain magic to it. Yet I rarely seem to use it and get relatively fewer keepers. I find that really surprising. Now that I have an XP2 I never use it because the AF really slows the camera down.

Obligatory parental pumpkin patch shot

35mm (combined f/1.4 and f/2.0 versions. I sold the latter when I bought the 32mm)- It’s pretty clear I like my walk around lens to be a little wider. However, the f/2.0 version is cheap enough to keep, focuses quickly and has WR so it’ll stay.

The Yogurt King

56mm- It’s hard to find the room to use it indoors. It’s slow to focus. But it's pretty much the perfect portrait lens. I don’t shoot a heck of a lot at f/1.2, but its sharpness at f/2.0 is amazing. Before I did this analysis I was entertaining the idea of trading it for the 90mm (for more compression), but now it’s clear to me that would be silly. If anything I just need to take more pics with it!

Wedding dancer

60mm- I guess I just don’t take many macro photos. But it’s another angle of photography to explore and I enjoy it when I do so it’ll stay, at least until there's a Fuji sale on the new 80mm... in 2019. Most of my keepers are portraits from before I got the 56, and it’s a great non-macro lens. Plus, I find it focuses really well in Zone. That's not help for macro, but it's no dog anymore!

Horses of South Park, CO.

55-200mm- Like the 18-55 it only gets use on vacation. But how valuable it’s been! Initially I bought it just to fill out my collection, but it’s more than earned its place in my bag on every trip. Love love love this lens!

Glacier NP

So what to do with this info? Well, I’m almost certain to sell the 8 and 32mm. Fisheye is too wide and too niche. As for the 32 there’s just too much overlap with the 23 and 35 to give it any real usage. Plus it feels really slow with the X-Pro2’s speedy AF.

I’m also giving serious consideration to the crazy idea of selling my beloved 14 and the useful 18-55 so I can raise funds for the 10-24 and 16mm. My thinking about the 14 is that I hate changing lenses all the time while hiking. My hiking shots are either at 14, 23 or telephoto so when I go out, I bring three lenses to suit those purposes. However, I have two bodies so it's really tempting to mount the 10-24 on my X-Pro2 and the 55-200 on my X-E2 and never change a lens. Or am I nuts for selling the perfection of the 14? Also, while OIS isn’t very important for wide lenses like the 10-24, would it be useful for video?

The 16mm is really compelling because it has 2 extra stops of light for indoors, is weather resistant (while the 10-24 isn't) and I keep hearing over and over that it’s Fuji’s best lens. I might even use it for some street photos.

So what do y’all think? Sell the 14 and 18-55 for the 16 and 10-24, or stand pat with my 14/23/18-55 combo?

Hard to say what you should do as only you can decide what is the best fit. I will say that I recently went thru a similar thing. I had the Zeiss 12mm & the Fuji 23mm. I decided I wanted the speed of the 16mm so I sold the 12mm in favor of it. As good as the 12mm was, I like the 16mm better. But then I came across a deal on a hardly used 10-24mm. I must admit that I hadn't given this lens much thought in the past as I prefer primes. However, there were times I was missing the the wider focal length the 12mm had given me so I picked it up. Very glad that I did! Excellent all around performer. Were the 16mm & 23mm I had better? Yes. But I found that for as good as the 23mm was I just didn't use it that much. Looking at my past photos much like you did, I found I wasn't even using it all that much before I picked up the 10-24mm. Ad to this the fact that I also have the 35mm f2 and it became clear to me that as good as all these lenses are, I just didn't need a 10-24mm, 16mm, 23mm and a 35mm. So, I sold the 23mm and put the money towards the 90mm. An amazing lens! Now, I have what I feel are perfectly spaced primes (16mm, 35mm, & 90mm. All weather sealed to go with the X-T1) and two zooms, 10-24mm & 55-200mm. What I feel is a very complete kit. Looking at you kit I suspect you are in a similar situation. Good lenses are hard to part with. When you find a good one you like to hang on to it. But if a lens isn't seeing much use I suggest selling it in favor of gear you will use.

Based on your stats I'd sell the 8 and 14 and get the 10-24. I have the 23 prime also and have kept it despite it's focal length overlapping  with the 10-24 and the 18-55 just for low light situations.

jmiller2032 wrote:

I My thinking about the 14 is that I hate changing lenses all the time while hiking. My hiking shots are either at 14, 23 or telephoto so when I go out, I bring three lenses to suit those purposes. However, I have two bodies so it's really tempting to mount the 10-24 on my X-Pro2 and the 55-200 on my X-E2 and never change a lens.

I have the 10-24 & 14 and the 14 rarely gets used when I hike, or at all, anymore, since I have the 16 as well and if I want a fast-wide, it gets the nod.  But the 10-24 is essential when I hike.

Having said that, you may want to think about your data a bit.  You've said you never take your 18-55 hiking, and only bring primes, so naturally your landscape keepers tend to be the primes.  Have you ever hiked with the 18-55 mounted?  I find the 16-55 - yes, the brick - to be a perfectly wonderful lens to have mounted when I hike.  It has a fantastic focal length range and yields pictures with a wonderful clarity.

It's a bit sad, though.  When I have the 10-24 mounted I often find myself at 24mm, but when the 16-55 is mounted, I often find myself at 16.    Sometimes there is no winning for the compositionally ADD among us like myself.

Having said all that, I think your idea of a two-camera setup with the 10-24 & 55-200 is a very good one for hiking, if you can find a way to manage two bodies.  I'm not sure I'd like that, but I've never tried.

You might even toss the 35/2 in the bag "just in case."  Be aware, however, that the 10-24 gets a little soft over 22mm.

Or am I nuts for selling the perfection of the 14? Also, while OIS isn’t very important for wide lenses like the 10-24, would it be useful for video?

OIS can be very useful with the 10-24 if you like to shoot blurred water shots handheld.

The 16mm is really compelling because it has 2 extra stops of light for indoors, is weather resistant (while the 10-24 isn't) and I keep hearing over and over that it’s Fuji’s best lens. I might even use it for some street photos.

Well, it may or may not be Fuji's best lens, but it is fantastic.  It's great for night street, and also some cool, close-up flower work with nicely blurred backgrounds.  It's a great auxiliary lens to have while hiking, if you don't mind the added weight.

So what do y’all think? Sell the 14 and 18-55 for the 16 and 10-24, or stand pat with my 14/23/18-55 combo?

For me, I use zooms 90% of the time when I hike, and I'd take the 10-24 over the 14/18-55 combo any time.  18 just isn't wide enough, and there is so much that is interesting between 18mm & 14mm (or even 12 or 10mm) that I'd go nuts swapping lenses.

Awesome, some really helpful responses so far! I think my only hangup on selling the 14 is that it's so perfect in the edges. 14mm is going to give distortion but it feels as though the 14 perfectly conveys the focal length. Now, if the 10-24 can do that at 14 and add the benefit of zoom, well that's it. I don't need the extra stop of light, and by selling all the other stuff I should have enough money to buy the perfect indoor wide angle lens, the 16.

OIS can be very useful with the 10-24 if you like to shoot blurred water shots handheld.

Hadn't thought of that type of shot! That would be great to have.

I too was in your shoes regarding the wide angle. I was tired of switching between the 14 and 23 while hiking. I sold the 14 for the 10-24 and I cant be any happier. The convenience of perfectly framing your shots while on the go cannot be beat. Plus, if you love shooting wide, 10mm will open up a whole new world of possibilities.

That's a really nice shot. Amazing what it can do at 10mm.

For my copies, the 14 is sharper in the extreme corners than the 10-24 @ 14mm.  But for the other 98% of the frame it's a wash.

As for barrel distortion, while the 10-24 has quite a bit at 10mm, in the 14-16mm range it has very little.

There's very little downside to the 10-24 @ 14mm, other than the weight & the extra stop of light, which is of course not a problem for landscape since the lens has OIS.

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

You used statistics to prove the 14mm is your most used and most successful lens, and you used that info to conclude you should sell it?

What was the point of the stats?

I think your 'Wedding Dancer' photo is stunning.

stand pat with my 14/23/18-55 combo

You are suffering from another form of GAS. All of the above are fine lenses.

to sell the 14mm is madness.

Tough decision.. I bought a 14mm when it was first released and sold it for a 10-24mm. Fast forward to the present and i traded my 10-24mm for another 14mm and a 16mm.

You can't go wrong with the 10-24. it IS a great lens! What i didn't like about it was the size.. I found myself never taking it out with me. I much prefer the smaller size of the 14mm. The 16mm on the other hand, it's not exactly the smallest lens but it's VERY versatile! It hasn't left my Xpro2 since i got it!

If you don't mind the size of the 10-24 and don't need the extra stops, it's a great lens.. Check out that 16 though, seriously!

David Smith - Photographer wrote:

You can't go wrong with the 10-24mm. It can replace 14mm, 16mm and 18mm primes. Don't sell the 23mm, you'll regret it. The 10-24mm is slightly weak fully zoomed in and it doesn't let as much light in as the 23mm f/1.4.

It doesn't let in as much light as any of the others either.

That 23mm shot is gorgeous, perfect focal length

Great discussion here, a couple of comments. First the 10-24 is a great lens and well worth having. Second, I would think twice about getting rid of the fisheye, you won't get that much for it and they can be fun to play with once or twice a year. But if you do want to get rid of it pm me and I may be able to take it off your hands.