10-24mm WR + 16-55mm vs 10-24mm WR + 50-140mm?

[deepsun]

A bit on the fence about my plans to clean house and switch up my lens configuration. Recently purchased the 16-55mm while it was on sale. I've used the lens in the past on travel shoots and if I was forced to own a single lens, this would probably be it.

But I would really like to add the new 10-24mm WR to my setup, as I'm now focusing more on travel and landscape photography. To that end, I'm feeling a bit torn. I know for sure I'll go with the 10-24, but it makes the 16-55 seem somewhat redundant with much of the range covered by the 10-24.

I'm considering whether I'd be better off selling the 16-55 and getting the 50-140mm, which I've used and know to be excellent for longer range, abstract photos when it comes to landscapes and travel. 

Right now, I'm not sure I'm in a position to own all three, just can't decide between keeping the 16-55mm or just going for the more extreme ends of the spectrum with the 10-24 + 50-140. Thoughts? Thanks!

Edited January 13, 2021 by deepsun

[binfch]

Why (replacing the 16-55) not buy a prime 35 or 50 or 60 and then add the new to be released 70-300?

[deepsun]

7 hours ago, binfch said:

Why (replacing the 16-55) not buy a prime 35 or 50 or 60 and then add the new to be released 70-300?

Thanks for the suggestion. I should have mentioned, but I’m actually getting rid of a few primes in favor of the zooms. I use two bodies so I plan to have the 10-24 and either the 16-55 or 50-140. Ideally, I’d keep the 16-55 because just walking around it’s a great lens.

I also thought of the 55-200 as an alternative to the 50-140, but I see lots of conflicting opinions on sharpness and IQ.

[Herco]

The 8-16 is the 'natural' companion for the 16-55 (as is the 50-140). However, since the 'long end' of the 10-24 is definitely the 'weakest' part, the actual overlap with the 16-55 is smaller than you might think. From 20mm onwards the 10-24 becomes rather soft with low contrast. An alternative could be the 14/2.8 or if you need wider, the Zeiss Touit 12/2.8. That is actually a great lens.

I've had the 50-140, but I wasn't really impressed esp. considering the price. It's a good lens though, but if I now compare to my new Nikkor Z 70-200, the difference is stunning, which is of course also part due to the camera. The 55-200 is IMO very close to the 50-140 in terms of sharpness and IQ, but of course much slower in terms of aperture and it has noisier AF (and lacks WR). Considering the price though, I regard the 55-200 as a very good lens and better suited for incidental tele work than the more expensive 50-140.

[Gil]

I have the new 10-24 mm.  I spoke with Polarpro filters [PPF] and their representative dissuaded me from purchasing their CPL for the 10-24 mm because vignetting, yet I am aware that many landscape photographers use 'filters for this wide a lens' CPL or otherwise.  I did more research and 'slim CPL' would be an option.   Is PPF representative correct?  Should I be looking at another CPL or brand?  Thank you.