Something else I have a dilemma with.
When deciding on my Fuji lens line up, at the longer end, I wanted something fairly lightweight for landscapes but I also wanted something fast for outdoor photos of the kids and in particular motorsport. At the time I opted for the 55-200 and the 90mm prime in preference to the 50-140 to cover both.
Now that I have had the 55-200 and the 90mm for a few weeks, I'm already starting to wonder if it was the right move. The 55-200 is indeed fine for landscapes, nice IQ etc but on the occasions I've tried to use it for anything that moves, I'm finding the AF too slow. The 90mm is absolutely wonderful in every way but I can see it isn't going to see much action. Too long for indoors and will likely only go out with me when I know it's going to be used. For motorsport (mainly rally, it might be fine, not sure yet). So I'm pondering selling both and going for a 50-140. On the face of it, it seems like a good move. I always used to have a 70-200 when using DSLR's and they got a lot of use. On the other hand, my move to fuji was about lightening the load, and a 50-140 doesn't do that so well. Anybody faced a similar dilemma? I realise I'm probably the only one who can answer this but you know how it is...
Oh, and another question while I'm on. I got my X-T2 with the 18-55. Was a good deal and the lens has a deserved reputation... but I don't think I'll have any use for it. I have a 16mm, 23mm and 35mm. If I travel with one lens only, the 23mm works well or I have an X100T. So I'm pondering chopping that one in too. Anybody done so and regretted it?