If I ever quit a couple of things, I could really minimize my gear. 1body and 2 lenses. Most of my gear whoring has been to meet different needs. Some of it has been for the fun of trying different gear.
I reckon my view on acquiring gear has changed after a couple of years.
For sometime I was really focused on just shooting with 1 camera and 1 lens and was against the idea acquiring more and more gear, this is after seeing a friend of mine literally go through one camera after another (as well as lenses) in such a short span of time.
My epiphany started when I bought the 23 1.4 and was complete when I bought the 16 1.4.
I bought the 23 and I really couldn't live with it, being so used to the 35 I keep on trying to use it as a 35, and as it was put to me why are you trying to use the 23 as a 35? It was a bit different without being really being apart and the same without being identical. I just couldn't gel with it and I had to (sadly) let it go.
After some time and after asking people who shoot with the 16, I saved up and bought one and I couldn't be happier. The contrast between the 35 and the 16 is well defined e.g. focal length, framelines, etc... and was exactly what I had in mind.
I'm not trying to encourage needlessly buying gear, I still try to keep gear to a minimum.
The lesson I learnt was: Save up and buy the gear you want. If it's what you wanted, it will make you happy. If it's not what you wanted it'll make you wiser.
I might get this printed out and hang it on the wall!
I've found it has mainly been zoom lenses that helped me gain wisdom. There are very few zoom lenses that I have acquired that I didn't regret. The only keepers I had were the Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 70-210/2.8 from my Nikon days. I bought a few manual zoom lenses to use (adapted) on Fuji bodies but that never worked out well. Nowadays I seem to be mostly prime, with the 50-230 as my one zoom exception.
I think I let myself fall into the "grass is greener" mentality too much. I had the 18-55, sold it, and have thought about getting another. I've also thought about renting a 16-55 for a test drive. Just out of curiosity, I ran some simulations on camerasize.com. The 16-55 is 106mm x 83mm, and it weighs 655g (about 23 oz). If one carried all of the current f2 primes (18mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 50mm) in one's bag, the total lens weight would be 666g, with the heaviest lens, the 50, at 200g. I'm sure that makes a huge difference in camera handling, as opposed to the massive 16-55, which has very nice IQ.
So it comes down to size and convenience vs. compact handling. All of the primes I have or had displayed excellent IQ. The 18-55 was very good, too. It would be great to have excellent IQ, weather resistance, and never have to swap lenses, but the size and weight might be too high of a price to pay.
Having just made that switch in the direction of the primes, I can say the handling is night and day different. Also, the 16-55 is more awkward on a rangefinder body than on the X-T1/2. I can't imagine trying it on a X-T10/20. The downside to the 16-55 being several primes in one, is that you can't leave anything home. Where you might go out with say an 18/35 combo. And even if you went out with five f2 primes, the weight distribution is completely different. Also, the primes render differently.
With all of that said, the 16-55 is an amazing lens. Capable of beautiful images. And it is very nice to have all of those focal lengths.
Ultimately, I think you should rent it for a week as you said. That will let you know if like the weight.
My collection just got a bit more humble, as the XF 35mm f2 is on its way to its new owner. As I mentioned in another thread, the IQ from the lens is excellent, but I just found the FOV to be a bit too restrictive. I just like the 35mm-ish FOV more.
The 23/1.4 is one of my favorites, in every regard. But at the moment I am researching a mid-zoom for versatility. The 16-55 seems to have the best IQ, but at almost 2-1/2 times the weight of the 18-55, given my off-trail and other excursions, it would almost certainly be over the top.
I have a smattering of things mentioned above, one that no one listed is XT-10, I have a pair - one black, one panda. And my travel/EDC lens is a Zeiss 32/1.8 - great lens, too bad Zeiss gave up on the mount.
I've decided to give the 16-55 a pass, even as far as renting it goes. I do have a mount on my bicycle for a camera bag, but there are trails I visit where I wouldn't dare consider taking my bike. The 16-55 is anything but compact. I think Fuji's primes fit my ethos best - although if Fuji ever came out with an 18-35 f3.5 WR, I'd be all over it.
I see no reason for me to get the 16-55 since I have the 16 prime and can pick up the 18-55 for a song compared to its price and not give up much in IQ. I am also picking up the 23 f2 next to add to my bag. As I near retirement business is going to pick up quickly. A 50-140 will follow and yes a 60 macro. I have no need for the 80, I have the 90 and tubes. The 60 has personality and Remember I'm not a true macro shooter. The 90 and the 60, and 50-140 covers the 56 so I will skip that for now. What I said I would never do again I am doing Plus I haven't even thought a new camera body, The XT1 is still rocking,
OK, which of you lured me into hitting the BIN button on the mint black X-T20? Despite my futile chants under my breath of "Must . . . resist . . . must . . . resist", the price was to good to let slide. Do you think the Mrs. will be swayed by the fact that 40% of the camera cost is covered by the lens I just sold? We need an emojii for wiping our brow!