What conclusions can you draw from this?

So I had the feeling that my 24-105L was being underutilized. I tended to reach for my 16-35LII more often. So I decided to conduct a little experiment. During my trip last weekend to New Orleans, I made the decision to use my 24-105L exclusively. After four days of decent shooting, my focal length analysis appears to be the following:

(Made using ExposurePlot.)

What you're thinking about doing is essentially the reverse of what I did. I started out with a bunch of primes then I switched to zooms for better coverage. At higher f-stops image quality between L zooms and primes is the same. I also became tired of foot zooming. Maybe I'm just a bad photographer or something.

Oops, that didn't answer your question. I would keep the 24-105L and buy a 70-200L

I wouldn't get rid of it. Having your 16-35 and a 135 is just way too much of a gap in between. I know what you're saying that it isn't that fun but if you want fun, get a 50 or something.

oh you have a 85 yeah still i'd keep it

I'd sell the 24-105 in favor of a 70-200 f/4 IS. I really have no use for a standard prime as long as I can use my 16-35 on my 7d, but I see you have the sole FF body. Still the gap between 35 and 70 really isn't that much, especially if you add a fast 50 in there.

Don't put TOO much weight on the exposureplot. If any of those other shots in its zoom range were good shots, you'd be without them.

Hire a 100-400 for a week and see what FL plot you get with that. That should help you dissect that peak at 105.

Hard to draw much of a conclusion in my mind with that graph. Sure your single highest use is at 105, but taking into account the total numbers you are sill using the lens about half the time under 70mm.
Seems to me it works well for a walk around for you and the 135 wouldn't take it's place very well.

That's for only four days? All that says is you liked 105mm in New Orleans.

What this tells me is that a 24-105 is a pretty good lens for you as you have keepers distributed almost evenly across the entire focal length range. The spike at 105 suggests you would have been well off to pair it with a 70-200 or a 100-400 as well.

Maybe sell the 16-35 and get a longer lens to go with the 24-105? At least on this trip you were not biased towards the wide end.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #11945741
My focal length analysis appears to be the following:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND

(Made using ExposurePlot.)

So what conclusions can you draw from this?

I can conclude that ExposurePlot doesn't make terrific histograms. Look what happens when I use consistent bin sizes for your distribution:

HTTP response: 404 | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

tkbslc wrote in post #11946326
That's for only four days? All that says is you liked 105mm in New Orleans.

That was also my first reaction.

You say you typically reach for the 16-35, but mostly used the 24-105 at 105 in New Orleans... That does not seem very representative.

Remember, you were probably also more likely to hit the 105mm mark because it's right at the end and it's a stopping point. The others are less likely to be stopped on as they are intermediates. On the graph, those listed focal lengths which are close together can generally be added together in a single bar in my opinion.

It seems you do use the full range.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #11945741
So what conclusions can you draw from this?

Absolutely no valid conclusion can be drawn from your chart.

The data is simply just too limited to support any useful conclusions as others have mentioned.